- Subscribe to the Daily Gazette »
The Daily Gazette on:
Memorandum of Understanding at Town Center West
By Swarthmore Labor Action ProjectMay 5, 2011
To the Members of the Board of Managers:
In light of President Chopp’s recent “Statement of Principles,” responding to the Swarthmore Labor Action Project’s (SLAP) ongoing efforts to ensure protections that would help create fair, dignified working conditions and just compensation for workers at the proposed hotel at Town Center West, we wanted to take this opportunity to express our deep disappointment at the administration and Board’s decision not to make a concrete commitment to such protections.
When we persist to ensure that certain standards of democracy and fairness be maintained, both at this institution and in any of its corporate or financial ventures, it is always because we believe our request to be ethically consistent with the values we collectively hold so dear. We neither aim to financially compromise the College, nor hold the administration or the Board to unrealistic standards. We think it appropriate that, especially as the College pursues new initiatives, such as for-profit hostelry, the College will implement safeguards to not just state but ensure our Quaker values will be promoted and upheld moving forward.
This is why the administration and the Board’s decision against neutrality and workers’ choice to have a majority sign-up process, and failure to come up with a creative, comparable solution, is so upsetting. We value the College’s public statements on their website and recent editorials stating their support for the principles of “fair labor standards” and “the right of employees to unionize,” as these principles reflect the Quaker values we uphold as a community. However, President Chopp’s recent editorial implies a vision completely at odds with the College’s principles—a workplace environment in which employers have nothing to stop them from forcefully preventing workers from organizing freely and having a voice in their workplace. In addition, the statement misrepresents our efforts and repeats unsubstantiated, anti-union rhetoric, ignoring the empirical evidence supporting majority-sign up as a fairer, more peaceful process.
While the administration did not agree to attend a public question-and-answer session this semester, where members of our community would have had the opportunity to ask questions clarifying President Chopp’s position and its implications as outlined in her “Statement of Principles,” a group of approximately ten students did meet with President Chopp, Vice President Eldridge, Dean Braun, and Vice President for Human Resources Melanie Young on April 20th. We were told that a public question-and-answer session was not “feasible” this spring, but at the end of the meeting, President Chopp signaled that there may be time for such a community forum at the beginning of the 2011 Fall semester.
In the absence of any binding, written commitment to the principles put forward, and being refused the right to record this meeting in order to present our community with an accurate representation of administrators’ responses, we have created a memorandum of understanding based on our engagement with the administration thus far as well as the points of clarification that arose from the April meeting.
We hope that you will review this memorandum and that we may move together toward committed action to translate our principles into practice.
Sincerely,
Danielle Noble
on behalf of The Swarthmore Labor Action Project (SLAP)
Memorandum of Understanding of the Practices, Compensation, and Conditions at Swarthmore College’s Proposed Town Center West Project
1. The College will make certain that all employees of Town Center West will be covered by its full living wage and benefits policy, meaning that even if the College is not the direct employer, the College will ensure that the people working there will be paid in accordance with the College’s pay scale, receive the same quality health benefits, and will maintain the same commitment to staff professional development (e.g. tuition reimbursement). The employer may opt to compensate employees more than the College’s minimum, but their wages and benefits will be consistent with the College’s existing standards.
2. Neither the College nor any employer of Town Center West will intimidate staff or delay any unionization efforts. As part of that commitment, the College agrees not to hire and will prohibit any potential hotel operator from hiring a union avoidance firm or consultant (i.e. any professional individual or firm with expertise in the area of anti-union strategy and tactics to guide or implement a campaign to counter any unionization efforts).
3. If a majority of workers, either on campus or at Town Center West, request the employer’s permission to use a majority sign-up process to organize, such a request may possibly be considered, but there is no guarantee that workers’ right to self-determination will be respected.
4. A grievance procedure will be developed and implemented in order to handle any concerns about labor practices or the work environment that may arise.
5. Vice President for Facilities and Services Stu Hain will make sure the College’s values and commitments stated in this list and in recent editorials will be written into any contact negotiated with any potential employer.
6. Vice President Hain and Vice President Young will be responsible for oversight of the contract and contractor if at any point these commitments fail to be upheld or are violated in any way.
Elowyn
May 6, 2011 at 11:39 am
This is great.
