Marriott boycott sparks debate; preservation, privatization get action

摘要

Although discussion of the Marriott Hotel boycott took up more than half of ALA Council's four-hour final meeting at Annual Conference, the debate over whether the Association should require a boycott clause in its hotel contracts ended in referral. Issues such as preservation, privatization, and continuing education got less time but more action from Council during its three sessions at the Moscone Center in San Francisco June 17, 19, and 20. The long Marriott debate grew out of a resolution (CD#61) brought forward by councilor Al Kagan asking that all hotel contracts contain both a strike clause (as is current practice) and a boycott clause, "providing the flexibility to void contracts where labor bodies have endorsed either type of organized action." Numerous councilors lined up at the microphones to take sides on the issue. ALA Executive Director William Gordon was asked to provide details about how the policy would affect hotel contract negotiations. He pointed out that the penalty to withdraw from the Marriott over the boycott would have been dollar 465,000, but admitted that if there had been a strike there would have been no penalty because there is a strike clause in the contract. ALA President-elect Maurice Freedman took issue with Gordon's assertion that a boycott clause would make ALA less desirable to hotels and conference centers, saying that ALA is a very attractive organization to convention cities. Others wanted to know if other organizations include a boycott clause in their contracts, and councilor Sarah Pritchard said that the American Public Health Association does. After prolonged debate, councilor Karen G. Schneider moved that the resolution be referred to the Conference Committee. "This is not a move to tank the resolution," she said. "This is a move that is from my own conflict as a former shop steward with local 400 right here in San Francisco and yet as somebody who is sensitive to budget issues.