Occupy leaders are claiming another victory, as they have apparently successfully shut down U.S. Bank’s UC Davis branch office.
According to a release from the university on Friday, US Bank told UC officials that it is terminating its agreements with the campus. In a March 1 letter to the Board of Regents, the bank stated its reason as the interference by protesters who intermittently blocked the door to the bank branch in the Memorial Union since January.
The bank chose to close during many of the protests, and, now, in a letter to account holders, the branch says it is “officially closed” (as of Feb. 28). The letter refers the approximately 2,500 account holders to U.S. Bank branches in Davis and Woodland.
However, UC officials said they believe the termination letter is premature, noting that the university had been in discussions with bank representatives about the future of the branch office. The university had hoped to resolve the situation in a manner that would enable the bank to resume operations while at the same time making allowance for law enforcement to prosecute proven violations of the California Penal Code and also allowing for peaceful protests.
U.S. Bank employees “were effectively imprisoned in the branch,” bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke said in his March 1 letter. He noted that employees felt they needed to call campus police to escort them from the branch.
Other protests on campus during this academic year have included an overnight occupation of Mrak Hall, tent encampments on the Quad, a two-week-long occupation of Dutton Hall and a four-day occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center.
“We’re disappointed that U.S. Bank has indicated that it wants to leave after UC Davis worked with students to find creative financial solutions during these difficult budget times,” said Associate Vice Chancellor Emily Galindo of Student Affairs.
In January and February, demonstrators had blocked the doors to the US Bank branch in the UC Davis Memorial Union. The blockades resulted in closure of the bank at times and involvement of the campus police.
According to an article in the Aggie back in January, “Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”
However, others disagreed.
ASUCD Senator Justin Goss told the Aggie, “The occupiers claim they are working for students, but they are actually disrupting funding for the same services they want to be improved.”
“Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover the University gets a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.
Last month, UC Davis had set up an “engagement team” that was made up of a police negotiator, professional mediator and Student Affairs representative, and they had visited the protest site regularly, warning protesters of the potential for criminal prosecution.
The Vanguard asked specific questions about the engagement team, but was instead given stock information.
“The members of the engagement team serve as communicators between student protesters and administration. We convey and solicit questions, information and responses to questions between those involved in the particular protest event. Our main function is to serve as conduits for information exchange. We engage in dialogue as a means to determine interests and facilitate greater understanding of perspectives in support of resolution,” the university told the Vanguard last week.
To date, the engagement team has provided the following information to protesters, the university spokesperson continued, “Memorandum of Understanding and Lease Agreement with US Bank, FAQ for the UC Davis – US Bank Partnership, Information on Rights & Responsibilities concerning peaceful protest at UC Davis (summary),Information on Rights & Responsibilities concerning peaceful protest at UC Davis (full notice), Student Judicial Affairs notification.”
“The Engagement Team has provided bank occupiers with verbal and written information explaining that violations of student conduct standards may be referred to the Student Judicial Affairs office. Such cases may be resolved informally or through a formal hearing process, with potential penalties ranging from counseling to dismissal,” a February 24 release from the university stated.
Donald Dudley, the Director of Student Judicial Affairs, declined to respond to questions about how protesters would be treated as opposed to other disciplinary issues.
While students could face expulsion, Mr. Dudley said that is a last resort and only used for repeated offenses.
Most often, students agree to take part of a process which results in some sort of formal or informal hearing.
“The choice of a disciplinary sanction depends on several factors such as does the student have prior violations, how serious is the violation, to what extent has the violation harmed others, and the level of intent,” Mr. Dudley told the Vanguard. He added, “Even serious disciplinary sanctions can be educational and provide an opportunity for personal growth.”
Student groups informed the Vanguard that they prefer to deal with Judicial Affairs rather than law enforcement.
However, the release on Friday indicates that UC Davis police had forwarded six cases to the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, recommending prosecution for violating Penal Code sections that make it a misdemeanor to “willfully and maliciously” obstruct the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place, or to intentionally interfere with any lawful business.
Mike Cabral, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, said on March 15 that the district attorney’s office had not yet completed its review of the case files – and that a decision on whether to prosecute is likely to come Monday or Tuesday (March 19 or 20). If the decision is made to go forward, the district attorney’s office will notify the suspects by mail, ordering them to appear in court, the university release continued.
