Discourse.net

Fischl on the University of Miami Strike

Former colleague Michael Fischl, now of the University of Connecticut School of Law, has a new article up at SSRN, The Other Side of the Picket Line: Contract, Democracy, and Power in a Law School Classroom which will appear in 31 New York University Review of Law & Social Change (2007).

Abstract:

This essay - from a forthcoming symposium on “teaching from the left” in the NYU Review of Law & Social Change - offers an account of the successful union organizing campaign among custodial and landscaping workers at the University of Miami during the 2005-06 academic year, focusing in particular on the role played by faculty during the course of the campaign. It examines a fractious debate generated by faculty who held classes off campus in order to support the striking workers and the author’s own decision to put the question of whether to honor the picket line to a vote of his students. It offers an analysis of the pattern of argument that emerged - with opponents of off-campus classes invoking the rhetoric of contract and supporters invoking the rhetoric of democracy - and of what that pattern may reveal about the nature of ideological conflict in contemporary campus culture.

An engaging and thoughtful essay that will be of interest to contracts teachers, labor lawyers, and union supporters generally.

Also of interest is the post-posting history of this article, in which anti-union Google ads appeared automagically on SSRN alongside the article. See Google Ads on SSRN—and Some Odd (shall we say) Juxtapositions for details.

UM Strike Aftermath: Good News / Bad News

First, the good news: UM's newly unionized workers have a new contract with a 30% pay increase and improved healthcare plans. The new contract takes effect next week. The UM contract is causing other local employers, notably FIU, to re-evaluate their employment agreements. The Miami Herald offered this summary of the new UM contract:

The 400 Unicco workers at University of Miami would be guaranteed minimum hourly rates ranging from $8.55 to $10.80 as part of their union-negotiated contract, which runs from Sept. 1 through Aug. 31, 2010. They would also get:

• Raises: Sept. 1, 25 cents an hour. In September 2007, 40 cents an hour. In 2008 and 2009, 50 cents an hour each year.
• Healthcare: VISTA Healthcare program will cost employees $13 for individual coverage. Family coverage will cost more than $500 a month.
• Other: One to three weeks of vacation, three personal days, nine holidays.

Further details at the picketline blog (now brought to you in horrible pink background -- what were they thinking? -- certain to evoke subliminal associations with pinkos and the like...)

The bad news is that we're learning more about how UM handled student discipline cases arising out of strike support activities, and the allegations are not pretty. Prof. Jane Connolly has written two open letters describing what she knows about the process in two cases. They're available at picketline blog, but I'm going to reprint them in full because they claims of self-dealing and fundamental unfairness by the UM administration are serious -- and reflect what I've head elsewhere. I hope the UM administration has a good response to these charges, other than the oft-repeated claim that its rules give it the discretion to do what it did, but I have yet to hear such a response.

Text of two letters by Prof. Jane Connolly:

august 18:

Dear Colleagues,

I met this morning with Katharine Westaway, a graduate student who has been subjected to disciplinary action by the administration. She shared with me her concerns about the status of free speech for students on campus and the significance of this summer's disciplinary actions for students in the future. With Ms Westaway's permission, I share with you her experiences and concerns.

Ms Westaway, an MA student in English, is a senator in the Graduate Student Association. A week before receiving her summons, she was informed by James Fatzinger, Assistant Dean of Students, that she had been selected to serve on the honor council. (Does anyone besides Ms Westaway and me find this appointment ironic, given that she would soon face disciplinary charges at the time and that Mr. Fatzinger would subsequently serve as the judge for her hearing?) Since she would be away from campus for the entire summer and traveling for a portion of it, Ms. Westaway requested that her hearing be postponed until the fall. In this way, she could attend, present witnesses and be judged by a jury of her peers. As with all such requests, she was denied. On 29 June, while attending a program at Johns Hopkins, Ms Westaway participated in a "hearing" telephonically. I use quotation marks as it is clear that very little was actually *heard* by the administration in this or any other case.

