 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contents on this page were published in the July/August, 1993 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1993 WFP Collective, Inc.
The divisive debate over whether all boycotted products should be pulled from Puget Consumers Co-op shelves soon may be over.
Of the 2,603 co-op members who voted in a referendum held May 1 through June 8, 53 percent voted to support a policy not to sell any boycotted products at PCC's seven stores in King and Snohomish counties.
Despite voter support for the progressive boycott policy, the referendum was non-binding, meaning that the ultimate decision of whether to stop selling boycotted items still lies in the hands of the co-op's Board of Trustees.
And history seems to be working against boycott supporters. In the past, the board has ignored petitions signed by co-op members calling for a stricter boycott policy. Currently, boycotted merchandise including Chateau Ste. Michelle wine, California table grapes, Nestle products and un-dolphin-safe tuna are for sale, though flyers are placed next to the products telling co-op shoppers about the boycotts. (see "PCC Members to Vote on Boycott Policy," Free Press, May 1993.)
The board will discuss the referendum's results at its annual retreat in late July, said Theresa Steig, PCC's marketing coordinator. "They'll determine then what to do with the results" of the member vote, Steig said, "and put together a plan of action."
The board could decide to continue its current policy of supporting boycotts on a case-by-case basis, or it could adopt a blanket policy of removing every boycotted product now available at PCC. The board members' decision probably will not be made public until August or later.
Some members were disappointed that more people didn't bother to vote in the referendum. Only 2,600 out of more than 40,000 co-op members - about 6.5 percent - cast ballots.
One PCC member, Mary Ann Shroeder, who is working for farmworker-labor reform, said the stricter boycott policy would add weight to the overall Chateau Ste. Michelle boycott. Shroeder pointed out that more than 65 restaurants in Washington state have stopped serving the wine, and she would like the co-op to do the same.
Shroeder sees the low voter turnout as evidence that PCC has moved away from the "true co-op spirit" and is a sign of hard times for labor and social issues in general. Although she said the referendum's outcome was encouraging, she said getting people to support the rights of workers to organize is a "never-ending struggle."
|
Boeing pulled out the legal stops in fighting the violations and proposed fine.
|
In keeping with a familiar pattern, Boeing pulled out the legal stops in fighting the violations and proposed fine.
In a Feb. 8 appeal to Metro in which he argued for a lower fine, Boeing attorney Thomas Waite said the company "made all reasonable efforts to determine if it was the cause" of the chromium leak after Metro told the company about the problem. By the time the agency contacted Boeing, however, Metro had all but identified the Auburn plant as being the source of the pollution. "The evidence pointed to them," said Elsie Hulsizer, Metro's industrial waste manager.
Waite did not respond to a request for an interview. Boeing spokesperson John Kvasnosky did not want to talk about the situation. "We don't want to kick this around anymore," Kvasnosky said. "We've reached a settlement with Boeing and we want to get past it."
In the end, Boeing persuaded Metro to officially drop the charges against the company; in exchange, Boeing abandoned its right to appeal and agreed to pay the lower fine and conduct the training, according to a June 9 settlement signed with Metro.
Gail Behan, of Metro's legal services division, said allowing Boeing to get off without admitting guilt was cheaper and less painless than going to court to argue every specific point of the violations the company was accused of committing. Behan said Boeing raised "valid arguments" to some of the charges, and that it was in the best interest of both sides to resolve the standoff as painlessly as possible.
"They don't have real clean hands," Behan said, referring to Boeing's environmental legacy. "But there needs to be a little reasonableness in dealing with these people. You can't deny them the use of the law [to contest violations]. Going to court would have benefitted nobody. So in order to get issue settled, they agreed to pay the [lower] penalties."
Metro's Hulsizer said such settlements are a standard practice. The result, however, is that Boeing - on paper - is able to create the impression of being a company relatively unscarred by environmental violations. Last year, Boeing won official innocence when the EPA fined the company a record $620,475 for mishandling waste at its Everett plant. Boeing was able to have the fine cut in half after an appeal. (see "The Other Boeing" Free Press, April 1993.)
|
|
|
|
|