UC Davis has referred the matter to outside counsel to evaluate the legal consequences of the bank’s termination of its agreements with the university.
Several banks maintain automated teller machines on campus, but U.S. Bank was the only one with an on-campus branch – one of 21 U.S. Bank branches on college campuses in 10 states.
In addition to operating the UC Davis branch office, U.S. Bank installed seven ATMs around the campus, supplied campus ID cards, offered a financial management seminar for incoming students and parents, and contributed financial support to student programs.
The agreements last year generated $167,000 for student programs. The bank had guaranteed annual payments of $130,000 to $780,000, based on the number of accounts activated, which could have meant nearly $3 million for student services over 10 years.
In the March 1, letter to the Regents, US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote, “U.S. Bank advised the Regents of their default resulting from the faculty and student protest at the Branch.”
Most provocatively, he called the employees virtual prisoners, writing, “The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters, were effectively imprisoned in the Branch.”
Protesters vehemently deny the claim, arguing that the employees were allowed access both in and out of the building.
Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”
“The Regents have refused to remove or arrest the persons participating in the illegal gathering even though the Regents have used available laws to disperse protestors who have congregated elsewhere on the University’s campuses,” he continued adding, “Instead of trying to disperse the illegal gathering, the Regents allowed the blockade to continue. It has become clear that the Regents will not disperse the protestors and are content to allow the blockade of the Branch to continue. U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss.”
Mr. Hoke writes, “In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it.”
The University, however, fired back in a letter from Greg Haworth, who noted that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, “The Bank’s position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease.”
It is mainly a breach of contract argument, in that the bank has not fulfilled its obligations under the lease for termination of contract.
They write, “The Bank has chosen not to send a written notice with respect to the acts of protesters outside the Branch, and is attempting to treat the January 13 letter as a notice of default with respect to conduct that had not yet occurred.”
More notably, “The Bank has not conducted itself in the spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement. The Regents asked repeatedly for the Bank’s assistance and collaboration in addressing the problems created by the protesters, and the Bank has either outright refused to provide such assistance or has delayed responding in a manner that has caused reasonable suspicion that the Bank was not genuinely interested in maintaining a long-term presence at the Davis campus.”
“We hope to be able to resolve this issue without conflict,” said Fred Wood, vice chancellor for student affairs, in February. “We encourage and support expressions of free speech on this campus, and make every effort to ensure that students’ voices can be heard on a range of issues.”
He added, “At the same time, we have an obligation to honor our contract with U.S. Bank and a responsibility to ensure that members of the campus community who have business to conduct at the bank, or have jobs at the bank, can safely enter and exit the branch.”
The university told the Vanguard that it will not have further comment on the bank closure in the near future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Occupy leaders are claiming another victory as they have apparently successfully shutdown U.S. Bank’s UC Davis branch office.[/quote]
Occupy leaders can “claim another victory”, when all they did was shoot themselves in the foot, to wit:
[quote]ASUCD Senator Justin Goss told the Aggie, “The occupiers claim they are working for students, but they are actually disrupting funding for the same services they want to be improved.”
“Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover the University gets a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.[/quote]
Secondly, Occupiers do not have the right to decide for others what type of funding arrangement a particular student wants to make –
[quote]According to an article in the Aggie back in January, “Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”[/quote]
Elaine: I find it interesting that you focus on the students but not the lack of fortitude by US Bank. They now leave themselves open across the country to be bullied. The comment about their employees being imprisoned is just pathetic (not to mention untrue). I think UCD has a great case against USB for breach of contract.
[quote]Mr. Hoke writes, “In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it.”
The University however fires back in a letter from Greg Haworth who notes that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, “The Bank’s position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease.”[/quote]
I think the bank has a lot stronger argument than the University…
I don’t think it is. But moreover, what good does this serve US Bank? Now they make themselves a target and they lose a huge contract for ten years and the students wouldn’t have lasted long.
“The Vanguard asked specific questions about the engagement team, but was instead given stock information.”
What do you mean here? What answers didn’t you find satisfactory?
