Correction appended
If a meeting Friday was any indication, the end is near for
UCLA’s Taco Bell.
The Services Committee for the Associated Students of UCLA
““ the organization that manages Taco Bell and other eateries
on campus ““ met last week to discuss the future of the
fast-food giant just days after the restaurant broke an agreement
made with the association six months ago.
While no decision was made, the committee voted to forward a
motion to the ASUCLA board of directors that would deny a renewal
of Taco Bell’s contract when it expires on June 30, ending
its tenure on campus. With about a dozen members in attendance, the
vote passed with four in favor and the rest abstaining.
The board will decide at its meeting this Friday whether or not
to seal the restaurant’s fate.
On Dec. 8, 2003, ASUCLA sent a letter to Taco Bell asking for a
report on working conditions of the restaurant’s tomato
supplier employees after the university received workers’
complaints of low wages, poor working conditions and no overtime
pay.
The restaurant was to hire a third party to investigate the
complaints and to involve the Coalition of Immokalee Workers
““ a group advocating on behalf of the Florida-based tomato
pickers ““ in choosing the investigator.
Taco Bell did not produce a report by the May 10 deadline.
On Friday, Interim Executive Director Bob Williams presented
communication to the committee that had taken place throughout the
week between the association and Taco Bell, including news about
which committee members were not pleased.
Williams showed a letter sent Tuesday from Taco Bell spokeswoman
Laurie Schalow, the day after the report’s due date, which
thanked him and the board for its patience as Taco Bell continued
“to resolve the situation with the Coalition of Immokalee
Workers.” It also informed the board that Taco Bell has
updated its code of conduct to include anti-slave labor
language.
But the letter does not mention the missing report.
Schalow attached a copy of the restaurant’s updated code
of conduct to the letter, and simply concluded, “It is our
sincere hope that you will find this information satisfactory and
that the board will allow us to remain on campus.”
Several committee members were not satisfied with Taco
Bell’s response and its failure to comply with the
association’s terms.
“There are a wide variety of things that could have been
done between last December and this May,” said Administrative
Representative Dave Lowenstein. “It appears nothing has been
done.”
Some members talked as if it had already been decided the
restaurant would be removed. Emmanuel Martinez suggested putting a
sign up if the restaurant were closed in June explaining why it was
no longer on campus.
Williams cautioned the committee on the effects removing the
restaurant could have.
“I want to make sure everyone is aware there is going to
be a significant backlash “¦ and we need to be prepared for
that,” Williams said.
Refuting the notion that Taco Bell has had “several
meetings and discussions with the CIW,” the coalition sent a
letter to Williams on Friday morning, praising UCLA’s
“determination to arrive at a fair and equitable decision on
this very important issue.” The letter said Taco Bell has not
contacted the CIW in any way.
Student representatives of the Social Justice Alliance and
Student Worker Front were also present to praise the committee for
its apparent support of the restaurant being removed from
campus.
Christina Kaoh, a volunteer with the Student Worker Front, said
students will be passing out fliers this week advocating Taco
Bell’s removal and will hold a one-day fast Thursday in
support of those fasting at a Louisiana meeting of Yum! Brands,
Inc., Taco Bell’s parent company.
Kaoh said UCLA students have not fasted thus far as a method of
calling for Taco Bell’s removal like students at Notre Dame
University and the University of Florida because ASUCLA has been
cooperative and attentive in dealing with the issue, unlike
administrators at the aforementioned universities. She said
Thursday’s fast is unrelated to the situation with
UCLA’s Taco Bell.
Corrections:
May 18, 2004, Tuesday In “Bell may toll for campus
eatery” (News, May 17), the vote to pass a motion
recommending the removal of Taco Bell from campus was actually
unanimous; all four voting members present at the meeting voted in
favor of the motion. Not all individuals at the meeting were board
members, and not all of the board members were eligible to
vote.