Although she was asked if she wished to present witnesses, Ms Westaway wondered just how she would do this in the middle of summer when everyone had scattered and she herself wasn't present. The hearing was presided by Mr. Fatzinger who had also been present at the events where Ms Westaway's alleged violations occurred. Indeed, Mr. Fatzinger took photos of Ms Westaway in front of Ashe that she was asked to identify during her proceeding, as can be seen in a window reflection of Mr. Fatzinger seen in one of these photos. Can anyone say "conflict of interest"? (BTW: in all the photos, Ms Westaway is seated on the ground reading with tape over her mouth. How disorderly and disruptive is that?) The administration's case was presented by Gregory Singleton, Associate Dean of Students and therefore of higher rank than Mr. Fatzinger. It seems odd to have the judge have less power than the prosecutor/investigator, no? The hearing lasted about 45 mins. with a guilty verdict given immediately at the conclusion. Nothing like thoughtful reflection. Ms Westaway's punishment: 2 semesters of probation, 10 hrs. of community service, and a 500-word reflection. The relatively low number of hours of community service was because Mr. Singleton had only seen her in front of Ashe on one day. So, the prosecutor decides the severity of the punishment based on his own eyewitness experience? Again, can anyone say "conflict of interest"? Ms Westaway learned this week in an email from Mr. Singleton that she was late in completing the community service and the reflection. According to the email I saw, he said he sent a letter to her "about July 7" which informed her that the deadline for completion was 29 July. Mind you, he had been told that she was traveling for most of the summer, yet somehow expected her to receive this letter (which she still has not received) and
complete two-thirds of her punishment in three weeks.

Ms Westaway felt that she had virtually no rights in facing these disciplinary proceedings. She was not given a real opportunity to present her case with witnesses before her peers, nor could she have counsel (legal or academic) present to aid her. Quite simply, she was not accorded an impartial, democratic process. She is gravely concerned, as am I, that these hearings will set precedents for future disciplinary actions and that students will routinely be accorded no rights. She asks that we work to prevent this, for the sake of free speech and student rights.

Cordially,

Jane Connolly

---

august 21

Dear Colleagues,

On 7 July, a "hearing" was held for the disciplinary charges against Alyssa Cundari, a first-year student. With Ms Cundari's permission, I share with you some details from that hearing.

Dayle Wilson, Assistant Dean of Students, presided the case which Gregory Singleton, Associate Dean of Students, investigated and prosecuted. (I have already commented on this uneven power structure elsewhere.) The two witnesses for the prosecution were Richard Walker, Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, and Keith Fletcher, Director of Butler Volunteer Services. The judge, investigator/prosecutor and two witnesses are all under the Student Affairs umbrella. Ms Cundari presented as witnesses two professors (Frank Palmeri and me) and a graduate student (Shelly Stromoski). I leave it to Dr. Palmeri and Ms Stromoski to tell you of their experiences, if the choose. I will share mine as they supplement Ms. Westaway's experience.

As with other students, Ms Cundari was not allowed to have her hearing postponed until the fall. She returned to Miami the day before the hearing to present her case, finding what witnesses she could in July. I was very impressed with Ms Cundari's composure, maturity and determination against the odds. In response to her questions, I attested to the following:

1. The students all behaved in an orderly fashion. It's hard to call a group of students disorderly when they stand with tape over their mouths and hum "We Shall Overcome," pray, or sit reading books on poverty. I noted that I grew up in Oakland in the 60s, during the rise of the Black Panthers and the Free Speech/Anti War movements, attended Berkeley as an undergraduate and taught at Wisconsin-Madison. I've seen disorderly conduct, and our students were always peaceful, orderly and respectful.

2. The students did not block access to Ashe. Following the initial demonstration, which Charles Steele and many clergy attended, they always made sure that doors were accessible. The administration took the decision to lock those doors, and thus obstructed access. I also witnessed the students helping people (students trying to get advising before registration, potential students and parents, etc.) find their way into Ashe since the administration simply locked the doors and provided no assistance to those wishing to enter to do business there.

3. As an administrator in Ashe at the time of Ms Cundari's alleged misconduct, I attested to the fact that the only complaints I received regarding access and disorderly conduct related to the administration. Faculty were especially disturbed by the way they were treated by security personnel, students found it difficult to get in to see advisors, and everyone (including the cops I spoke to) found the decision to turn on the sprinklers absurd. Indeed, the students were going to move from the entry of Ashe to the lawn until the sprinklers came on and eliminated that possibility.

4. Ms Cundari presented photographs of herself, asking me to identify what she was doing: she was sitting in front of Ashe reading. I further testified that I had seen her on other occasions studying for a Chemistry exam. I don't think that reading and studying are considered disorderly activities on most campuses.

5. I was present when Dean Sandler delivered many of his warnings. He simply told the students that they had to leave, but never said that a warning was final, never gave a deadline, never stated possible consequences. In other words, he never said: "If you do not leave by X hour, the following disciplinary charges will be brought." From my point of view, this was a mistake. I know from my discussions with students during the events in question that they were prepared to leave if they were given a final warning, something that Ms Westaway reconfirmed in my discussion with her last week. They simply weren't given that warning.