It’s interesting the University might be fighting the bank to keep it on campus when it chose not to stop protestors from shutting down the banking operations by keeping student customers and employees from doing business with other. Sounds like constructive eviction to me.
“Now they make themselves a target….”
Obviously, the bank already was successfully targeted and the University could not or would not assure the bank could conduct business UCD now thinks is important. Why criticize the bank when this is the outcome the protesters wanted? UCD knew this and failed to fulfill its basic duty to allow the bank to do business on university property. How is this different than turning off power and water until the employees are driven out?
I think the bank has done exactly what it should. Its employees are put in situations that border on harassment, their business and service models are disrupted, and the university allows the demonstrators to block access. Perhaps the bank will agree to come back if the university eliminates the harassment, but that seems doubtful since the demonstrators believe they have the right to impinge on the rights of others. The losers are the students and the Occupy movement – I believe they will have less support from the students now, and the university loses money.
This will have almost no impact for the bank in other locations, because police will not allow a situation like this to exist in the real world.
I am a little confused by what looks like an apparent inconsistency to me.
If the protestors were indeed blocking entry and exit from the bank, as opposed to making it less convenient or unpleasant by their presence, why were they not arrested and removed ? I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?
[quote]I don’t think it is. But moreover, what good does this serve US Bank? Now they make themselves a target and they lose a huge contract for ten years and the students wouldn’t have lasted long.[/quote]
This is simple contract law. If one side breaches the contract, by making it impossible for the contract to be carried out (allowing students to block employees from entering/leaving), the contract becomes null and void. The University had an affirmative duty to remove protestors blocking the entrance, since the bank was on campus property, but failed to do so. I suspect the bank saw the writing on the wall, that they would be a continual target for protest, so decided to just close the branch and move off campus. I don’t blame them. The real losers in this are students who wanted to bank there, and the $$$ lost for student activities. If I were a student at UCD, I would be infuriated at the protestors…
[quote]I am a little confused by what looks like an apparent inconsistency to me. If the protestors were indeed blocking entry and exit from the bank, as opposed to making it less convenient or unpleasant by their presence, why were they not arrested and removed ? I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?[/quote]
I suspect the University is gun shy about interfering with any protest now, since the pepper-spraying incident, even tho they have a legal right to arrest the protestors. What this has done is empowered the protestors, who are now getting out of control. The more the protestors are allowed to get away with, the more brazen and obstructive they will become. My hope is other students will express their displeasure at the protestors. If I were a student, I would…
“Why criticize the bank when this is the outcome the protesters wanted? “
That’s precisely why I criticize the bank. They are being wimps and allowing themselves to be bullied.
“I suspect the University is gun shy about interfering with any protest now, since the pepper-spraying incident”
This is exactly why Rusty was wrong when he said on 11/19/11 that they nipped it in the bud. They didn’t nip anything in the bud, they opened the flood gates. Overreaction is just as harmful as underreaction.
[quote]That’s precisely why I criticize the bank. They are being wimps and allowing themselves to be bullied.[/quote]
That’s right, blame the victim and not the bully! Geeeeeeeeeeeze…. The bank has no obligation to put its employees in harm’s way…
To Adam Smith: Well said!
In fact, what the bank has done is turned the tables on the protestors. No longer do the protestors look like victims, but now they look like bullies. The bank on the other hand looks like the victim. The protestors just played right into the hands of the “enemy”…
Elaine: What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way?
[quote]Elaine: What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way?[/quote]
How about:
[quote]U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss.”[/quote]
Or this:
[quote]Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”[/quote]
First of all, employees should not have to run a gauntlet every time they want to go to work. I’m sure they would fear for their physical safety. Secondly they should not have to stay extra hours at work bc students would not allow them to go. Thirdly, that sort of emotional anxiety can cause life threatening physical illness. The bank has no obligation to put up with such behavior…
By the way, I have been through this sort of thing, at it is extremely unpleasant, unsettling, and if you don’t have a strong constitution, it can literally kill you…
That’s hearsay at best. The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office. There is no evidence of violence. No one is accused of committing acts of violence.
[quote]What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way? [/quote]I think the picture you posted would have many bank employees PERCEIVE that they might be in harms way. If 20-30 people walked back and forth for hours in front of your house, on the sidewalk (perfectly legal, as opposed to the USBank protesters), would you or any member of your household feel uncomfortable?
