Trusting LA British Food Invasion
By Gabriel Buelna

If you’ve driven through Glassell Park in Northeast Los Angeles lately, you’ll notice a new supermarket going up. With a new parking lot and fresh paint, it looks nice. It even has a nice name; the Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market. After surviving the bruising supermarket strikes of a few years back, who could argue with a new supermarket with such a nice name.

Not so fast! Not having heard of Fresh & Easy, I decided to do a bit of research about the new store and found out more than I bargained for. Fresh & Easy is actually a subsidiary of Tesco. For those of you that haven’t heard of Tesco, it’s the third largest food retail company in the world after Wal-Mart. The company is in twelve countries, has 31% of the market share in Britain, with plans to open 100 stores in the United States. Essentially, while the name of the store is Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, its not really a “Neighborhood Market” at all. It’s a multinational corporation selling food. Not necessarily bad, just not a “Neighborhood Market.”

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

On the face of it, who cares? Good luck to Fresh & Easy and let the free market decide if it survives. As we all know, if costumers don’t like the store, they won’t go back. Simple, right? The only problem with the philosophy is that while we have a free market system, we also have a thing called “Civil Society” that is also free to voice its concerns.

Those of us who supported supermarket workers a few years ago wanted our local stores to remain open; we just wanted workers to receive a fair wage. We wanted access to fresh fruit and vegetables at a fair price, with the understanding that those preparing the food had living wages and adequate insurance. Many of us knew we didn’t want Wal-Mart and the low wages that are associated with it.

The entire discussion about supermarkets in Los Angeles is complex. While we’re a large metropolitan city, a good amount of our urban landscape doesn’t have access to supermarkets. Many working class communities have local stores with more expensive products, which may or may not be of similar quality. For years, communities have pleaded with officials to encourage stores to open in these communities. Pandering to our hopes, Fresh & Easy has promised to do just that. Open new grocery stores in working class neighborhoods that serve fresh, organic produce at reasonable prices. While this sounds great, the company’s history doesn’t necessarily show a willingness to follow through on its promises.

According to an Occidental College report, of the 98 stores identified as future Tesco store sites, only a paltry 10% of the stores are in high poverty, low income areas. The company also plans to depend on a part time workforce and is refusing to meet with community and labor groups about fair wages. Essentially, Tesco and Fresh & Easy want the right to claim high paying jobs and quality foods in working class neighborhoods, without actually doing so.

When pressed, Tesco asks the community to trust it. No, that won’t happen, the vital services and quality of jobs this industry can provide is too important. Will Tesco trust us to pay our groceries later? Of course not.

In order to attempt to guarantee fair wages and quality food, neighborhood groups have requested Tesco meet to discus a Community Benefits Agreement. These agreements are designed to help local communities receive many of the jobs that will be offered and to make sure those jobs pay a fair wage with medical benefits and all the other good stuff. The agreements also nudge Tesco to open more stores in communities they promise to serve. It shouldn’t be a big deal for Tesco to simply sit down at the table and say, yes, I will pay a living wage, I will offer medical coverage for workers and their families, I will offer the highest quality food, and I will open supermarkets in working class neighborhoods as promised. These are statements the company has made in public, now put it in writing.

What do you think?

Should Fresh & Easy Sign a Community Benefits Agreement Before Opening? VOTE HERE!

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Columbus and Indian Skin-Lightening Cream
By Gabriel Buelna

This past week marked the 515th anniversary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the Western Hemisphere. Columbus is a historically divisive figure. Some view him as a great explorer, searching for new routes to India and bringing riches to the Old World. Others hold him responsible for the destruction of societies by introducing racially based systems where skin color determined everything. With memories of Columbus long gone from my mind, it was not until a news story about an Indian skin-lightening cream that I was inspired to write about him.

A few weeks back, I saw a news story about Indian Bollywood actor Shahrukh Khan selling a skin-lightening cream called Fair and Handsome. The commercial revolves around a young man with dark skin who's having difficulty attracting girls. After some coaxing, the young man agrees to the skin-lightening treatment. Upon completing the treatment, the actor becomes lighter and suddenly attracts girls. The commercial ends with everyone smiling.

Read and Watch BBC News Story HERE

After watching the commercial, I was shocked, in disbelief and overall dismayed. It reminded me of the Twilight Zone episode where aliens arrived on earth and had a book called To Serve Man. Except it wasn't a book to help humans, it was a cook book. The Bollywood commercial was well made and probably did a good job of selling its product. However, it did so at the expense of an Indian society that lived under British dominance for 500 years and only recently became independent.

