Disneyland Union Not Representative

* As a former employee of Disneyland, I am not surprised by the actions taken by the union leaders to accept a contract that a majority of the membership had rejected (“Disney, Union Leaders Defend Contract Action,” Oct. 25). Some union negotiators may state that a 3% raise is sufficient. However, the question is whether the union should take it upon itself to accept an agreement that a majority of the membership (that voted) rejected. These workers pay for representation (through union dues) only to have the unions discard their votes.

The union leadership complains that since less than two-thirds of the membership they represent actually voted, they have few options to force onto the company (e.g., a strike). I know how little information is given to the employees about such matters. I also know that many of the employees are high school and college students. They work only on the weekends but still must pay union dues. Knowing what students are like, how many would care about a contract--so long as they get paid and can go to their parties? But because of this contingent, those who rely on their job with Disneyland are forced to live under a contract that the union leadership accepts.

The unions have a sweet deal with Disneyland where they receive the dues of a large population. Because of this large income, I feel that the unions will not try to do anything that will seriously undermine their relationship with Disneyland. So who represents the employees?

MORRIE JAY BAREMBAUM

Irvine