I don't see how President Chopp could possibly believe much longer that if she and the rest of the administration remain evasive and refuse to back up our schools' values with action, the students will get bored and move on. Many of us are here because this isn't that kind of school, and the longer we watch as the necessary steps to ensure just treatment in the workplace are avoided the more upset and active the student body will become.
As a new president, Chopp is taking a serious risk in refusing to defend workers' rights. Each day this continues, less of the student body will be able to take her at her word when she talks about "ethical intelligence." A leader needs to do more than talk about social justice and equality: she needs to be able to fight for them.
I love this school, and I dearly want to be able to see the student body and the administration as a team working to strengthen this community. In some cases I already see that happening, but on this important issue all action has come from the students, while the administration has been painfully evasive.
I hope the administration–Specifically President Chopp and Vice President Hain–is able to recognize that workers' rights are something not only students have the responsibility to care about. Swarthmore should be a community leader and example. It's time to make that a reality.
I know the students will win this eventually… my only hope, for the administration's sake, is that it is able to recognize its own responsibilities in time to become a partner in the effort.
Lisa
May 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm
As someone who has long been on the fence about this issue, I have still yet to see conclusive "empirical evidence" that majority sign-up is the most fair method of union polling.
If Swarthmore agrees to this reasonable memorandum–which is far more balanced than the unconstructive opening rhetoric of the editorial–then why would secret ballot be unfair? I know about historical trends of employer intimidation, but those trends are easily countered by both common sense and an explicit commitment to neutrality (which is not the same as public balloting).
I know and greatly respect people from both sides, in SLAP and in the administration. But I wish everyone would trust each other, at least cautiously, until proven otherwise.
Student in SLAP
May 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm
If it wasn't yet clear, the Memorandum of Understanding is a written document describing the verbal commitments President Chopp, Dean Braun, Vice President Young, and Vice President Eldridge conveyed verbally at the April 20 meeting with students. We took very careful notes, and this document simply puts the verbal commitments they made and the mutual agreement arising from our dialogue into writing. The MOU reflects our understanding of the facts at hand regarding the College's position based on what President Chopp and the other members of her senior staff stated in that most recent meeting, which gave them the occasion to elaborate upon and clarify aspects of the "Statement of Principles" in response to student questions.
-Student in SLAP
SLAP ally
May 6, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Lisa–
The secret ballot could still be unfair precisely because there is no explicit commitment to neutrality, which had been SLAP's ask all along. Employers often intimidate workers leading up an election in an effort to dissuade them from voting pro-union. An explicit agreement to neutrality on the part of the College would ensure that such intimidation would not take place no matter what. It doesn't matter that much whether there's a secret ballot as opposed to majority sign-up; the problem is when you have one of those but no neutrality. The lack of neutrality is SLAP's problem with the current situation.
I'm sorry if I explained anything you already knew. I wasn't sure where exactly your confusion was, so I may have over-explained a bit. Hope it helped.
a senior
May 6, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Lisa–
Part of what's so disappointing is that Swarthmore College administrators have not yet even made an explicit commitment to neutrality. It really wouldn't cost them anything to put something in writing saying they (and any on-campus employer) would maintain a strictly neutral position–that the employer would advise employees that it welcomes their selection of a collective bargaining agent if they wish to organize.
Something as simple as saying the College or the employer would not question employees about their union activities/membership or conduct one-on-one captive audience meetings with employees to discuss the union or unionization efforts would help create this neutral atmosphere. As you point out, historical trends give us ample reason to put these protections in place.
And, though people generally regard Swarthmore College as a good employer and a good place to work, some of that same employer intimidation has occurred here in our little bubble in the past, at least that's what I've learned from talking to staff members who have been here several years and experienced it. I think what SLAP is trying to do is just make sure that Swarthmore College remains a good place to work, especially if this private hotel company is coming in…
Maurice G. Eldridge
May 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm
The open letter from SLAP to the College's Board of Managers does not accurately reflect their conversation with members of the administration and the proposed Memorandum of Understanding attached
to it suggests that the College has not taken a concrete position on our shared commitment to setting positive working conditions for
College employees and for anyone working on our campus.
