The students requested a meeting to voice our concerns with the Dean of Chatham College for Women, Anne Skleder and the Vice President of Student Affairs, David Philips. They forwarded our request to Walt Fowler, who wrote,
“As you may or may not be aware, the University has filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board that are directly related to these issues, including the question of whether it is a violation of Federal labor law for union representatives to involve students as a means of influencing the outcome of labor contract negotiations. Because these legal questions have not yet been resolved, any discussion between you, as students, and us, as university officials, could jeopardize the contract negotiations that are now taking place. For this reason, we must decline your invitation to meet.”
Filed under: Labor | Tags: card check, democracy, Frank Greco, Miami University, NLRB
Chatham’s skilled trades workers would like to switch from SEIU to IUOE using the card check method. Students witnessed Frank Greco say that Chatham would only allow the workers to switch by NLRB election.
The following is reposted from Picketline: Social Justice and Democracy in Miami, a faculty blog about labor struggles at the University of Miami.
The janitors are asking UNICCO to agree to recognize a union if a majority of the workers sign cards saying that that’s what they want. This is a perfectly legal method of union recognition and is called a majority sign-up card check recognition process (or some abbreviation thereof). But it only works if the employer, UNICCO in this case, agrees. UNICCO has not agreed and it favors another method of union recognition, a secret ballot election run by the federal National Labor Relations Board. UNICCO signifies its preference for this method by its slogan: “Let ‘em vote.”
Isn’t an election preferrable to any other method? No. Democracy is based on free choice. Secret ballot elections are good only insofar as they promote freedom of choice (which they obviously do in many circumstances). In this case, however, they do not. Here are some reasons why NLRB elections are not preferrable to card check.
1) A recent academic study shows that workers are subject to a lot more intimidation by employers (and slightly more by pro-union forces) in NLRB elections than in card check. And there are many ways in which the mechanics of an NLRB election fall short of democratic standards. In particular, in an NRLB election, only the employer has access to exactly who and how many will vote; only the employer can hire or fire the voters, and raise or lower their pay; only the employer has unrestricted access to the voters, including the possibility of one-on-one anti-union meetings. By contrast, card check is usually accompanied by a declaration of neutrality by both the union and the employer.
2) Card check is more representative. In an NLRB election, the decision is made only by a majority those who vote. In card check, if a worker does not fill out a card, that is taken as a no vote. Hence card check requires a majority of all the workers to succeed.
3) Card check is actually the norm. The New York Times reports that last year, 70% of all private sector workers unionized were unionized by card check or related methods. UNICCO itself uses card check frequently. The SEIU estimates that of UNICCO’s 8,000 unionized employees, about 90% were unionized by card check or related process, only 10% by NLRB election. UNICCO puts the figure at 50%, but even on their figure, it can hardly be claimed that card check is unusual.
4) It is common for NLRB elections to be accompanied by huge delays. In many cases, after successful unionization votes in NLRB elections, it has taken up to five, six or even seven years before negotiations for a contract with the union began.
5) There is in congress a bill moving forward called the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 842 and H.R. 1696). If this bill becomes law, employers like UNICCO would be required to accept a successful card check process. The bill is currently co-sponsored by 40 senators and 200 representatives, from both parties.
6) The NLRB will not even hold an election until the existing unfair labor practice charges against UNICCO are resolved. There is no knowing when this will be.
7) 57% of the UNICCO employees at UM have said they want to be allowed to decide whether to unionize by the card check method.
Posted by faculty for workplace justice on April 7, 2006
Additional information about card check versus NLRB elections:
Filed under: Labor | Tags: faculty, Harvard, hunger strike, sit-in, University of Miami
Filed under: Labor | Tags: Dawn, democracy, Frank Greco, Labor, Robert Dubray, staff, unions, workers
Last semester the student coalition focused on diversity, and we had some degree of victory at the end of the semester, though the fight is not over. We will have to wait and see what this diversity committee is like and plans to accomplish. I anticipate us pushing the university further.
This semester has started out on a different path. A few students were contacted by a union organizer to talk about union organizing at Chatham. There is a three part issue, one part being the skilled trade workers desire to switch unions. The trade workers are currently represented by a union that doesn’t specialize in skilled labor. There are nine skilled trades workers employed by Chatham. Every single one of them would like to go to a union that specializes in representing skilled laborers. They have been trying to make the switch for five years.
There are two ways that the switch could be carried out. The easiest way would be for Chatham University to recognize the wishes of the workers and allow the workers to switch. The second way to make the switch would be for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to come in and hold an election among the nine workers. This process could take up to a year, during which, the workers would not be covered under any union and could lose their jobs. The university is using democratic rhetoric about how the election is the only democratic way to solve this dispute.
Today, the workers and union organizers organized an action that several students attended to show solidarity with the workers and to witness the way in which administrators are interacting with the workers. In advance, the workers all signed cards that said they wanted to switch unions. After their shift ended they all marched into a meeting, followed by the students. There were three Chatham administrators there: Frank Greco, Robert DuBray and Dawn. As soon as Greco saw the students enter the room he packed up all of his belongings. The worker spokesperson explained that all of the trade workers were present (except for one guy who had a death in the family) and wanted to switch unions. He put the cards on the table in front of Greco.
There were some heated exchanges where Greco said it was “wrong” to involve students. He said that the only democratic way to resolve the issue was to bring in the government for a vote. The union organizers asked Greco why he was refusing to budge, when other colleges and universities in the area had allowed their workers to switch unions when it was clear that the workers wanted to do so. Greco responded by saying, “We’re not every other university in Pittsburgh.” He proceeded to pick up his stuff and walk out of the room, telling DuBray and Dawn to follow. DuBray and Dawn looked extremely distraught, they were slow to collect their belongings and exit the room. Perhaps they secretly sympathize with the workers, or they were just caught completely off guard and were slow to act.
I’m 100% confidant that the workers are not being coerced for reasons that probably shouldn’t be made public at this point.
I’m constantly torn between advertising Chatham as a progressive institution where radical students will feel comfortable (I want more activists to come to school here), and exposing the insane stuff that Chatham does to oppress its students, faculty and staff. In a way, witnessing events like what happened today, radicalizes the student population. Administrators are feeding the very activism they wish to squash.
