Cardinal Health Was Defending Its Workers With Security Guards

The opinion piece written by Daniel R. Morgan '99 of the Progressive Student Labor Movement on the labor dispute between Cardinal Health Inc., and Teamsters Local 42 (Nov. 13) illustrates a well-known adage in journalism: Morgan did not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The facts are these:

Morgan notes that 36 workers have been fired in recent weeks due to "picket line violations" that include "swearing." While the dictates of good taste prohibit me from detailing specifically what was said, suffice it to say that threatening to rape and kill employees and their families in what the Boston Herald termed "shockingly graphic" terms does not constitute "swearing." This type of sexual and racial harassment would not be tolerated at Harvard University, in any newsroom in the country or indeed at any workplace. The National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency charged with the oversight of labor disputes, investigated this misconduct by the union and the striking employees and has issued a lengthy complaint against the union because of this unlawful harassment, threats, intimidation and violence.

Contrary to Morgan's assertion, Cardinal Health took every reasonable step to avoid the strike with Teamsters Local 42. The company even offered on three separate occasions to extend the contract, so that employees could continue to work and earn a paycheck while the negotiations continued. These are hardly the actions of a company determined to, in Morgan's words, "break the union." The union refused to consider these offers and chose to go out on strike.

Cardinal Health's last offer to the union was a five-year contract, with a wage increase each year. There were increases in the company's payments for pension and other benefits. Indeed, there was no reduction in any benefit payments by the company. There was no reduction in work standards. This certainly was not the package Morgan portrayed.

Morgan's assertion that the company hired 300 replacement workers less than two hours after the union vote is ridiculous. The company did not hire any replacement workers until the union rejected the contract offer and indicated that it would not extend the contract. Further, Cardinal informed the union that replacement workers would be hired in order to service the needs of the health-care community, which depends on efficient and speedy delivery of products by Cardinal. The company did not hire a full workforce until weeks after the union began the strike. It should also be noted that the National Labor Relations Board, in a ruling dated Sept. 30, determined that the strike was an economic one and that therefore, "the Employer was free to replace the strikers with permanent replacements and to advise its employees it would do so."

Finally, Morgan writes that a private security force was hired by Cardinal Health. That is true, as we value the safety of our employees. There is no truth to Morgan's allegations of brutality by this security firm. The security guards have acted professionally at all times, under very trying circumstances.

Morgan writes quite a bit about freedom in his opinion piece. An oft-repeated axiom notes that with freedom comes responsibility. A responsible look at the labor dispute would yield a more complicated situation than Morgan's one-sided view. --Carole W. Tomko, Senior Vice President for Human Resources, Cardinal Health, Inc., Peabody, Mass.