WW welcomes letters to the editor via mail, e-mail or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include the author's street address and phone number for verification. Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less. HEY LEFTIES, THE UNION'S RIGHT I'm sick of the disingenuous carping of supposed progressives regarding the Powell's vs. union conflict [Letters, March 22-April 19, 2000]. The employees of Powell's Books have unionized, as is their legal and natural right. Mr. Powell's response has been to bleat, in effect, sweetly to the press, "What happened? Where's the love, the loyalty, the trust?," even as he stonewalls on contract talks and consults well-known union busters. That's all anyone needs to know in order to thoughtfully support the Powell's employees in their fight for a contract. It's irrelevant whether the emps are currently earning nickels or (smirk) a mint, are angelic or rude, or are well-educated. Furthermore, Mr. Powell is not a saint. Americans, even Portlanders, do not unionize lightly. This phase of the evolution of the work relationship at Powell's Books was obviously a long time coming. Need I point out that catcalls to "love it or leave it" are asinine? Every worker has a right to dignity and a living wage regardless of the job, existing perks, or whether they are temporary or new, part or full time. The workers of Powell's books have unionized, though Mr. Powell is hell-bent on denying them that right, and have responded to his intimidation and stonewalling with determination and creative, nonviolent resistance--another worthy chapter in a long, important tradition. They deserve support, not red-herring insults. Many Portlanders are waiting for Mr. Powell to embrace the splendidly progressive adult that his often promisingly progressive baby has become. Brent Carter Southeast Belmont Street PORTLAND'S LIVING WAGE I am an employee of Powell's, and I have been reading the letters in response to the Powell's article from March 15 ["Powell's City Divided"]. You call us whiners? We are doing what we can, and what the government allows, to gain a bit of fair representation and a living wage and all you can do is complain about how it might affect 'Portland's living room.' You bet, it might! If we win, we will finally be comfortable in a decent job, and maintain a decent store, without you the customer having to worry about poor service due to inexperienced, poorly paid employees. I am 32 years old and have worked for Powell's for 10 months; I make $7.50 an hour. I have been in bookselling for over 10 years, so when I started I got $7 an hour instead of $6.75. Whoopee. Under the current system, I have no hope of ever getting a living wage, not to mention using my (crappy) 401K. Yes, I could get--and have gotten--a job doing something else for more money, outside of retail. I could even get another job in a bookstore. I don't want to, and besides, that's not the point. Think about it this way. Who deserves a living wage and a secure future: everyone, or just the people who have a 'real job'? I believe everyone does, including myself. If I left Powell's, I might make more, but the poor slob who takes my job won't, and she deserves to just as much as I do. Someone has to do the grunt work in our society, and if anything they deserve a secure future more than the suits do. At least the suits can afford health care. So I support the union, and you should too. Not because I want or deserve more money, but because I deserve a say in my job, and my future. Karin Dibling Northeast 60th Avenue DO YOU FEEL LUCKY, PUNK? Quick note to the employees of Powell's Books ["Powell's City Divided," WW, March 15, 2000]. I have been working in bookstores for the past 15 years. I have been running the bookstore I work in now for the past five years. The store I am working in now is closing in three weeks. Of the five bookstores I have worked in, all have gone out of business except the one that was bought by Barnes & Noble. Right now more than half of the independently owned bookstores open 10 years ago have since gone out of business. Powell's has positioned itself to stay viable and continue to be both a great asset to the community while serving its employees extremely well when compared to industry standards. If the union at Powell's cares either about social justice or about the culture of books, they would by conscience have to quit their cushy job at Powell's, with benefits far surpassing those of any bookstore I know of, and go across the freeway and organize the Barnes & Noble. That is where they are truly needed: a corporation that cares neither about the culture of books nor its workers, let alone Portland. I spent a week in Portland four weeks ago to visit a friend who works for Powells.com, and I spent most of that time at several of the Powell's stores, observing the employees and the management, even observing the repercussions of the tire slashing. I came away with a very confused feeling