To the Editor:

We would like to respond to university spokesman Erik Smulson’s assertion in last Friday’s article, “Wage Protest Meets DPS Resistance” (THE HOYA, Feb. 3, 2006, A1).

Smulson falsely suggests that students support workers’ request for card-check neutrality due to the “complicated and undemocratic” nature of the National Labor Relations Board process. On the contrary, we support card-check neutrality along with the 208 representatives in the House and 41 senators who co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act because card-check neutrality accomplishes what current labor relations practices fail to achieve — to protect a worker’s right of free association.

This bipartisan bill enjoys such widespread support among our elected officials, not because the act of voting is undemocratic, but rather because employers have become increasingly bold in violating employees’ rights and violating the law under the NLRB election process. In the 1950s and 1960s, employers did not routinely engage in the massive legal and illegal violation of employee rights that is commonplace today.

Democratic card-check procedures are the most effective way to determine the wishes of a majority of employees. Card-check procedures promote healthy relationships between employers and employees by avoiding the post-election polarized workplace. Card-check procedures have been legal throughout the life of the National Labor Relations Act.

The card-check process benefits society as a whole. Ultimately we believe the university’s dismissal of the workers’ demand for card-check neutrality is both misleading and unfounded. We ask that President DeGioia at least do research on the subject before implementing thoughtless university policies.

Michael Biskar (SFS ’06)

Geoff Paquette (SFS ’06)

Feb. 5, 2006