Mr. Singleton asked me only two questions. The first was about my familiarity with the students' rights and responsibilities handbook. Yes, and I'm appalled by the way it's being construed. (OK, I only said yes, not wanting to prejudice Ms Cundari's case.) The second was how familiar I was with the office of the Dean of Students and whether I had found that office to be fair in the past. I noted that I have been involved with issues ranging from academic dishonesty to inappropriate conduct, and had dealt almost exclusively with Dean Sandler, whom I always found to be fair. I had little experience with the other members of the office and therefore could not judge their fairness. He asked me no questions about Ms Cundari's conduct.

The independent testimony of two professors and a student did little to persuade Ms Wilson or Mr. Singleton. As in the case of Ms Westaway, Ms Cundari was found guilty at the conclusion of the hearing, with the same punishments as Ms Westaway. I have little doubt that the findings in both cases were predetermined. Do we really want students to be subjected to pro forma justice? If we tolerate this, who will be next?

Cordially,

Jane Connolly

Student Sues UM Over Strike-Related Discipline

I have no idea why the details are being reported by a columnist rather than the Miami Herald news section, but Ana Menendez's opinion column yesterday has an account of Brian Lemmerman's lawsuit against UM. The essence of the complaint appears to be a breach of contract claim predicated on the the University's alleged failure to follow its own rules when disciplining him for his participation in strike-support activities.

According to the column, the other students subject to (secret) disciplinary proceedings over the summer have thrown in the towel, in part, I suspect, because most of their punishments were not as severe as the outrageous sanctions the University originally threatened.

I have not seen the complaint, but cases like this generally face two roadblocks: first, universities often write themselves a lot of discretion into their rules in part because they hate to tie their own hands, in part to avoid suits like this. The second problem is that it's a contract case, not a tort case, so the possible damages are limited to the value of the contract. Mr. Lemmerman is claiming $15K, which I presume is based on some computation involving tuition, but I'd expect UM's lawyers to press hard on the damages part of the claim.

Background on student discipline issue: Lessons and Faculty Sign Open Letter to Administration.

110 Faculty Sign Open Letter to UM Administration

110 faculty signed the following letter to UM Vice-President Whitely and UM Dean Sandler; the number would surely have been much higher if it were not summer:

Dear Vice President Whitely and Dean Sandler,

It is with a mixture of indignation, sadness, embarrassment and weariness that we find ourselves forced to write another letter to advocate for justice at the University of Miami.

In the course of the last few months, our students have shown an array of human and civic virtues that one does not see often these days. Through peaceful and respectful demonstrations and with minimal disruption to campus life, they supported the fight for justice and dignity of people they barely knew. Anyone who has spent any time with these young people knows that they are gentle and respectful, that they care deeply about their academic careers, and that they have a keen sense of justice. These are qualities we all unequivocally encourage in our students. As former President Tad Foote told one professor, there was something noble in what these students did and he was proud of them. We agree.

The university administration has responded to the students’ actions on behalf of the janitors and groundskeepers first with harshness, and now with underhanded and petty strategies aimed at thwarting their right to an unbiased and fair hearing. We find this behavior deeply reprehensible and unacceptable at a university. A university is first and foremost about its students. These are our students. These are the people to whom we dedicate the largest part of our professional lives. These young people are the raison d’etre of what we do as faculty, staff, and administrators of this university.

The administration has used some deplorable tactics with the students. They served summonses to them in class, a violation of federal law (the Buckley amendment guarantees a student’s privacy) and of faculty rights as well as a disruption of the academic mission. They called students to “preliminary hearings” about potential serious charges, leaving the possibility of these charges hanging over them through commencement. They also were told that they had an “administrative stop” placed on their registration (in the middle of registration period) and they would have to see Associate Dean Singleton to register for classes. He is not an academic dean. He is their prosecutor and ought not to have anything to do with their registration. Along with the students and their lawyers, we see all of this as intimidation, something that should never take place at a university.

We deeply regret that these students have been targeted for disciplinary action for acting on the principles we teach regarding democracy and social justice. As currently implemented, the process by which they are being judged is profoundly flawed and characterized by arbitrary and unfair decisions. Specifically:

1) Students who pleaded not guilty were denied postponement of their hearings to the Fall, at which time they would appear before a University Disciplinary Hearing Panel including their peers. Instead, Associate Dean Singleton, who is a witness in some of the cases, now serves simultaneously as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. There are clearly multiple conflicts of interest here, and the students cannot possibly have an impartial hearing. Moreover, by holding the hearings in the summer, the students are deprived of valued advisors and witnesses to support their cases who are out of town. The first summonses were delivered on 21 April, which allowed sufficient time for hearings to take place with a full panel to adjudicate the cases and with supporting witnesses and advisors still on campus. This was not done, however, because the Dean of Students granted his own office a continuance to do additional investigation. How is it possible that the Dean of Students grant one side a continuance to be able to present its best case but not the other? The cards are clearly and purposefully stacked against the students and they cannot possibly have a fair hearing in these circumstances.