While nations in years past could act independently and with little outside scrutiny of how they treated their populations, that era is over. India can not consider itself part of the modern world and want a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and allow products such as Fair and Handsome to flourish. The irony is that the Indian government should not exercise its powers to take this commercial and product from the shelves of New Delhi supermarkets. Indian civil society has the responsibility to police itself and send the message that this sort of product is not acceptable.

While the British colonized India, not Spain, the results are the same. Former British and Spanish colonies for hundreds of years suffered under systems where skin color determined your fate. Weird names such as Zambo and Mulato defined racial mixtures with the ultimate akin color being pure European white. The Indian Fair and Handsome skin-lightening cream plays on Indian historical racial fears and reminds us of our own pre-Civil Rights era that with every passing day becomes a long ago, sometimes forgotten memory.

So why do we care about an Indian skin-lightening cream? After centuries of our own racially divisive systems, the Indian product reminds us that while the world economy has become efficient and indeed flat, our world social systems are still centuries behind and outdated. The sad reality in America and societies throughout the world is that skin color still matters significantly. While the subject is taboo and no one will admit it, the news article about an Indian skin-lightening cream is a good opportunity for each of us to contemplate our own hypocrisies and indoctrinated racism. Columbus would probably not believe his birthday would be used as a day to reflect on our biases in the hopes of reigning in centuries of racial intolerance.

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://simplesend.com/simple/t.asp?S=264&ID=13953&NL=3130&N=19056&SI=1678047&URL=http%3a%2f%2fgabrielbuelna%2eblogspot%2ecom%2f

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

LAUSD-Public Service or Sacrifice?

LAUSD-Public Service or Sacrifice?
Decision Affects Education Reform Across State and Nation for Years

By Gabriel Buelna

Los Angeles School Board members earn $26,000 per year – on a part time basis. Each School Board member, charged with the responsibility of preparing our children for the future, makes $25 per hour if they work 20 hours per week. If a Board member works a 40 hour week, which many do, they earn $12.50 per hour. This past March 6th, voters in Los Angeles finally said enough is enough. Angelinos selected Measure L as the vehicle to increase the salaries of the School Board members. Voters sent a message that a $6.2 billion operating budget and over $18 billion in construction of new schools was too large for a part-time board. Pursuant to Measure L and the demands of voters, The Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee was formed to create a reasonable salary structure for LAUSD Board members as full-time employees. The Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee failed.

As a father of three LAUSD daughters, like many, I voted for Measure L without doing much research. I simply wanted my children to have better schools and I wanted to make sure the School Board would represent children and parents, not special interests. Therefore, I was honored to be appointed by Los Angeles City Councilmember Eric Garcetti to the Compensation Review Committee. Once appointed to the Committee, I was chosen to Chair the Committee. I have witnessed first hand how the Compensation Review Committee failed to provide an adequate salary for Board members and have effectively nullified the voters’ mandate of March 6th.

For two months, the committee listened to testimony about the duties of School Board members. We listed to former School Board member and current Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar describe the importance of meeting with parents, youth and community members about schools. Former School Board President Genethia Hayes described the need for a full-time Board to tackle the bureaucracy at LAUSD. She described constituents demanding to speak with her, principles, nonprofit organizations wanting and demanding her attention. She described representing LAUSD local, regionally and nationally on education issues. Councilmember Huizar and Ms. Hayes described the School Board member’s job as one that was much more than full-time.

The Committee made two salary decisions – one for full-time Board members and one for part-time Board members. The Committee decided that Board members who elected to remain part time would continue to receive $25,000 annually. I agreed to this amount as this action was being taken in the middle of an election cycle. In a startling move, however, the Committee prohibited School Board members from earning any outside income. After reviewing data and listening to testimony about creating a full time position for School Board member, the Committee, with my dissent, agreed to tie the full time salary of School Board members to a nine month LAUSD teacher salary of $46,000. Here, again, School Board members are not allowed to earn any outside income.

The Committee’s decision was made without a single member of the public present. No public input on the matter was considered. In fact, the biggest loser in this entire process is the public. Voters elected for an initiative that would guarantee full-time work and full-time pay for Board members. The public did not and does not want outlandish wages for public officials. The Los Angeles Unified School District has salaries ranging from $20,000 to $300,000 per year. During the Compensation Committee’s meetings, the highest recommendation for School Board members’ salaries was between $60,000 and $90,000. This amount is sufficient to have Board members work full time without the need for outside income, but not high enough to draw individuals based on salary alone.

The decision to keep part-time Board members at $25,000 and full-time Board members at $46,000 ensures that only wealthy communities will have adequate representation on the School Board. Potential candidates from working class communities will not be able to become Board members because they cannot feed their families on $46,000 per year. The Compensation Committee has ensured that the only individuals serving on the School Board are those wealthy enough to serve in spite of the Compensation Committee’s salary caps. The Compensation Committee has disenfranchised thousands of low to moderate income parents and children who will not be represented by people like themselves. The Compensation Committee has warped the Los Angeles School Board into a place where only the wealthy can survive.