[quote]The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office.[/quote]You do not have any ‘evidence’ of the allowance of ‘full access’. That’s hearsay, at best.
Hpierce: I believe that private residences are afforded great privacy protection than a public business located in a public building.
Second, interestingly enough, the VP was not personally there to witness the incident, the protesters were. In a court, his statement would likely be stricken but the protesters statements not stricken.
[quote]I believe that private residences are afforded great privacy protection than a public business located in a public building. [/quote]Technically, the UCD land is NOT public property in the sense of public right of way (streets and sidewalks). The right to be on UCD land is “revocable at any time”… there are signs/plaques to this effect at many entrances to the campus. You, on the other hand, have no right to prohibit anyone from using the sidewalk in front of your residence, and neither are the police, unless they are violating some other ordinance/law.
“blame the victim”
I can’t let this comment pass. I have a hard time picture on of the largest companies in the world as a victim. If you want to argue that their employees are a victim, the employees didn’t make this call, I wonder if they would have chosen to close the bank.
[quote]”Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”[/quote]
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of. USB also has a reputation as being one of the best run banks in the country–in part because it was not as caught up in the subprime lending fiasco as BofA/Countrywide.
I used to support OWS but no more.
“…
The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office.
You do not have any ‘evidence’ of the allowance of ‘full access’. That’s hearsay, at best.”
It sounds to me as though both sides are engaging in hearsay.Too bad we dob’t have complete video footage of this as we do the pepper spraying. Any of you folks out there with smart phone footage ?
[quote]It sounds to me as though both sides are engaging in hearsay[/quote]Exactly. Which, outside a judicial proceeding, doesn’t bother me, per se. I get irritated when two (or more) sides engage in it, and then one accuses the other(s). That’s just hypocritical.
Thanks for giving us the great example of untended consequences. UC Davis will now be out millions in funding and more 99r;s will be unemployed, god work Occupy. Some of those jobs could have gone to students. If you could drown in irony there would be some floating occupiers. How does one provide unwavering support of the the UC occupiers especially when it gets this obvious. I guess someone has to do it.
[quote]Second, interestingly enough, the VP was not personally there to witness the incident, the protesters were. In a court, his statement would likely be stricken but the protesters statements not stricken.[/quote]
I’m betting there is video somewhere.
Can just about guarantee there is a video, if this bank branch used any security cameras like just about any bank/credit union I know of. But of course, even if the bank released the videos, there’d be at least a half dozen contributors to this site who would claim that the video was “doctored”.
[quote]I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?[/quote]
Yes, I have some thoughts.
Your analogy is pretty good.
The protestors blocked access to the bank completely for all customers. There is no dispute about that fact from either side. If protestors blocked access to an abortion clinic they would certainly be arrested.
In the United States we do not believe that government enforcement of laws governing protests should depend on the views of the protestors or the issue being protested. That would violate free speech protections.
Conclusion: Either these protestors need to be arrested or abortion clinic protestors can also block access without arrest. Which is it?
From my point of view, protestors who are breaking the law should be arrested regardless of their political persuasion. If the University is holding back on making appropriate arrests based on concern over the aftermath of the pepper spray incident, this is the error of the University, not the protestors. Protestors who break the law should be prepared for arrest and the consequences of their actions. However, those consequences should not include the use of excessive force. This seems to be a distinction that is at present eluding the campus authorities.
Let the civil suits begin — bank employees & patrons alike. The standard of proof in a civil suit is less than that of a criminal prosection.
Perchance, this may very well be the much needed “Object Lesson” certain the law breakers need to get their attention?
DG, when a business is forced to a fork in the road, and must decide between people or things, it seems prudent to side with the people…
RE: “Hearsay” comments, there is no current court case wherein anyone is trying to bring in an out of court statement to prove the truth of a matter.
“What this has done is empowered the protestors, who are now getting out of control. The more the protestors are allowed to get away with, the more brazen and obstructive they will become.”