2) Some students have now seen added to their previous charges the further charge of unauthorized distribution of printed material. The violation cited from Students’ Rights and Responsibilities Handbook is B.16, which references the Poster Distribution and Advertising policy on p. 47. The policy refers specifically to advertising, and requires the approval of the Vice President for Business Services. The materials distributed by the students were not advertisements but statements relating to social justice. They were acts of free speech and therefore not covered by any advertising policy.

3) The students who pleaded guilty or no contest to the charges brought against them were given absurd and even insulting penalties, including community service. They are being punished precisely because they did hundreds of hours of community service to improve the University and South Florida’s communities by assuring that workers at UM have freedom of choice, the right to work with dignity and respect, and to earn a living wage. Moreover, these students regularly do other community service, working at clinics and homeless shelters, for various environmental and civic groups, etc. And now you are going to punish them by making them do such work? How inappropriate! Adding to this absurdity, students who have graduated or will graduate this summer or fall have been given two semesters of probation. When asked how this affects them, Associate Dean Singleton told these students that this punishment means nothing for them. Then why give it, except to be vindictive? Finally, two students have been singled out for a particularly spiteful punishment: the loss of campus housing in the fall at University Village.

We ask that all students who have been charged with offenses in relation to their peaceful and respectful protests during the janitors’ and groundskeepers’ strike be granted amnesty. We need to be a model of openness and dialogue, a beacon for the free exchange of ideas and true learning. To punish these students is to undercut these fundamental goals.

Respectfully,

Lessons

One of the hard lessons we all learn growing up is that people who have power often abuse it. The Framers well understood this problem and tried to separate power among three branches of government. They also understood the vulnerabilities of their Great Experiment: faction and popular passions. The existence of this tradition, its deeply ingrained roots in the American psyche, still provide the best hope for a reaction against the excesses of the Republican domination of all three branches of government: a Republican-appointed judiciary that awarded an election without allowing for an accurate count of the votes; a Republican-dominated Congress that refuses to call that Republican President to account.

But you don't have to be a Republican to abuse your power. And you certainly don't have to be in government. It may even be easier in the private sector. Consider the behavior of the University of Miami, led by Donna Shalala, no Republican she (although she is paid over half a million a year and lives like one): according to the Miami Herald, her university is manipulating the process in its academic disciplines case against students charged with misbehavior during a quite well-behaved protest in favor of the unionization effort.

And the terms on which the University is settling the cases seem harsh: several students -- the exact number isn't clear -- are being kicked out of university housing, which means they'll probably be paying more to live somewhere less convenient. Here's how Herald columnist Ana Menendez characterized the state of play:

Faced with a rigged system -- lawyers say administrators were to function as witness, prosecutor, judge and jury -- students began settling their cases with the university at about the same time the union announced a majority of janitors had voted to join.

The settlements continue. Punishments have included academic probation, a 500-word essay and, most ironically of all, community service.

''Here we are being sentenced to community service when we're being tried for a service we did to the community,'' said Amy Sun, 21, a psychology major who pleaded no contest.

...

Far more troubling than anything the students did is the way UM administrators have chosen to deal with it, going after students with a zeal that seems to have more to do with retribution than justice.

First, administrators threatened students with major charges that could get them expelled or suspended. When a who's-who of Miami's legal talent stepped forward to defend the students, UM quickly retreated, downgrading the complaint to "university offenses.''

''Under their own rules, a student who is charged with a university offense is not entitled to right of counsel,'' said attorney Lida Rodriguez, who is advising Jacob Coker-Dukowitz, one of the student leaders. "They did it not out of kindness but out of trying to deprive them of the assistance of an advisor.''

...

Late Tuesday, Coker-Dukowitz, who had been one of the hold-outs, joined the others in settling his case. He, too, loses his housing at the coveted University Village, punishment that also imposes a financial burden.

[UM attorney Eric ] Isicoff maintains that the case against the students is not about free speech. UM, he said, is simply "representing the right of a whole other group of people who do not wish to engage in this manner.''

To which I have only one -- carefully considered -- reply: bull.

The kindest take on the administration's position that I can construct is this: it wanted to send students a message that if they make life hard for the administration, and disrupt its operations, they will pay. And to the extent that the administration is worried about the long-run consequences one can see why it might be afraid to look as if it were setting a precedent that administrative offices can be occupied with no penalty. In fact, I think I'd be worried about that issue in their shoes too.

So if we're going to see it that way -- and remember that is the kindest construction I can put on what the administration is up to -- then we have to also admit that the actual proceedings, none of which involve the actual occupation, are a complete abuse of process. (Not to mention that it's unclear to me to what extent the two groups of students overlap.) The ostensible charges, failing to disperse from a peaceful gathering and leafleting with non-commercial political tracts, are NOT the sort of things that universities should punish. They are the signs of engaged citizens in a community. We should value and celebrate them.