As a citizen, I have never before advocated for higher salaries for elected officials. As the Chair of the Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee, however, the evidence was before me – and all Committee members. The evidence presented clearly indicated that a full-time, sufficient salary structure was needed for Board members, but the Committee ignored the evidence as well as the voters.

In the end, the Committee left behind a broken legacy that both alienates parents and children based on income and fails to provide School Board members with the financial resources to serve on the Board without unjust financial harm. The inability of the Charter Measure L Compensation Review Committee to fix this self inflicted wound ensures that being a LAUSD Board member is a public sacrifice, not a service. While some may view this as simply a Los Angeles issue, the lack of forethought by this Committee will only mean school boards’ across the state and nation will only be able to give education a part time focus. How can this be right?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW was the Chair of the Measure L Compensation Review Committee. He is also Executive Director of Plaza Community Services in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

If you would like permission to re-print article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net

Investment Not Resentment for Undocumented

By Gabriel Buelna

While Republicans want high walls and cameras and Democrats want amnesty, the final immigration reform will have to be a moderate approach that will likely include both heavy border security and legalization with fines. The debate currently roaring is focused on two extremes: Conservatives want to create as much pain as possible for immigrants and their families for “breaking the rules” and stepping to the “front of the line”; while liberals want a complete amnesty that might be a political impossibility. In part, the debate has stagnated with the same rhetoric on each side and neither side wanting to compromise. It’s time for a new approach.

As the Executive Director of a nonprofit in East Los Angeles that services an immigrant population, I see the realities of the undocumented. It is a known fact that immigrants in general face higher levels of poverty than the general population, but the realities of the undocumented go beyond abject poverty. Many toil in below minimum wage jobs, with employers sometimes threatening to call immigration or withhold pay. While some would argue this is the price for better wages and a better life, this price is too high.

In addition to living in substandard conditions in pursuit of the “American Dream”, undocumented children, families and adults lack connection with their communities for fear they might be found out. This fear deters them from connecting with many of the social institutions that could help them. While some join local social clubs, churches or unions, most do not. The fear of their status ties many to their homes and limits their ability to garner resources. Essentially, being undocumented leads to financial, social, and emotional isolation. Immigration reform has the potential to eliminate this isolation and create a genuine connection between immigrants and their communities. However, with the current proposed immigration reform, eliminating isolation could prove very difficult. The proposed reform, in its current form, serves to unduly tax undocumented immigrants who already spend too much time away from their families at jobs that are far below living wage.

As currently envisioned, individual immigrants and families would pay between $5,000 and $15,000 for legalization. Already earning less than any other group in the country, this amount will devastate many families. Income that might have been used to pay for medical care and housing would have to go to pay for legalization. Make no mistake, undocumented immigrants are willing to pay these proposed fines. Any undocumented immigrant will tell you that they would go hungry to save enough money to become legal residents. Many of these immigrants have risked life and limb to come to the United States, they will certainly spend great sums of money to stay. As a matter of public policy, however, our government should not gauge the validity of taxation merely by people’s willingness to pay it.

While the political reality is that immigrants will likely need to pay a price for legalization, what should this price look like? I propose that the current bill be amended to give the option to have this “fine” paid through community service. Such a system has greater potential to create investment, not resentment. The bill might include the creation of regional Immigrant Community Service Banks that would connect the undocumented population to pre-approved nonprofits. The Banks would work in conjunction with nonprofits to have undocumented immigrants work a specified number of hours doing a variety of activities that benefit the community. The Immigrant Community Service Banks would become a clearing house for immigrants needing to fulfill community service hours and for nonprofits in search of volunteers to assist in carrying out good in the community. The benefits of such collaboration would yield longer lasting and more tangible returns than any monetary fine imposed on this country’s undocumented population.

As citizens, we need to be aware that there is a population of 12 million people that have been isolated as the result of their undocumented status. These 12 million people consist of families with children ranging from infants to teenagers, female heads of households subsisting on single incomes, and undocumented children living in this country with relatives – hoping someday to be reunited with their parents. Creating systems where children, teenagers and those in extreme poverty would not have to be financially punished would not only demonstrate compassion, but could create a societal paradigm shift where immigrants are seen as vested members of the community worthy of respect and protection.

