April 2005

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Victory in Taco Bell Boycott:

Jeanette Smith is Program Director in the Miami office of AFSC, focusing especially on ending human rights violations against immigrant workers. Please see also www.afsc.org/pwork/0502/050212.htm.

"A flag has been planted on the moon," declared Lucas Benitez, Co-Director of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW). This is how he describes the historic agreement reached between CIW and Taco Bell's parent company, Yum! Brands, to improve wages and working conditions for some of Florida's tomato pickers. This agreement was the result of a four-year boycott of Taco Bell by dedicated workers, students, faith-based groups, and human rights advocacy organizations. The agreement represents a decisive moment in the struggle for farmworkers' rights.

Until recently, farmworkers were paid by an antiquated piece rate system that had not changed significantly in over 25 years. Yum! agreed to the farmworkers' three main demands. Yum! will fund a penny per pound wage "pass through" with its suppliers of Florida tomatoes; utilize its position as an industry leader to support improved working conditions in Florida fields; and undertake joint legislative efforts in Florida to better protect farmworkers from exploitation and indentured servitude. This is indeed cause for celebration. Though a penny per pound sounds insignificant, it is more than a 50% wage increase. Calling the agreement a "historic victory in the struggle for human rights," Camilo Perez-Bustillo, Director of Human Migration & Mobility/Project Voice with the American Friends Service Committee, said, "the successful settlement of the Taco Bell boycott is a key step in the right direction for Florida… and will set the pace elsewhere for farmworker justice in the future." This agreement covers workers in the fields which contract with Yum!; now the challenge is to extend this progress to farmworkers throughout the state and nation.

We must ensure that the concessions and pledges won by CIW and the farmworkers in this agreement are honored. We must encourage other industry leaders to follow the example set by Yum! Brands by improving working conditions and wages in the fields. We must lobby state lawmakers nationwide to: pass legislation specifically outlawing debt bondage; impose strict penalties for health, safety, and labor-rights violations; improve the working conditions for farmworkers; and implement effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to eradicate wage-slavery. Finally, we must continue to link our efforts to further farmworkers' rights to the broader struggle for global human rights.

"McLibel 2" Win in European Court

Excerpted from www.mcspotlight.org by Peacework Intern Salima Appiah-Kubi. Appiah-Kubi is a senior at Tufts University majoring in Peace and Justice Studies.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg declared on February 15, 2005, that the libel ruling against anti-McDonald's protesters in England was in breach of the right to a fair trial and right to freedom of expression.

Helen Steel and Dave Morris, two London Greenpeace activists, handed out leaflets indicting McDonald's' exploitation of labor, destruction of the environment, and promotion of junk food.

The McDonald's Corporation launched libel proceedings against Steel and Morris, now known as the McLibel 2, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the distribution of leaflets criticizing the company. The McLibel trial, convening intermittently from 1994-1997, lasted 314 days, the longest case in English legal history. Steel and Morris represented themselves against the corporate behemoth. During the proceedings, the McLibel 2 put McDonald's corporate crimes on trial. As a result, the case was described by commentators as "the worst Corporate PR disaster in history."

The trial, and a 23-day appeal in 1999, resulted in a mixed verdict in which damning rulings were made against McDonald's core business practices. Yet, no sanctions were ordered against McDonald's, while Steel and Morris were ordered to pay the company £40,000 in damages.

The McLibel 2 refused to pay and instead launched legal proceedings against the UK government in September 2000. The European Court ruling on February 15 stated that there had been an unacceptable inequality between McDonald's and the McLibel 2 during the trial, and that the lack of procedural fairness and equality gave rise to a breach of the right to freedom of expression. They also said that the award of £40,000 damages to McDonald's was disproportionate.

The court recognized that there was a "strong public interest in enabling campaign groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment."

Steele and Morris were pleased with the verdict, though emphasized the role of grassroots struggle. "The McLibel campaign and the world-wide distribution of millions of anti-McDonald's leaflets had already proved that determined protests and defiance can undermine those who try to silence their critics, and render oppressive laws unworkable. The continually growing opposition to McDonald's and all it stands for is a vindication of those around the world who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business."

Previous Article    Next Article