Autumn Gonzalez ’02
Alexa Encarnacion ‘02

In last week’s MH News, Liz Norrick ’05 and Kate Mulligan ’04 attempted to slander the campaigns and goals of the Student Coalition for Action, which, being rather difficult to do, led them to personal attacks and the presentation of false information.  Firstly, we would like to address the charge that we are “spoiled, wealthy students”—the SCA was founded by the two of us, and we can assure you that although we recognize the privilege of being at Mt Holyoke, neither of us is close to wealthy.  We are both ALANA students who come from working class backgrounds, and in fact are second and first generation Americans, our families being immigrants.  But, if we happened to be rich, would that make us bad people?  That’s a nice attitude to have.  One should check with people before making these kinds of insinuations about their backgrounds and personalities.  Norrick also claims that SCA is a media hog, willing to go anywhere for attention.  We publish a journal because we think that it’s good to have alternative publications on this campus, and we present our positions in the MH News because it’s a good way to get information out to the campus.  Sue us.

As for the Cutler/Optimum issue, both Norrick and Mulligan seem sadly ignorant, using as evidence for their articles an email John Bryant sent out in January of this year.  Besides being outdated, the email completely misrepresents the SCA’s position.  Our position is not pro- or anti-union in this scenario.  The problem we have with Optimum is that they are “illegally” (key word, kids) misclassifying their employees, to the detriment of their workers.  Not once has SCA questioned the right of “open shop” employers to work on this campus.  There is no stipulation to only hire union shops in the Fair Labor Code, and never, not once, has SCA or any organization affiliated with SCA made this demand, but it’s a creative way to try to slander our work!  Anyways, those working for Optimum (who, by the way, are mostly Mexican immigrants, not from this area, who have limited English) who are being illegally misclassified, are left without health insurance, workers compensation, social security, and other benefits.  At the end of the year they are also pleasantly surprised with a tax bill that their employer should have paid, but didn’t.  Yes, there are people who choose to be independent contractors.  They’re people who run their own construction businesses, who have all the proper tools and paperwork to run as a business, and when they are hired to do a job, they choose their own hours, receive a commission, work via a contract, and take no instructions from a supervisor.  SCA investigation has revealed that the people on the job are receiving hourly pay (a paycheck, not a commission), are told when to come to the job, provided with the tools and materials needed on the job, are told when they can break, have lunch, and leave, and can be fired.  This adds up to—that’s right!—an employee, not an independent contractor.  The business, as Norrick claims, does not decide who is independent and who is an employee—it is an SS-8 form that the IRS provides that makes that decision.

So why doesn’t SCA call the IRS and the Labor Department, as Mulligan simplistically asks?  Because it is the worker, not some random college student, who has to file a complaint and get the very slow and bureaucratic system running.  So why don’t we get one of Optimum’s workers to file?  Well, let’s see—most of their workers are Mexican or Canadian, possibly without the appropriate documentation, and definitely not willing to get themselves mixed up with the authorities.  Even if there was an American national on the job, chances are he is at this point buried in IRS back taxes from being 1099’ed for years, and whistleblowing, even though it would benefit him down the line, in the immediate future will leave him with serious problems with the IRS.  And, above all, many workers, in whatever industry, don’t whistleblow because there’s a serious chance of reprisals from the employer.

But, hey, Mulligan tells us John Bryant investigated the situation, and all is OK!  First of all, Mulligan gets this information from an email from January.  This investigation consisted of asking Optimum and Cutler if they were doing anything wrong.  ‘Well, golly Mr. Bryant, you’ve found us out!  We are just breaking laws everywhere, sorry about that!’  Obviously, asking a company if they are lawbreaking isn’t going to get you far, what is needed is real investigation, either someone should be hired by MHC to investigate independently, or MHC should to demand that Optimum open all its books and prove that the workers are, in fact, legal independent contractors.  No one has done this.  The only investigation that has happened was by the SCA and their associates, one of whom was trespassed off campus for 2 years for participating in the investigation—is MHC trying to cover for Optimum, or are they hoping that the truth will remain hidden?  Mount Holyoke and its crack team of investigative journalists are the ones who need to “get out from under the covers” and actually look into what’s going on.

The next time you decide to criticize an SCA campaign, and SCA members, it might be useful to first contact the organization, understand the issues, and then write something that makes sense.  It’s less embarrassing for you, and less trouble for us.