This country changed the lives of million with the legalization process of 1987. It gave a home to people like my wife who, because of the legalization process, was able to go to college. Today she holds a Masters degree in Social Work, is a licensed therapist, and helps head the Salvation Army Social Services Department, one of the largest social services providers in LA County. This opportunity might have been lost with today’s proposed reform; a loss not only to her personally, but certainly to our community- and if I may add - to myself because I met her in college. Let’s not shut the door on others who like her could only enhance our communities.

Finally, creating systems where immigrants could volunteer and develop a stake in their communities would be smart for a country looking to reestablish its credibility both domestically and internationally.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, Ph.D., MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

Pope Excommunicates Mexicans
By Gabriel Buelna

While Americans focused on misconduct by police during May Day events last week, the abortion debate erupted in Mexico, causing a roar throughout Latin America and the Vatican. Threatened by the legalization of first trimester abortions by the Mexico City assembly, Pope Benedict XVI sent a message that legalizing abortion of any kind will not be tolerated. Mexican bishops, led by the comments of the pope, threatened to excommunicate sympathizers. Not since the days of the Mexican revolution has a religious issue so seriously threatened the delicate balance between the Catholic Church and the Mexican government.

Mexico has long been a bastion of Catholicism complete with the traditional conservatism and obedience. The breaking of ranks in the form of Mexico City's pro-abortion legislation was not taken well by the Vatican. While the announcement was shocking to some, it should not have come as a surprise. The relationship between the Mexican State and the Catholic Church has been tenuous since the creation of the Mexican Constitution in 1917. For over 70 years, the clergy were stripped of real-estate, the right to vote and an array of laws intended to eliminate any role of the Church within Mexican society. Catholics even rebelled against the government in the bloody Cristero War of 1926 that lasted for three years and left 90,000 dead.

It was only in 1992 that Mexico restored its official relationship with the Church, granting legal status to all religious groups, providing limited property rights, and eliminating restrictions on the number of priests in the country. The Church experienced revitalization as the political power of Mexico's elite Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) began to wane. In hindsight, it's not surprising the Church decided to lash out at this point in history. Mexican President Felipe Calderon is the first modern president to publicly worship and show any type of public spirituality; thus, providing some political cover to the Church.

While the Mexican Catholic Church has regained some of its role in the country's public life, it should move forward with caution. The Mexico oftoday is not the Mexico of the 19th century, where the entire population lived in poverty, was illiterate, and no political pluralism existed. Mexico today has legalized civil unions in several states and voting rights are somewhat respected. As the confidence and awareness of individual rights develops in Mexico, the Church is mistaken to believe it can dictate it's will as it did in the past.

In a public letter to citizens, Mexican bishops have said doctors and nurses who perform abortions and politicians who supported the legalization would be excommunicated. With an estimated 200,000 illegal abortions and 100 deaths per year, the Church's strategy is destined to backfire. Elected officials, media and citizens throughout Mexico have begun to question the heavy hand of the Vatican as interfering in internal politics.

Abortion critics have stated legalizing abortion would lead to a moral decline throughout Mexico. The problem with this argument is that Mexico has seen tremendous moral decline in the last two decades not from changes in social laws, but from its economic deterioration that has led millions of families to dissolve and emigrate to the United States. Case in point, last week the Mexican government reported that since 2000, they have lost more Mexican citizens to emigration (577,000 a year), than to deaths (495,000 a year). To comment on moral decay in the face of these numbers shows a complete disconnection with reality.

While 88% of Mexico remains Catholic, membership worldwide continues to decline by one percent each year. Despite the fact that Latin America is home to half the world's Catholics, the outlook is not positive. In Brazil alone, the percentage of Catholics fell from 83% in 1991 to 67% in 2007. The debate over abortion in Mexico and eventually throughout Latin America can be a healthy discussion for the Church. Nobody expects the Catholic Church to accept abortion. Who would want to be part of a church that is so whimsical about its teachings? What Latin America demands is a Catholic Church willing to accept that its membership has different relationships with governments and that public health concerns are important.

This past weekend, my older daughter received her First Holy Communion. I am proud she is part of an institution that is doing good things throughout the world with its educational system, charities and ministries. What nobody likes is to be threatened with excommunication for disagreeing with the Church. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate abortions, the Church will need to create the social networks to reach the women who need help when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, whatever their choice might be in terms of abortion. The 200,000 Mexican women a year that receive illegal and dangerous abortions need to know that their Church can provide guidance and support without repercussions.

What do you think?

Gabriel Buelna, PhD, MSW is Executive Director of Plaza Community Center in East Los Angeles and a faculty member in the Chicana/o Studies Department at Cal State Northridge. You can visit his blog at http://gabrielbuelna.blogspot.com/

NOTE: If you are a member of the media and would like to re-print this article, please e-mail gbuelna@sbcglobal.net