For if we don't encourage the creation of engaged citizens, then the engine that would keep the Great Experiment from collapsing will lose an essential mainspring.

Fortunately, my sense is that the students involved have not been cowed. Instead, they've been radicalized. And we may well reap the harvest when they come back in the fall.

I said at the start of the strike that it presented a teaching moment. At the time, many law students who wanted more than anything just to get on with their lives hated this characterization (and some of their reactions taught me something). But I still think it was a good description. It just turns out that the lessons were a little different than I expected.

It's Official: SEIU Invited to Organize UM Workers

As predicted:

A majority of janitors and other contract workers at the University of Miami decided to join the Service Employees International Union, the organization announced Thursday, capping a battle with their private employer that included a walkout and hunger strike by some employees.

More than 60 percent of the 425 workers with Unicco Service Co. favored joining the union, organizers said. The results were certified by the American Arbitration Association.

"We are invisible no more. It is an incredible feeling to finally have a voice and the strength to improve our lives," said Maritza Paz, a janitor.

Unicco spokesman Doug Bailey said the two sides will now begin collective bargaining.

--AP via bradenton.com.

Student Discipline Update

Picketline reproduces a very informative Daily Business Review article on the state of play in the student discipline hearings. Separately, there is news that requests for delay until the start of term -- when students could be involved in the hearing -- are being denied. So far, I have heard of one sentence of 30 hours community service and two semesters probation; this is subject to appeal to yet another dean.

UM Strike Card Check Result to be Announced Thursday

Word is that this Thursday, June 15, at noon, the result of the chard check ballot of the would-be bargaining unit will be announced on the UM Campus at the Episcopal Church.

Recall that the settlement of the strike requires the unionizers to get a 60% super-majority in order to be recognized. But it gave them until Aug. 1 to achieve this total.

I have no inside information as to what this early announcement means, but logically it must mean either that they got the 60% or that so many people have voted that 60% is no longer possible. I'll bet on the former.

Incidentally, the strike-related student discipline cases grind on. Because the formal charges were not filed until the summer term, the cases will be heard in camera by a single dean, acting as judge and jury; had charges been filed before the end of the school year, the students would have been entitled to much more process, to students as members of the tribunal, and to representation before the tribunal. So that's not so great, unless the administration were to use this as an occasion for clemency -- something for which I hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

Student Discipline Latest

Picketline Blog has an informative Update on Disciplinary Action Against UM Students. The key point is that the charges have been reduced from "major" to "minor" status -- so it appears that no one is going to be thrown out of school.

This is a very positive development!

Not Everything is Related to 9/11

Picketline led me to Findlaw where I find an article by Jennifer van Bergen, "a journalist with a law degree" entitled Speech on Campus After 9/11: Less Free Than It Used To Be?.

The piece's thesis is clearly stated right at the top:

Universities have traditionally been places where debate and the free exchange of ideas have been welcomed. But after 9/11, that may be changing -- as some recent, troubling incidents suggest.

In this column, I'll survey some recent incidents suggesting free speech on campus is in peril, ...

Exhibit A for this thesis is the UM administration's reaction to the strike. And Ms. van Bergen, described elsewhere as a south Florida resident, appears to be serious.

I don't get it.

Please don't misunderstand: I am not here to defend the UM administration's appalling conduct during and after the strike. If students were hauled in on charges and asked to identify each other from photos while being treated in an intimidating manner, that's a violation of our rules (and would be without the intimidating manner, too).

Threatening students with serious consequences for their failure to disperse when ordered is petty and mean, not to mention disproportionate and stupid. Leaving the charges hanging after the strike, instead of resolving them with an amnesty or a wrist slap is unwise (from the administration's viewpoint): so far it has only martyrized them, and will probably radicalize them.

But all this reflexive administrative behavior has nothing to do with 9/11. It has rather more to do with the flawed temperament of our leadership (either the Board of Trustees or President Shalala, or conceivably both) and the poor judgment and limited capacities of certain mid-ranking administrators. In short, your standard story of people in power unable to transcend petty impulses for revenge, and people in a bureaucracy displaying some really lousy judgment during a pressure situation -- then digging in their heels when tempers should have cooled.

But this is the way of the world. People are imperfect. Academic authorities don't like being forced to do stuff by uppity kids, and they never have. And the fact that the kids are right, and that they enlist noble outsiders to say they are right and to force it down the authorities' throats, well, that doesn't help.

But all this has nothing to do with 9/11. UM was like this ten years ago -- indeed, arguably, it may have been substantially worse.