The Statement of Principles published for the whole of our community(and available at http://www.swarthmore.edu/x32226.xml)is
both concrete and clear. It affirms the College's philosophies about work place conditions, including, but not limited to, good wages,positive and constructive relationships between managers and staff; and every employee's right to make un-coerced decisions about joining a union or not. In conversation with members of SLAP on April 20 we
affirmed our intention be held accountable to these principles by the broader community. The five principles stated there by President Chopp
are as follows:
1. Every employee will work in a safe and healthy environment.
2. Every employee will be provided wages consistent with the College's compensation policies.
3. Every employee will have the right to voice his or her opinion and engage others in free and open discussion with full, uncensored information relevant to any choice they may need to make in order to make an informed decision.
4. Every employee will be respected for his or her right to make un-coerced decisions about joining a union or not.
5. Every employee will have the right to raise concerns about his or her working conditions and to have those grievances addressed fully and impartially.
To state the obvious, the principles mean that we will not allow intimidation of any kind, by anyone, of workers who want to speak to unions, we will advise employees that we support their right of collective bargaining, we will not question anyone about union activities and memberships and we certainly will not allow any one-on-one captive audience meetings with employees to discuss the union or unionization efforts or for any other reason.
We look forward to further community meetings and
conversations about the Town Center West project this fall.
Maurice
Maurice G. Eldridge '61
VP, College and Community Relations
Executive Assistant to the President
Swarthmore College
silly
May 7, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Why does SLAP keep slapping itself in the face? I mean, seriously, the issue has been discussed. There is A LOT less support for you guys among the student body than you pretend you have. Most students don't care. Of the rest, I have heard rather mixed opinions. This is Swarthmore College, not a Chicago meatpacking facility.
Also, voting down Maurice Eldridge's response is really mature.
people need jobs
May 7, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Oh my lord you guys. The college is a pretty freakin' sweet place to work, and it is clear to me that the hotel would be too. You know what the potential workers need the most? JOBS. To get money to enable their survival. Trying to stall the project is really just hurting the future employees, which should go against any of SLAP's core beliefs.
As silly said, most students don't care. But some of us think it would be great to have an inn on campus and it would help the economy and indeed individuals to create jobs there.
SLAP ally
May 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Statement of Principles sounds pretty good, if the college will actually commit to them, but I think it also makes sense that SLAP wanted more details, as the SoP is pretty vague. I also think it completely makes sense that SLAP would want to have those details public in terms of having public accountability. The college's principles are all great if it sticks to them, but a) details are good, and b) accountability is good. If the college were actually committed to the principles, a) and b) would not be issues, and SLAP's effort to get them would not be a problem. The fact that SLAP is getting criticism for doing something that the college says is completely in line with its values makes me wonder if something fishy is afoot in Denmark.
Will Lawrence
May 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm
@silly: "This is Swarthmore College" is not an argument. It doesn't mean anything in this context. Believe it or not, the College doesn't automatically take the right side on every social issue. We talk the talk pretty well, but it often fails to translate into concrete action.
All SLAP is doing is holding the administration accountable for its stated values. Yes, the College is a good place to work, largely because of the thousands of student volunteer hours that went into the Living Wage Campaign and other campaigns. Let's never forget that STUDENT ACTIVISTS made the living wage happen, over the objections of some administrators at the time. SLAP follows in the legacy of those activists.
When the administration finally puts the values it preaches into writing, it will be because of SLAP's continued efforts to make this a visible issue.
Dougal Sutherland
May 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm
For the record: Maurice's comment from yesterday afternoon was not voted down, it just hadn't been approved by a site admin yet. (Comments made from off-campus, not-logged-in users aren't automatically approved, since they are relatively frequently spam.)
silly
May 9, 2011 at 4:28 am
Even if the college didn't pay a living wage (which is a misnomer), it would be a good place to work. That is not to say that it's not a good thing it is paying these wages, rather that you guys make what are generally good working conditions seem like slave labor.
Alix Gould-Werth '07
May 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm
After reading about President Chopp's commitment to the values that drew me to Swarthmore in the first place, I had high hopes for the direction the college would take on labor rights going forward. Unfortunately, it looks like the college continues to follow the same pattern of issuing eloquent statements but not putting in place institutional practices and concrete commitments that ensure that abstract values translate into good working conditions.
For those who are curious about neutrality agreements/majority sign up, this is the best study I am familiar with: Eaton, A.E. and J. Kriesky (2009). "NLRB Elections Versus Card Check Campaigns: Results of a Worker Survey." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 62. No. 2, p. 157.
