Please show whatever solidarity you can with these workers. Email the listed University officials and pass the following letter along. Include the letter in any emails you send. If you have any suggestions for us, please let me know. Thanks.
Michael Yates, teacher at the Johnstown campus and member of the union's negotiating team.
SUPPORT THE PITT-JOHNSTOWN WORKERS
Fifty-two maintenance and custodial workers at the University of Pittsburgh's Johnstown (Pennsylvania) campus have been without a collective bargaining agreement since July 1, 1997. The workers are members of Service Employees International Union Local 29, which is located in Pittsburgh. In the 18 months since the last contract expired, the University has consistently engaged is "surface bargaining," refusing to move from its initial position and trying to subvert the bargaining process by mailing propaganda directly to the members rather than dealing directly with the union's bargaining committee. This reflects the extreme anti-unionism which the University has practiced throughout its history, from the firing of pro-union faculty members in the 1930s to the expenditure of more than a million dollars to defeat four attempts by the faculty and several attempts by various staff workers to unionize since the early 1970s.
Three issues divide the two sides. The University proposes a two-tier wage system through the creation of a new job classification, "Utility Worker." These new hires will be paid a wage rate about $2.20 per hour less than the lowest current wage rate. The University has stated that this new job classification will protect the current workers from layoffs; presumably the "utility workers" will be the first to go in a layoff. However, this argument is disingenuous. There are not going to be any layoffs. The campus has more than doubled in size since the union was formed 25 years ago, but the workforce has increased only from 43 to 52. People are now working a lot of overtime and can barely keep up with their work assignments. More workers are desperately needed, and this is the real reason for the two-tier proposal, along with the University's desire to create splits among the workers.
The University has offered a pay increase of a miserly two percent, much less than the raises given last year to faculty and other staff. It justifies this on the wholly erroneous views that it is cheaper to live in Johnstown than in Pittsburgh (the union maintenance and custodial workers in Pittsburgh, represented by the same Local Union, receive higher wages than those in Johnstown) and that 2% exceeds the increase in the cost of living. In fact, it is no cheaper to live in Johnstown than in Pittsburgh, as one of us can attest, having lived in both places. In addition, consumer prices have risen by at least 2.2% since the last agreement expired, meaning that workers have already suffered at least this much loss in the purchasing power of their hourly wage rate. (The union estimates that the employees have lost approximately $65,000 in wages and benefits. The University has offered the workers a lump-sum payment in addition to the 2%, but the payment is far less than what the workers have already lost). The University's wage offer must be seen not only in light of the higher wage increase for other workers but also in terms of growing enrollments, rising tuition, increasing state subsidies, and rapidly growing private donations.
The most important issue is health care. Over the past decade the University has forced its nonunion employees to bear a rising share of health care costs, and now it wants to force the unionized workers to do the same. The union has agreed to switch the workers' health plan and in the process save the University approximately $268 per month per worker in health costs, about $160,000 in total. However, the University has completely ignored this concession by the union and has demanded more. It wants the employees to contribute some $50 per month to their health coverage and agree to pay 35% of any future increase in healthcare costs. These payments would completely negate the University's proposed wage increase. A custodian earns about $10.50 per hour or about $1820 per month. Two percent of this is $36.40, less than the increase in employee healthcare costs. In other words, the University wants the workers to take a pay cut! The University argues that it thinks it is only fair that these workers pay the same for their healthcare as other employees and the University contribute the same for them as it does for other employees. However, custodians and maintenance employees are among the University's lowest paid employees, so a given dollar payment for healthcare comprises a far greater share of total worker income for them than it does for faculty and all other better-paid employees, including the highly compensated personnel on the University' bargaining team. Further, the University's healthcare costs per hour worked by the employees has been steadily falling as the University has chosen to use overtime instead of new hires to get its work done. Finally, the union has already agreed to save the University a great deal of money, far more than the University is offering in return.
The rank-and-file have reacted to the University's stonewalling tactics by doing everything in their power short of a strike to put pressure on the University: weekly informational picketing, leafleting of parents during orientations and of those attending meetings on campus, demonstrations on campus, eliciting the support of local politicians, and picketing the houses of the campus president in Johnstown and the University chancellor in Pittsburgh. They have tried to involve the International Union but without success so far. This is unfortunate since the University is the largest employer in the city of Pittsburgh and perhaps in all of Western Pennsylvania and would make an excellent target for mass unionization. You can help by passing this information on to others and emailing and urging others to email the following persons urging them to settle this dispute by bargaining seriously:
Chancellor Mark Nordenberg: <norden+ at pitt.edu> Allan Boggs: Director of Human Relations: <paualb+ at pitt.edu> Kenneth Service: Director of Communications/Media Relations: <kps+ at pitt.edu> John Greeno: General Counsel: < Jerome Cochran: Office of the Chancellor: <cochran+ at pitt.edu>
Thank you for any help you can give us in this matter. Suggestions will be much appreciated.
In solidarity,
John Baumgardner Tim Campagna Ed Kohler Gloria Lehman Kathy Sumak (Rank-and File bargaining committee)