If anything -- and I admit this is reaching a little -- the UM experience with the recent strike proves the reverse of the van Bergen thesis. At one point the administration here tried to float the idea that students protesting were anarchists, or colluding with anarchists, or at least inviting in anarchists, who we were no doubt supposed to believe would in short order turn this pristine tropical campus into some Beirut on the Biscayne.

To the extent anyone paid attention to this silly idea, we just laughed, and it hasn't been heard from since.

Free speech is not in peril on this campus, and we won't let it be. At worst, its ankle is being bitten. Whether that bite turns out to be by a mosquito or a Doberman will turn on what sort of treatment the administration administers to the students it has up on charges. And that remains to be seen.

Law School Commencement Follow-Up

In several ways, this may have been the best commencement since I got to UM.

First, Caroline looked suitably imposing carrying the Law School's modernistic mace around the Convocation center. Our kids, who followed along on the web cast, said she looked like a 'level 500 warrior princess wielding an Elven mythril heavy mace' which sounds about right.

The law school has a tradition of asking a graduating student to sing the national anthem (in English, at least so far). This years' performer could have been the best ever.

The same might be said about the commencement speech by Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, which you can find (regrettably in ALL CAPS) on her blog under the title, Commencing on the Right Foot. If it wasn't the best in a decade or more, it was certainly up there.

But perhaps the best part was that I managed to distribute almost my entire supply of "Support the Students" buttons, which means that considerably more than half of the faculty attending wore them, a number well exceeding my expectations. It was nice to see the faculty (relatively) united. President Shalala did not seem that pleased, but she had the good sense not to say anything ... although one faculty member told me that the President wouldn't speak to her when she had one on.

As for the invocation? Well, it was less dull than usual...but it didn't mention the union or the students.

Aftermaths

Picketline Blog, Message in a Bottle, is a nice roundup of several of the strike aftermaths. Notable is a link to an article in the Coral Gables Gazette about onging student disciplinary proceedings.

Coverage of UM Strike Settlement

Some links. NY Times: Walkout Ends at University of Miami as Janitors' Pact Is Reached; Miami Herald, UM janitors end 2-month strike.

Nathan Newman, Miami Janitors Win:

With no help from Donna Shalala, the strikers at University of Miami won their crucial demand yesterday-- the right to card check recognition for their union from the university contractor, Unicco Service Company. Part of the agreement was that the union would have to sign up 60% of employees to gain recognition, rather than the 50% required to win an NLRB election.

Which illustrates how bad the NLRB election process is. The workers preferred a lengthy strike, a hunger strike that hospitalized multiple workers, and a requirement for a super-majority rather than face the buzzsaw of a federal election, where employers manipulate the rules and routinely threaten and fire workers to defeat union

Kevin Drum: Card Checks:

Increased private sector unionization is probably the only effective, large-scale way to systematically help America's middle class, and until we can level the NLRB playing field, card checks are the only way to do it. Congratulations to the U of Miami workers for winning the right to unionize. May many others follow in their path.

Also of interest, this post by SEIU head Andy Stern, written before the agreement was reached.

The UM Strike is Over (the Aftermath Is Not)

I've been very silent about the UM strike for reasons I'll detail below, but let me start with the good news -- it's now over. Yesterday, UNICCO and the SEIU agreed to a modified, monitored, card-check and NLRB ballot. As Picketline Blog describes it, the agreement includes these terms:

• The agreement establishes a code of conduct governing how both the employer and the union will interact with the workers during the process. Both sides agree not to interfere with workers' decision whether or not to form a union.
• A neutral, independent organization, the American Arbitration Association, will verify the results of the process to determine whether or not a supermajority of UNICCO janitors at the University of Miami wish to form a union.
• Once AAA has independently verified that a supermajority of 60% of the janitors working for UNICCO have signed cards saying they want to form a union with SEIU, UNICCO has agreed to recognize (on the very same day) SEIU as the janitors' union.
• Janitors have until August 1, 2006 to demonstrate a supermajority.
• The agreement covers 410 janitors working for UNICCO on the campus of the University of Miami and UM's Jackson Memorial Hospital.
• The striking janitors will return to work Wednesday, May 3, 2006.
• Zoila Mursuli, the janitor union leader who had been fired by UNICCO, will be reinstated immediately. She will receive backpay for the weeks after she was fired before her co-workers went on strike.

That's the good news.

Now some catching up on the other news, much of which is not so good.