I think that’s a good thing, empowering the previously powerless. More power to ’em! The university has been getting out of control for way too long; it’s high time someone gave it a reality check: re-prioritizing its budget for one thing: less money for administrators’ gilded paychecks, more to hire more professors and instructors; less money for building, more for books and computers…and so on and on and on.
“That’s hearsay at best. The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office.”
What’s your point, to suggest that all of the people whom the protestors kept from entering the bank were customers not employees? I can’t give you links, but trust me that I saw local tv news video of people being kept from entering the bank. Student were complaining about the tactics of the demonstrators.
To criticize the bank as chicken-hearted for making a fully justified business decision after the University didn’t act for this length of time is and odd assignment of responsibility. While you may hate Big Business, David, consider that USB’s massive numbers of offices is made up of local buildings with local employees with local customers.
It’s not the big bank policies that resulted in the closure; it’s what happened here. I’d suggest UCD forget this “breach of contract” attack and beg the bank to return at the point the university can guarantee a business can function.
medwoman’s observation is a good one: break the law, get arrested. I don’t mind cutting people a little slack when they have a history of considerate, nonviolent demonstration about civil rights matters. But, after demonstrators make their point, just do your job, UCD.
And, please, please don’t whine. Those who claim to be engaging in civil disobedience aren’t honoring the tradition if they complain about getting arrested, charged, tried, convicted and jailed.
“DG, when a business is forced to a fork in the road, and must decide between people or things, it seems prudent to side with the people…”
I don’t know what you mean by siding with people or things in this case.
“RE: “Hearsay” comments, there is no current court case wherein anyone is trying to bring in an out of court statement to prove the truth of a matter.”
That’s correct, I asked for evidence and she offered me the statement by the bank VP in the letter. I don’t consider that evidence.
“While you may hate Big Business, David, consider that USB’s massive numbers of offices is made up of local buildings with local employees with local customers.”
I don’t think you understand where I am coming from on here. I think it was a huge mistake for USB to leave. And I think it was a huge mistake for UCD not to arrest people for blocking the building. They should have been arrested and released. People who engage in civil disobedience ought expect to be arrested.
However, for USB to simply leave is cowardly and I have lost all respect for them.
I’d also note Hannah Arendt’s notation in her essay on civil disobedience suggests: “disobedience to the law can be justified only if the law breaker is willing and even eager to accept punishment for the act.”
The Occupunks protest all the wrong things and in doing so hurt their cause more than help it.
Dr. Wu got it exactly right. US Bank is one of the good guys. The Minneapolis-based bank is very well run. They took $7 billion in tarp money (really forced on them by the Obama Administration) in November 2008, and paid it back in June of 2009.
Wow, have I ever misread what you intended to write here. I apologize. We are so much in alignment about what almost everyone’s role has been and should be here, I’m astounded.
I don’t think the bank deserves the criticism, however. Maybe…if they’d bailed after a couple days, it might have shown some cowardice. On the other hand, when it gets to the point of constructive eviction for a month, the bank gets to leave. And, I don’t even like U.S, Bank for a bunch of check cashing, notarizing service, mortgage loan practice reasons.
[url]However, for USB to simply leave is cowardly and I have lost all respect for them.[/url]
I agree, it is cowardly. They should have pressed charges against the demonstrators. They should sue them in civil court for loss of business, the wages of their employees for the time they were paid but unable to work, etc.
But US corporations have a long tradition of cowardice. They continually cave in to leftist forces and try to curry favors from big government instead of standing for the virtues of a free market.
While the bank is cowardly, there is also an appropriate term for the blockaders here: bullies.
Boone said [i]”The Minneapolis-based bank is very well run. They took $7 billion in tarp money (really forced on them by the Obama Administration) in November 2008, and paid it back in June of 2009.”[/i]
Tarp was a Bush program. Obama took office on 20 January, 2009.
The Occupiers won. US Bank is gone. Get over it.
[quote] The Occupiers won[/quote]
Hopefully they will win some time in county jail.
[quote]”Tarp was a Bush program. Obama took office on 20 January, 2009.”[/quote]I suppose you’re going to say President Bush got us in debt by starting expensive wars without taxing us for them? And some massive Medicare drug plan? Is this some plan to get President Obama off the hook before the election?
