Who were really very disappointed at this. You come to college and think that people here at UCLA care about you as students, but apparently a labor dispute can’t be pushed back to give the students a break. The union has actually asked ALL the commencement speakers to refrain from speaking at UCs unless it is resolved before graduation (fat chance). The future leaders of America from the class of 2008 will have a bad taste in their mouths from labor for this.

and my friends and I are pissed. Clinton was the only reason we were going to the big graduation and not just our department ceremonies. Many of my friends from NorCal also had family coming in a day (or 2) earlier than they were to see Bill speak. This doesnt even touch on the fact that getting more than 2 tickets was impossible and people were selling them for upwards of 100 dollars.

I have to say that I was looking forward to going this Friday to my wife’s graduation to watch my hero Bill Clinton speak. My wife was looking forward to this event as well.

However, I’m not going to blame labor as if they are the ones who hold all the cards. I will never cross a picket-line and I think this teaches the students a lesson: The working man and woman should still be respected. How often do you hear that message today?

I’ll go back to paying 5 bucks a gallon for gas in this grand scheme to redistribute America’s wealth to the oil companies by way of a paltry stimulus check and curse the little guy for this minor victory.

it was completely inappropriate for UCLA to essentially directly sponsor the Clinton campaign (Clintons have one account, borrowed from their own account to fund the campaign). and Bill has nothing to do with UCLA. i would also have thought it completely inappropriate for obama or mccain to speak here. it was a poor decision on ucla’s part.

Frankly I think Kareem should speak every year, but I’m very happy that my graduation speaker will be the chancellor instead.

I graduated a quarter early (actually 2 and 2/3 years late after my undistinguished stint in the Army), and was working for an insurance company during commencement. I didn’t know who the speaker was, and felt no need to participate in the ceremony. I knew that I had graduated, as did my parents, and that’s really all that mattered to me and my family at the time.

I haven’t figured out why I participated in graduation exercises from law school or MBA school. I guess it just seemed like the thing to do.

Anyway, I expressly opt out of the discussion of who’s the worst sinner – labor or management. That debate (along with politics and religion) will not be solved here, and will just cause discord within the Bruin family.

A lot of what you need to know about the larger labor unions can be seen in the auto industry…. the newer players (all foreign I believe) came to the U.S. and started their businesses with non-union labor. Relatively speaking, they are flourishing and the Big 3 are hemorraging $$. Last month Honda Motors sales increased 15% and that division of Honda (not counting the motorcycles, other engines, and Acura) outsold all parts of Chrysler for the first time. We all know about the “great American success story”, Toyota, and how innovative they have been with their relatively new manufacturing techniques that have been copied by many other manufacturers.
Bill

The union should not have asked commencement speakers not to attend. Its a stupid move for them because it makes them look petty. What are they accomplishing by doing this. They should allow the commencement to take place. These students worked four years for their degrees, and they are not the ones you are having a dispute with.

Someone needs to get these clowns to sparten up.

As a member of the WGA, I can tell you that nobody wanted to strike, nobody wanted anybody to miss their favorite shows, but to make a really long story short, the producers had been d-cking us around since our last strike in 1988, so they left us no choice. And frankly, the strike should’ve happened 10 years ago, but management always claimed they would negotiate in good faith, but never did. So, we had the lose/lose strike, and in the end, management still won on all the main points, threw the writers a few crumbs, and weakened the union.

Of course, nobody has any sympathy for white collar workers (although most writers don’t make as much as you think and the work comes and goes), but in this case, as far as these poor workers go, these people are just trying to put food on the table. It’s too bad the students have to suffer an inconvenience, but for too long the balance between management and labor has been shifted to management’s favor. There needs to be balance and cooperation, and it just isn’t there.

Most students are UCLA, including myself, are not informed regarding the specific circumstances involved in this protracted dispute between labor and management. I remember during my freshman year there was a similar dispute in which the students were asked to avoid eating in the dining halls for one day in order to support the strike and the workers. This was not a hardship at all, and my friends and I gladly avoided the dining halls. I think students are generally more liberal and support adequate worker compensation.

I understand that the effectiveness of the workers’ negotatiations during disputes like this is strongly tied to strength of the picket line. However I do not understand how Clinton speaking would have affected the negotations at all, considering that his absence does not cause any great inconvenience to UCLA management. Clinton can give his 30 minute speech without any worker crossing the picket line for even an hour.

Consequently I do not understand the arguments made above in terms of the necessity for fair wages. Arguments about what constitute fair aside, the person giving the commencement speech has no obvious effect on the picketing either way. For example, the writer’s strike directly affected the ability of companies’ bottom line by threatening the release of new shows and episodes, and indirectly affected viewers. Guests of shows were right to avoid crossing the picket line because that would directly allow companies to generate new content without writers. If the actions of the workers indirectly affected us (e.g. dining hall), and directly affected managemet, I would be glad to extend my support. However, the lack of a commencement speaker directly affects the students and indirectly affects UCLA management—if at all!

In conclusion, I am disappointed not to be able to hear Clinton speak. Since his wife’s campaign is no longer active, and he is speaking solely as an ex-president, I do not feel jjreicher’s arguments are valid. Lastly, I do not feel any warmth towards the labor side of the dispute.

I find this whole dispute somewhat ironic. You have liberal (labor unions) vs liberal (Clintonistas who want to hear him speak). A version of liberals eating their own young.

Maybe you all should “come over to the dark side”.