I stopped blogging about the strike the day that the bargaining unit, whose cause I support, made a tactical decision that I found very upsetting and misguided: they decided to stage a a hunger strike. I thought, and still think, that this dispute, while serious, wasn't the sort of exceptional issue for which a hunger strike was appropriate. I didn't think people should be risking their lives for this, neither workers nor students -- and members of both groups volunteered. To me, a hunger strike is a desperation move, something you reserve when a prisoner of an evil regime, or perhaps when trying to protest an evil national policy. Low wages and lousy health care are national problems, but UM and especially UNICCO are to some extent cogs in a larger machine that they do not control. A hunger strike seemed tactically misguided -- how do you stop if the University won't back down? -- and fundamentally inappropriate. Indeed, before the end several people were hospitalized; at least one suffered a small stroke.

From the first, however, I wasn't willing to write anything negative about people risking their health and perhaps even their lives for a cause I supported -- even as, quite frankly, I thought they were basically bonkers. It didn't seem right to attack them; yet in this I couldn't support them.

So I got real quiet.

Meanwhile, I am very sorry to report, the University got vicious, petty, and stupid.

The vicious part was the campaign, still on-going despite this settlement of the underlying grievance, to subject eleven students to the threat of severe sanctions for their actions supporting the strikers. If not vicious then at least odd was the administration's hardball legal tactics. In its communications to the faculty and students, the UM administration failed to articulate with any particularity what exactly it thought the SEIU was doing to disrupt our academic activities. To this day I for one am unclear as to what the administration thought was disruptive enough to justify the injunction demand. There were very successful demonstrations -- but these were legitimate activity. There was a second student occupations of the Ashe building, but that didn't seem to be an SEIU affair.

The University nonetheless got a local judge to issue an injunction against the SEIU ordering it not to disrupt us. But the major disruptions seemed to be the UM administration unilaterally locking its doors.

The petty part was well, pretty petty: the University began a campaign of small-scale harassment of the union's supporters. Silly stuff, like running the sprinklers for hours where they were camping near the President's office, mostly in the open, but with one or two actual tents.

Being that this is a university, the stupid part is almost as bad as the vicious part. The administration -- Donna Shalala proprietor -- insulted the community's intelligence with a series of four full page ads in the Miami Herald. UM spent thousands of dollars (maybe over $200,000 in all, based on this rate card?) telling us things which if they were not lies were at least calculated to deceive.

For example, one of the ads asserted that "We Provided Health Insurance. We Have Done Our Part"; trouble was, as we all knew by then, the much-vaunted health insurance was really quite limited: The $13/month policy was for the worker alone. If you wanted to insure your children, that would be $241/month. Add a spouse, and it would rise to $493/month, which amounted to more than a third of the income of a full-time worker making the $8.50 per hour that the university was so proud of finally paying -- years after the faculty requested it.

Another ad complained of "outside protesters" who were engaged in "trespass" (the ad also complained of "anarchists" although I've yet to meet anyone who actually saw one of these mythical creatures!). Who were these evil outside agitators who had the temerity to walk through open gates up our walks past our lovely lawns and into what until now we had all thought was a space where the public was welcome to come and contribute ideas? Why the evil trespassers were people like former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards, and Charles Steele, the President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, David Bonior, actor Ed Asner ("Lou Grant"), and Jimmy Hoffa. Not to mention a delegation of international labor leaders and many others.

It's a sad day when a university treats things it doesn't want to hear as "trespass," and we had a lot of sad days recently.

So we end the semester on mixed notes:

• Happy that the main conflict has ended with a decent outcome;
• Concerned about the lingering issues -- not least the students facing discipline for helping the workers;
• Happy that we don't have to turn our backs on Shalala at graduation or take part in some other equally unpleasant and confrontational stunt;
• Worried about the people who may have damaged their health in the hunger strike;
• Uncertain how to feel about the rumors that Shalala is no longer on Harvard's short list for its Presidency -- presumably due to her (mis)handling of the conflict;
• Unclear on the role played by the Board of Trustees: were they forcing Shalala's hand or supporting her initiatives?

Between the spring strike and the fall hurricanes, this has been the worst academic year I can recall at UM. People are ground down. Ending (most of) this conflict now makes it possible to hope that the summer will allow some healing. Here's hoping.

Strike Teach-in Wedneday 6pm

Wednesday, April 5th, from 6-8pm in the Wilder Auditorium, Knight Physics Building there will be a teach-in "covering the legal, sociological, historical and economic context of the strike." The announcement promises that "professors will speak and then engage in discussion with the audience."

Speakers:
Evelina Galang (English) [Moderator]
Elizabeth Aranda (Sociology)
Robin Bachin (History)
Ken Casebeer (Law)
Bruce Nissen (Center for Labor Relations, FIU)

SEIU Takes a Gloomy View of the Talks

Renee Asher of the SEIU is distributing the following statement which takes a gloomy view of the otherwise secret talks going on at UM:

Statement of Clara Vargas
Janitor Representative, University of Miami
Friday, March 31, 2006

LET US DECIDE

I am disappointed today that we did not make more progress. I had high hopes for a settlement when the meeting was set.