I don’t think you understand where I am coming from on here. I think it was a huge mistake for USB to leave. And I think it was a huge mistake for UCD not to arrest people for blocking the building. They should have been arrested and released. People who engage in civil disobedience ought expect to be arrested.
Thoreau once wrote, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison…the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor.”
The idea that there should be an exception for civil disobedience missed the point of civil disobedience.
However, for USB to simply leave is cowardly and I have lost all respect for them.
What?!? I’m more than a little suprised at this position, since the vanguard is so supportive of the protests. I think if anyone is to blame, it is the university, who is not providing security for US Bank. but the reason they aren’t doing that is because they are afraid of what will happen if they put the police there: another pepper-spraying.. followed by lawsuits and they don’t want those. So they sit back and do nothing, allowing protests to go on with impunity. But people like the vanguard also bear some blame because you keep egging them on. You have spawned your own monster, Now you cannot control it.
US Bank cut a deal with UC Davis to have an exclusive bank branch on campus. Rather than a predatory lending platform for high loan rates they more likely saw this as a means to develop long term customers for their national brand providing students from all over with the special banking services required for students who are far from home. Remember UC students are young and on average will have higher earning power going forward because of their education level. So up to this point it all makes sense with U.S. Bank also providing the University with some much needed support that also can generate additional goodwill.
Where things start to fall apart is with their marketing. Student IDs now have a U.S. Bank logo on the back so it begins to seem as if the University is not just providing U.S. Bank a space it seems like they are delivering their students to U.S. Bank. Personally, I would resent that level of commercialization of my personal identification. As an example many of you might object to the Bank of America having an ad on the back of your drivers license. Rap that up with the whole privatization issue facing the University, high student debt loads and sky rocketing tuition and the smart business plans of U. S. Bank get mired in political problems unimaginable when the marketing department thought up this business plan.
Now, because of pepper, the university doesn’t want to send the cops in against the protesters, even though the facts are different. Rather than get into a long discussion of the differences suffice it to say interfering with the operation of a bank is quite different than being on the campus quad. Even though they could arrest them the old fashion way, by dragging them out, without anybody getting seriously hurt, the University is pretty gun shy about such things right now(pun intended).
US Bank seeing that their gambit to develop a customer base at UC Davis is going badly decides to get out. They have this ongoing protest, they can’t get the University to enforce the law, and, if it does, it likely will upset their business model anyway. They tell the university they want out and that they don’t want to pay. The University says hey we have a contract we want our money. The bank says sorry, blaming the University for not confronting the protesters, who they wish would just go away. If it ever got to court, and the easy bet is that it won’t, it would be hard for the University to demand the rent without arresting the protesters. After all you wouldn’t want the bank to act on its own, its why we have police to keep the peace in the first place.
The bottom line is that students are going to be forced to walk downtown to do any banking that can’t be done at an ATM. Next year the space on the back of student IDs might not say anything but then again maybe it will say Starbuck’s or something. Now if Occupy tries to get between students and their coffee watch out. And U.S. Bank will need to be a little less pushy if they want to try this marketing scheme at other universities. Its not a bad business plan it just was put in place at the wrong time.
US Bank symbol USB closed at 31.65/share on Friday. It pays 2.5% dividend and has a stock market capitalization of over $60 Billion.
Having stumbled into a documentary called “Maxed Out” on Showtime this morning, I have a hard time giving any bank credit for doing anything positive or productive on our campuses.
“You have spawned your own monster, Now you cannot control it.”
If that “you” is aimed at David, I think you are giving him far more power than he actually wields.
“What?!? I’m more than a little suprised at this position, since the vanguard is so supportive of the protests.”
You don’t understand the position, that’s fine. My wife about six years ago went to Houston, blocked the streets, and was arrested and spent three days in jail. That was her purpose of going. The expectation wasn’t that she would be allowed to grind the traffic of Houston to a halt. The point was to put pressure on a company that was denying health care and decent wages. As the result of their action, the janitors got a new contract. That’s how it is supposed to work.
I think it’s just as dangerous for authorities to unrespond to these things as it is for them to overrespond. They should have allowed the people to camp in the quad because it wasn’t interfering with business, even if you believe otherwise, raising the level of force to pepper spray was a grievous error. But now they are making the same error by failing to arrest the students for breaking the law. That’s just as bad. I don’t know if support or oppose their action, but regardless the expectation is that the university and police will do the appropriate thing.
