MARLBORO — I am amazed at how biased the coverage is in both the Brattleboro Reformer and The Commons about unionizing the Brattleboro Food Co-op.
Just about every story seems to suggest that the Co-op should just embrace the unionization because it is requested. I even saw a comment about the Co-op board not allowing a local television station in to film the board meeting. Why would anyone allow that dog and pony show to be filmed?
It would, however, have be nice if your reporters would have taken the time to ask the Co-op board if they have ever allowed their board meetings to be recorded for television instead of implying that somehow it was not allowed this time.
Let me take the time to explain, in simple terms, why allowing the process to go to a secret ballot monitored by the National Labor Review Board is the fairest thing that the Co-op Board can do for its workers.
The secret ballot lets the workers decide for themselves, without any influence, if having a union represent them is a good idea. If the support is as great as is being implied by the union, it should be approved by the secret ballot.
So let's stop trying to suggest that the Co-op board is doing anything wrong here.
I think it would have been a more interesting story to report on the conditions at the Co-op that are driving the unionization. Does the Co-op pay less than other supermarkets and grocery chains in the area? Do they get less vacation time and fewer benefits than other employers provide? Are working conditions so bad that the workers need to bring someone in to defend their workers' rights? How would the union address these grievances?
This approach of reporting would actually provide the only people that matter in the issue the valuable information they would need to cast an intelligent vote.
I have seen no accurate reporting of what the union dues would be. I'm guessing it would be beneficial for the workers voting on the matter to be informed about what their union dues would be each month. Has anyone from your papers made inquiries into what are the future goals of the union, and have you questioned if they are realistic goals?
Perhaps sending a reporter to the other two Co-ops that were unionized to ask the workers there how things have improved would also provide some useful information for the people who have to vote on this issue. I would suggest going in unannounced so you can talk to actual workers.
I'm guessing that it has been so long since any of the media in this country did any fact checking that it has become a lost art. Your responsibility as a reporter of this news story is not to listen to the people that are making the most noise about it, but to get to the real facts of the story to assist those who have to make a decision on the issue.
In my opinion, you have let those people down.
I know that if 51 percent of the workers vote for the union in the secret ballot, it will be approved. Can you provide information for the people voting for a union what would be necessary to do to dissolve the union representation if, say, a couple of years down the road they are unhappy with it?
What I must really criticize about your reporting is you are making this a very divisive issue. What I enjoy about this town is how well we usually respect one another's beliefs, opinions, and lifestyles. Hopefully, we will continue to do so, no matter what the workers at the Co-op decide.
And if the story were about unionization attempts at either the Reformer or at The Commons, would you cover it the same way? Or would you provide good informational facts to the people who would be deciding the issue rather than the hoopla?
For the record, my wonderful wife Susan is an employee at the Co-op. She is in a position that will not be part of the union movement, so I really do not have a dog in this fight. I just do not like to see some of the other good people I know fighting like dogs over something that will be resolved via a secret ballot.
I do trust that once the ballot is cast we can all accept the workers' decision and move on from there.