HK '06
May 9, 2011 at 2:37 pm
As someone who was around when the Living Wage policy was put in place, I'm glad to see that students are still working hard to ensure that the College lives up to its stated values. I know that what the administration says is often not the same as what it actually does, and I applaud these students for holding its members accountable.
Swarthmore may be a relatively good employer, but simply because it's better than others doesn't mean it's genuinely fair or just. The Living Wage policy was certainly a victory for economic and racial justice, but it's important to remember that the minimum dollar amount was at the time actually only considered to be a living wage for a single person with no dependents. I haven't seen any updated research, but given the collapse of the economy since then, I would imagine things have not improved.
In the year following adoption of the Living Wage, there was an unsuccessful drive to organize Environmental and Dining Services staff. Though the unions organizing the drive did not do their best job and missed several opportunities, the administration certainly engaged in intimidation tactics — including holding meetings discouraging workers from supporting a union, and also sending a manager to an off-site union information session (which is illegal) — that do not reflect President Chopp's Statement of Principles.
If I learned anything at Swarthmore, it was to analyze and question systems of power — be they economic, racial, gendered, or otherwise. While rhetoric about open debate and free elections may sound compelling, I would encourage students to dig a little deeper and to question whose interests are ultimately being served. As we've seen in Wisconsin, collective action can yield extraordinary results, and creating good jobs with fair wages and truly democratic principles is one way to work towards a truly more just world.
Gwen Snyder
May 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I am an alum who donates to Swarthmore regularly. I host externs at my workplace. I attend reunions. I try hard to be an involved and responsible alum. After all, Swarthmore taught me to do my best to support the labors of those who worked to provide me with opportunities.
I am bitterly disappointed to see that President Chopp and the Swarthmore administration have fallen so short of this principle. Make no mistake, Swarthmore will be making a whole lot of money off of this hotel. That is money that they will make only because of the hard work of hotel employees, who deserve to be exempted from the kind of illegal pre-election bullying in which the hospitality industry tends to engage.
The sad truth is, our country does not systematically enforce its (lax) existing labor laws. As a labor organizer, I've seen the law broken again and again by employers. I've watched workers stand up for their rights and lose their jobs, while the lawbreakers in management walk away unscathed. This is the reality. It is unjust. No amount of theory can change that.
The best way to provide a fair, safe working environment is to implement a card check neutrality agreement. This is the reality.
Come on, President Chopp. Practice what our college preaches. Take action. Be a real leader.
Alexandra Bradbury
May 10, 2011 at 11:28 am
As a Swat alum and union organizer, I was discouraged to read President Chopp's Statement of Principles, which regurgitates the familiar language of management anti-union campaigns everywhere.
For instance, the statement repeatedly talks about "the union" as though it were an outside party. The union, of course, is the workers themselves, coming together to have a stronger voice in their workplace than any one worker can have alone. Bosses always try to paint the union as an outsider, as a kind of candidate for election (or a product for sale), instead of as a movement to build worker power. Chopp's statement repeats this kind of rhetoric with terms like "informed choice" and "analyze the question of union representation," over and over portraying a union as something you passively choose. No. A union is an organization you build. Once you have built a strong majority network of coworkers committed to backing each other up and taking action together to make their workplace better, the election should be just a formality. So why is it hard to win a union election? Because bosses make it hard.
Bosses talk a lot about democracy in the authorization election, but ignore the larger question of democracy in the workplace. They are very concerned that you should have the opportunity to vote not to have a voice in decision-making. All this talk is a way of sending a coded message to employees that their boss doesn't want them to form a union. Chopp trots out the specter of "peers and union officials" knowing whether you support forming a union; this is another familiar canard. Who are people really afraid will find out? Who has the coercive power? Their bosses, of course. The biggest obstacle for any group of workers organizing is their fear of management retaliation. An effective union cannot be a secret society, so you build strength by backing each other up and taking a stand, out in the open, together. It's a courageous act.
I am glad to see Vice President Eldridge, above, make the written commitment to no questioning employees about union activity and no one-on-one captive audience meetings. (What about group meetings?) Why is the administration unwilling to agree to SLAP's Memorandum of Understanding?
A student
May 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm
@ Maurice
So does that mean the college won't do any of the things in the Memorandum of Understanding?