about just exactly what the employees wanted. I do think Michael Powell needs to come to an agreement and a contract needs to be written, but if the union really has no understanding of what is going on in this environment and is demanding things that would mean economic suicide for Powell's, then I wonder if they are serious about social justice or simply interested in participating in a tradition of social justice in spite of its real-world implications. As I watch dozens of friends in the business lose their jobs and struggle with the decision of whether to go to work for B&N or Amazon, I look at the employees of Powell's and I shake my head at the hubris. You serve only yourselves with your current actions. While I think a BMW with a vanity plate spelling BIBLIO shows a disappointing level of vanity, I think the actions of the employees are far more self-serving and destructive, not only to the great tradition and culture of books, but also to the community of Portland. If they want a job where righteous indignation is important, then find a place where it is appropriate. Tony Sanfilippo Manager and co-owner, Svoboda's Books State College, Penn. IN THE HOLE By clarifying his "misunderstood" position on the death penalty, C. Norman Winningstad simply dug himself into a deeper hole [Letters, WW, April 12, 2000]. To believe--much less state in a public forum--that any number of wrongful executions is acceptable is profoundly stupid, if not also inane. Would he like to volunteer for the next one? What compels people to murder are fear, greed, rage and insanity, to name a few factors. C. Norman posits the facile self-defense rationale for killing killers: If we don't kill them, then the killing will continue. Well, a life sentence without possibility of parole works pretty well, too. Beware of what you become in pursuit of what you want. Gary Duell Happy Valley POOR EXECUTION If C. Norman Winningstad is motivated by protecting poor people from becoming murder victims, I will take him at his word [Letters, WW, April 12, 2000]. However, I believe that Mr. Winningstad and other conservatives are taking an approach that does much to boost their political standing but little toward protecting poor people. I believe that the average citizen is much more likely to be killed by a criminal who was previously convicted of second-degree murder, manslaughter, attempted murder or domestic violence than by a first-degree murderer released by some liberal conspiracy. Until we pass laws allowing judges to impose longer sentences on these predators, we will face this danger regardless of how many first-degree murderers we execute vs. how many we imprison for life without parole. Conservatives and liberals could work together on this and better protect society. Unfortunately, it seems that working together and sharing credit is not as politically advantageous as attacking death-penalty opponents, railing against "soft on crime" judges, likening prison to Club Med, etc., ad nauseam. David Findlay Southwest Barnes Road TRANSIT FOR THE MASSES In "Hogging the Spotlight" [WW, April 5, 2000], you note that only 10 percent of the new employees at Oregon Steel come from the areas of North and Northeast Portland. The problem may not be one that Oregon Steel or any other company in the Rivergate Industrial Park can do much about. It might be that a significant part of the problem is a lack of transit connecting the areas. Tri-Met's service into the Rivergate area is best described as minimal. A study by the Port of Portland in the mid-'90s showed that 26.4 percent of the employees in the Rivergate Industrial Park came from Clark County in Washington, while 17.7 percent came from North Portland and 12.7 percent from Northeast Portland. Too many people in the area of North Portland start out lower on the economic ladder than most of the rest of us and never have a chance to get a foot up simply because they lack the transportation resources many of us already have access to. The problem isn't one that we can blame on corporations. The problem is one that was created when the government killed private transit companies and then tried to run the business. With government barriers in place to prevent private individuals from operating transit businesses, the situation will not change soon. If Portland is to get serious about transit and solve some of the problems related to unemployment and underemployment, we need to take a page from the work done in Curitiba, Brazil, where as much as 75 percent of daily commuters use mass transit to get to work (see the May/June 1997 issue of Mass Transit magazine). Granted the system there is not a perfect model of the free market in operation, but with 10 private companies providing the backbone of services, they have built something that is a step in the right direction. Michael Wilson Chairman, Libertarian Party of Multnomah County   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published April 19, 2000