“You have spawned your own monster, Now you cannot control it.”
I have had no role, I merely sit back and commentate on what transpires. As Medwoman suggests, you are giving credit for things I have neither done nor have the power to do. I respond: LOL.
DG wrote:[quote]I don’t know what you mean by siding with people or things in this case. [/quote]
So you disagree with USB’s decision to make a decision that prioritized their employees [“People”] over a minor contract [“Thing(s)”]?
Really?
[quote]I have had no role…[/quote]
Is that a fact?
vanguard: “I think it’s just as dangerous for authorities to unrespond to these things as it is for them to overrespond. They should have allowed the people to camp in the quad because it wasn’t interfering with business,”
that isn’t entirely accurate. the lawn is damaged and has to be re-seeded, which costs money. what they have done is camped on the quad to see if they can get away with it, and if so, step it up, which they did by camping inside Mrak hall afterward and that very much interfered with business there.
vanguard:” even if you believe otherwise, raising the level of force to pepper spray was a grievous error.”
no, they got what they deserved. I was lmao. thank you.
vanguard: “But now they are making the same error by failing to arrest the students for breaking the law. That’s just as bad.”
lol, and the vanguard would not have criticized them if they did that? seems as if you are placing the cops in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario.” may as well spray them if thats the case. go the extra mile.
vanguard: “I don’t know if support or oppose their action,”
now wait a minute. If you think they should have been arrested, how can you say you aren’t sure if you support or oppose?
I think we all know what David’s reaction would’ve been if the police had forcefully removed the OccuPunks from the bank.
AdRemmer
“…
I have had no role…
Is that a fact?”
This exchange seems to exemplify a common current tactic which is to deliberately confuse a politically motivated event with the medias coverage of that event. It seems to me that this is a strategy frequently, although not exclusively, used by more conservative folks when blaming the “elitist ” or left leaning media for coverage of events of which they do not approve. While I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize the content of any article with which one disagrees, I think it is unreasonable, and costs in credibility, to state that the author is in some way responsible for the event.
So, if you, or anyone else has information regarding the Vanguards causal role in any of the on campus protests, I would be very interested to see it.
[quote]dmg: Second, interestingly enough, the VP was not personally there to witness the incident, the protesters were. In a court, his statement would likely be stricken but the protesters statements not stricken.[/quote]
The VP may not have been there, but his employees were. And those same employees would be called in to testify in court. I suspect their credibility would stand up against/overpower the “credibility” (NOT) of the protestors any day of the week.
[quote]dmg: I can’t let this comment pass. I have a hard time picture on of the largest companies in the world as a victim. If you want to argue that their employees are a victim, the employees didn’t make this call, I wonder if they would have chosen to close the bank.[/quote]
Obviously I don’t know, but I could hazard a guess that it was EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS that necessitated the closing of the bank branch. The bank manager and tellers did not want to continue working under the conditions of being perpetually harassed going in and out of work. And having been through it myself, I don’t blame them.
Rusty49
“I think we all know what David’s reaction would’ve been if the police had forcefully removed….”
Indeed we do know, because David has said outright that he supports the arrest of protestors who are breaking the law and do not heed police instruction to disperse, as do I . For me, there is no dishonor in being arrested for breaking a law that you believe to be immoral or unjust. The key is being willing to accept appropriate consequences, including jail time for your chosen course of action. It does not however, including being subjected to excessive use of force.
[quote]Briankenyon: I think that’s a good thing, empowering the previously powerless. More power to ’em! The university has been getting out of control for way too long; it’s high time someone gave it a reality check: re-prioritizing its budget for one thing: less money for administrators’ gilded paychecks, more to hire more professors and instructors; less money for building, more for books and computers…and so on and on and on.[/quote]
Have the protests resulted in stopping tuition increases? In stopping the salary increases of top administration? Stopped building new facilities at the University? No. What DID the protests do? Stopped money benefitting student activities from coming through private enterprise – hurting STUDENTS; stopped convenient on-campus banking for students – hurting STUDENTS.