If not, what's so objectionable in it?
As a few people have already remarked, it seems pretty reasonable.
For instance, the "Statement of Principles" says the wages would be consistent… will the benefits be consistent as well like it says in the MOU?
Also, is the college really not going to prohibit the operator from hiring a union avoidance firm/consultant?
And finally, if Stu Hain and Melanie Young aren't responsible for oversight, who is? Articulating values is good one step, but what's the procedure if anyone violates those values or rules?
Maybe it'd be good to form an oversight committee. I mean, for student life, we have the College Judicial Committee, which helps to "sustain an educational and social community where the rights of all are respected." Some way to extend those efforts to cover the operator of Town Center West would be a good measure. What do you think?
a student again
May 10, 2011 at 9:39 pm
It seems like SLAP is saying the workers should have a majority sign-up process. Meanwhile, the administration is saying NLRB is the better.
But ultimately, if we want to foster values of self-determination and democracy, shouldn't the workers themselves have the choice of what process to use? Shouldn't they get to decide whether they want to go the NLRB route or opt for majority sign-up? Legally, I think they have a right to either, but the catch is that under current law, the employer has to agree to allow employees to use a majority-sign up process.
It seems thoroughly anti-democratic if the college won't even put this choice in the workers' hands. They should get to decide what process they want.
William
May 15, 2011 at 9:01 am
@Alexandra:
The group that loses the most
when neutrality agreements are entered into are the individual employees.
They are the least powerful of the relevant groups and have no say in the decision to enter into such agreements.
As far as "Regurgitating familiar language" your repeated references to management as "Bosses" is a bit transparent and tiresome.
Barbara Mather
May 19, 2011 at 10:54 am
Dear Members of Swarthmore Labor Action Project,
On behalf of the Board of Managers, I write to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter and proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Although we do not accept the premise that a MOU is necessary or constructive, we affirm our commitment to ensure positive working conditions for all College employees, and anyone working on our campus. We specifically endorse the Statement of Principles that President Chopp shared with the community in March and believe that it clearly and sufficiently articulates our commitment to workers’ rights.
As President Chopp, Vice President Eldridge, and others have repeatedly stated, the Statement of Principles “in action” means that the College will not allow intimidation of any kind, by anyone, of workers who wish to speak to unions. We trust that you share our view that College staff, and others working on our campus, should be provided the opportunity to determine their own destiny in an atmosphere free of coercion, intimidation, or harassment by any party.
Sincerely,
Barbara Mather, Chair
Swarthmore College Board of Managers
Barbara Mather
May 19, 2011 at 10:55 am
Dear Members of Swarthmore Labor Action Project,
On behalf of the Board of Managers, I write to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter and proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Although we do not accept the premise that a MOU is necessary or constructive, we affirm our commitment to ensure positive working conditions for all College employees, and anyone working on our campus. We specifically endorse the Statement of Principles that President Chopp shared with the community in March and believe that it clearly and sufficiently articulates our commitment to workers’ rights.
As President Chopp, Vice President Eldridge, and others have repeatedly stated, the Statement of Principles “in action” means that the College will not allow intimidation of any kind, by anyone, of workers who wish to speak to unions. We trust that you share our view that College staff, and others working on our campus, should be provided the opportunity to determine their own destiny in an atmosphere free of coercion, intimidation, or harassment by any party.
Sincerely,
Barbara Mather, Chair
Swarthmore College Board of Managers
Danielle Charette
May 31, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I for one am proud that our administration has dealt with this issue so thoughtfully, professionally, and, ultimately, with common sense.
As has been repeatedly noted, "neutrality" is a dubious term, since silence of an important party in such an agreement–the employers at our College–is not all that neutral.
I, along with others, feel SLAP needs to concede to a lost campaign and move on. It continues to cite scare tactics that hotel business people may or may not subscribe to. But the current workers at our College are not employed under a neutrality agreement, and I know of no attempt on the part of our school to intimidate them. Folks have referenced the past debate surrounding the "living wage". Regardless of our thoughts on what a "living wage" is, the reality is, the discussion of worker wages occurred without intimidation or inappropriate treatment on the work-site. Case in point.
Please, if we care about jobs and workers, let's create some. Our community is kind and conscientious. Let's make it economically sensible as well.