Would we really be losing out if the windswept corner of Bruin
Walk that houses Taco Bell was replaced? Most people would describe
the food as a poor college student’s Baja Fresh and an
unworthy rival to Panda’s reign in Ackerman.
But issues of quality aside, Taco Bell’s dubious business
practices now have brought the company to the forefront of the
worker’s rights debates. With the recent increase in campus
awareness of labor issues, the moral battle to remove the Bell from
campus is enjoying support ““ and for good reason.
The main point of contention against the burrito empire is that
they get their tomatoes from companies that have been shown to pay
workers less than fair wages. According to CNN, Department of Labor
figures show that workers toiling in the fields in Florida were
paid on average “40 cents per 32-pound bucket,” wages
that have not changed in more than two decades.
At first glance, organizations such as the Social Justice
Alliance seem to be overreacting in asking for Taco Bell’s
removal from campus. It’s not like bringing down a single
franchise in Westwood is going to cure all labor ills of workers in
Florida. The UCLA franchise does not even use the Florida tomatoes
in question. The removal of this particular Taco Bell would do
little to cure anything but minor stomach woes.
But the removal of this Taco Bell remains important because of
what it would represent: a call for change.
Taco Bell has undisputed influence over the business practices
of companies like Immokalee or Six L’s Packing Company. How
many tons of tomatoes do you think the food giant orders everyday?
I bet one e-mail from the CEO of Yum! Brands, the parent company of
Taco Bell, would be enough to convince Florida agribusinesses to
review their employment practices ““ after all, no one wants
to lose a $22 billion business partner.
Large corporations such as Taco Bell do not exist in a bubble.
They hold immense power over industry standards, and have a
responsibility to encourage the moral practices of companies
associated with them. Even Taco Bell itself recognizes this
important chore. Taken straight from its Web site: “As a
major purchaser of food products, we have the “¦
responsibility, to influence the way animals supplied to us are
treated.”
If instead of tomatoes, the complaint was about the treatment of
Gordita-bound chickens, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
would be all over Taco Bell, and change would be bound to happen.
As shown time and time again, it often takes agitation by third
parties to demand and achieve real change. In this case, that
responsibility falls on the students of UCLA to demand the removal
of Taco Bell from campus.
The supermarket strikes are based on the same principles of
fairness. Workers are fighting to keep their existing level of
benefits. Their success will depend on whether enough people
empathize with their plight and decide not to cross the picket
lines.
Along the same line, public support for these workers starts
here. It should be no easier to order a chalupa as it is to cross a
crowded picket line. A boycott should be the least of their
worries.
Hurting companies financially is often one of the only ways to
ensure lasting change. Allowing them to remain on campus is to
condone the blatant disregard the Taco Bell corporation has for
basic labor rights and their own doctrines. Taking a stand for
these workers in Florida is to stand up for equitable labor
conditions and compensation here in Westwood.
The question is not whether Taco Bell’s food sources have
broken laws but whether conditions are humane. Civil rights
legislation is often shaped and enhanced because of opposition to
legal practices ““ for example, child labor laws. Take one
look at Taco Bell and decide for yourself if you believe 40 cents
per bucket is fair.
Moon is a second-year psychology student. E-mail him at
jmoon@media.ucla.edu.