Political Correctness at its Worst

By Francois Khoury

Kurt Petersen's angry diatribe about the living wage "movement" (a laughable description given the fact the proposed ordinance is being actively pushed mainly by paid interests, many of whom are not even Santa Monica residents) misses the point. Again. (OPINION: "Putting Non-Union Hotel's 'Specious Argument' to Bed," August 28)

Mr. Petersen, like so many of the self-proclaimed social activists riddling our community, is really embittered about the fact the vast majority of hotel employees working in this community have been impervious to his attempts to unionize the hotels. In fact, by any standard you use the union's efforts to organize hotel employees in Santa Monica, as elsewhere in the country, have been an abysmal failure.

It is this overwhelming failure that causes people like Mr. Petersen to respond to factual opposition not with a cogent counter-point, but with a righteous indignation that his position, and only his position, is worthy of discussion.

This is why Petersen and his ilk have failed in their efforts; they are not interested in listening to any other point of view but their own. The employees of most of the hotels in Santa Monica (even those pejoratively referred to by Mr. Petersen as "luxury") have recognized this flaw and are not willing to pay to for "representation" when they know they can meet with anyone in our organization regarding their grievances.

Paid salespeople such as Mr. Petersen do not treat any of the people at union free hotels with the dignity and respect they deserve and simply want these decent hard working people to accept their position as "right," no questions asked. This is political correctness at its worst. People in this community are not allowed to oppose the union's efforts because to do so isn't "right," right being defined by people who seem to be incapable of looking at both sides of the question.

Our employees are too intelligent to take someone else's word for something. After a review of the facts (not the rhetoric, Mr. Petersen) the vast majority of employees simply are not interested in the risks and costs associated with having a union. Indeed, an overwhelming number of our employees requested, in writing, that the union stop the harassment and intimidation they face daily by organizers visiting their homes late into the night, calling them incessantly and engaging in other irritating tactics designed to get them to sign up. The union ignored this request.

Mr. Petersen and the rest of his lot are not altruists seeking to selflessly give to others. The union wants to increase its membership because it will mean more money in dues, fees and assessments paid directly to the union. This is money that comes from employees and is payable regardless of how terrible a deal the union manages to strike with the employer. Mr. Petersen failed to point out these "benefits" of union representation most other employees in America do not receive (and don't want to receive):

The final insulting aspect of Mr. Petersen's attack (and many others who would presume to know what is best for everyone else), is the union's own hypocrisy. Under the law, all unions are required to refund to members (those who properly object when given notice of their rights) for that portion of their dues not spent directly on representation of the member.

Local 11 admits in its own government filings that it has not "followed procedures to comply" with the law in this respect. In other words, the union has not notified its own members that they don't have to pay for more than the "representation" and it has not refunded any money. Isn't it kind of ironic the union is pushing for things it sees as good for the rest of us, yet is arrogant enough to ignore laws designed to protect its own members?

If the union and Mr. Petersen would stop utilizing their gimmicky tactics, respect the employees' free choice not to buy their pitch and instead engage in a real debate on the Living Wage they might understand just how devastating it could be to our community.

Putting aside the obvious potential for damage to Santa Monica's number one industry, tourism, and the corresponding depression of our tax and job base, ordinary citizens cannot ignore the enormous drain on our City's budget that will be caused by the use of public funds, potentially millions of dollars, that will be required to defend the questionable constitutionality of this vague and discriminatory Ordinance.

Our City has better things its tax dollars can be spent on than a lengthy legal battle to support a likely unconstitutional special interest ordinance. Those millions would be better spent on educating our children, improving our streets and public accommodations and making our City safer.

If HERE and Mr. Petersen were truly concerned about Santa Monica and citizens' future and well being, they would enter this debate honestly instead of attempting to enter our employees' wallets against their will.