[quote]Briankenyon: The Occupiers won. US Bank is gone. Get over it.
JR: Hopefully they will win some time in county jail.[/quote]
I would say the STUDENTS have been the LOSERS, in convenience, in funding for student activities, and the PR war.
[quote]dmg: However, for USB to simply leave is cowardly and I have lost all respect for them.[/quote]
I suspect that is a minority viewpoint… just my opinion…
[quote]medwoman: From my point of view, protestors who are breaking the law should be arrested regardless of their political persuasion. If the University is holding back on making appropriate arrests based on concern over the aftermath of the pepper spray incident, this is the error of the University, not the protestors. Protestors who break the law should be prepared for arrest and the consequences of their actions. However, those consequences should not include the use of excessive force. This seems to be a distinction that is at present eluding the campus authorities.
[/quote]
Because the University has not even been able to successfully resolve the pepper-spraying incident, I don’t blame the University for being hesitant. However, my hope is they are beginning to realize that failing to act can also have dire consequences just as problematic as overreacting…
“I think we all know what David’s reaction would’ve been if the police had forcefully removed the OccuPunks from the bank.”
Your own languages ruins the force of your comment. By inserting the term “forcefully” into it, you have sapped your comment of any particular insight. Now you give me the clear and unambiguous comment: it depends on what you mean by forcefully.
“And those same employees would be called in to testify in court.”
That’s true but guess what, we have no idea what they would say. We only know what their bosses have said. That’s why even outside of court, hearsay is a problem.
Medwoman: It’s worth noting that here is an article from May 1, 2007 about students who were arrested, find where I’m critical of the police for arresting them: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=416:mass-protests-and-arrests-in-davis-over-food-workers-contract&catid=62:organized-labor&Itemid=116&cpage=30[/url])
In fact, I even praised them in a commentary later in that week: link ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=421:davis-police-compare-favorably-in-their-actions-on-tuesday-compared-with-the-problems-in-los-angeles&catid=54:law-enforcement&Itemid=87[/url])
“I suspect that is a minority viewpoint… just my opinion…”
Never stopped me before, has it?
David
Thanks for the links. And I await apologies to you from those who stated “they knew” what your attitude would be, and who have called upon you to apologize for misstatements. I suspect that I should not hold my breath while waiting.
[quote]That’s true but guess what, we have no idea what they would say. We only know what their bosses have said. That’s why even outside of court, hearsay is a problem.[/quote]
Oh I think we can make a pretty educated guess as to what the employees would say, just as you made a pretty educated guess as to what the protestors would say…
David, how about explaining how you put these links in your reports and comments. Whenever I cut and paste a link, then use the URL button, the link is converted to a truncated, unworkable blob. Are there instructions somewhere telling us how to use the buttons, including the one for illustrations?
That is a good idea. Perhaps this week if I have time I can do a tutorial
For now:
bracket = [ ]
The formula is:
bracket url=domain.name end bracket TEXT bracket /url end bracket
If you hit the “link” button above, stick the text in the middle and add an “=” and the domain inside the first bracket.
…
The Occupiers won, US Bank is gone.
“Hopefully they will win some time in county jail.”
For exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and freedom of speech?
JustSaying: [i]”Having stumbled into a documentary called “Maxed Out” on Showtime this morning, I have a hard time giving any bank credit for doing anything positive or productive on our campuses.”[/i]
Aw come on now. Look what the liberals and socialists did to Argentina’s banking system. Is that what you want?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999–2002)[/url]
This is my prediction about the “occupiers.” They will try to occupy the portion of the Silo leased and used by Carl’s Jr. and Pizza Hut. As long as they “win” one they will try to win more.
[quote]For exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and freedom of speech?[/quote]
The right to freedom of speech is not unfettered, and comes with time, place, manner restrictions…
ERM
“The right to freedom of speech is not unfettered, and comes with time, place, manner restrictions…”
Agreed. And it is the responsibility of the authorities to enforce appropriate sanctions for breaking the law. I believe that there is a place in society for peaceful civil disobedience. It entails the willingness of protesters to accept the legal consequences of their actions. It does not make them responsible for the actions of the authorities if those authorities chose to, or do not chose to enforce the law. That is the sole responsibility of
the authority.