But I knew we were in for a tough time today before I ever stepped into the meeting. UNICCO's combative post this morning on their campaign web site universitytruth.com made it clear that they are not interested in listening to us, or what we have to say. Our message is clear, "Let us Decide," what kind of vote to have.

There are more than 168 of us on strike now, and we are more committed than ever. By joining together we have already won a safer workplace, health benefits and better pay, and a seat at the table with the university and UNICCO.

I hope that when we meet again Tuesday, UNICCO will be prepared to hear us, and the university will be prepared to back us.

Anyone who thought one meeting was going to resolve this was dreaming...

Meanwhile, the talks will continue this week. Can't hurt.

No News on UM Strike Talks

It seems that the parties to the talks are keeping this confidential so far.

Contemptible

Have I mentioned how mean-spirited and contemptible the official UNICCO strike blog is is both tone and content? Here's the latest screed,

With the deadline looming on its 30-day recognition strike, the SEIU has to end its picketing, chanting and tub-thumping today and the few striking workers have to come back to work. Meanwhile, a meeting between all the parties called for by UM President Donna Shalala will convene soon and we expect the message in that gathering will be clear: “Let ‘em vote.” The union really has no alternative except to try and bolster more support among students, but they will soon be departing for summer vacation. It’s over. I feel kind of sorry for the students whose heads have been filled with union mush. But, hey, students and protests used to go hand in hand and it’s actually good to see students seriously engaged in something other than keg parties. And, it’s the last chance they get to stick it to the man before they become the man.

(The "university truth" blog has neither links to individual items, nor does it allow comments, so that link will only take you to a category; look for today's entry, currently at the top.)

Some colleagues of mine have also noted that the site -- especially the main UNICCO page's link to it -- uses colors, type and language in a way meant to evoke the official UM pages. I'm doubtful that this is actually a trademark violation as I think the likelihood of confusion is low; that said there might be an initial interest confusion claim based on this item,

currently found at the UNICCOtruth page with a link to UNICCO's (not UM's!) "UniversityTruth" blog.

I mention this not because I think trademark law should be used to stomp UNICCO's advocacy, and I don't, but rather because it's somewhat surprising that UM's trademark lawyers, normally quite protective of the University's rights, don't seem to have sent a cease and desist letter which I would presume would be immediately complied with by UNICCO, whose customer they are. Just something to think about when UM touts its neutrality...

Look Who's Talking

Interesting and generally positive line-up of participants in today's UNICCO-SEIU-community meeting. The list is notable for the very large participation by UM law faculty -- and our Dean.

Disclosure: President Shalala asked me to participate in this effort (I'm unclear as to why, and even feared she may have thought I was Michael Fischl!), but I declined, both because I'm in Boston today and because I know how little I know about labor law.

cf. Picketline blog

Ashe Fallout

Picketline blog has text and great pictures of Ashe Tuesday.

And Pres. Shalala has just sent out a message to the university community. If you don't think about it too much it is a great piece of persuasive writing but contains a huge logical fallacy. And a bit of what I fear may be wishful thinking.

Let's start with the (accurate) set-up

Basically, [the Ashe students] want the university to tell one of our contractors, UNICCO, to accept cards that the union, SEIU, has had UNICCO employees sign requesting union recognition. The union argues that collecting signatures as an indication of what the employees want is better and fairer than a secret, federal government (National Labor Relations Board) supervised vote. The contractor, UNICCO, has called for the secret ballot procedure supervised by the NLRB (it should be noted that recognizing a union on the basis of cards is optional under the law; recognizing a union under a secret ballot election is mandated by the law).

Now here's the fallacious bit:

The students who sat in yesterday support the SEIU position. They wanted the university to share their view. They believe the NLRB process takes too long and is flawed. As I explained to them, we are neutral on the process – the union and the contractor need to work that out. However, when pushed on why we couldn't just choose to support the card-signing system, I pointed out that the university simply could never take a position against a secret ballot procedure supervised by a federal government agency. Secret ballots are at the heart of our democratic system. In fact, many of the UNICCO employees in our community came to this country precisely because of our free (and secret ballot) elections.

I hope very much that this is just PR and not what Pres. Shalala actually believes. Because it's odd.

There is no reason in the world why the University couldn't if it chose take a position that a process run by the Bush administration has an anti-union bias. But leave that aside. Suppose both processes are in fact formally fair, but that they have different psychological biases: card-check provides a greater chance one-on-persuasion; ballot, which takes place at a defined time, allows the best chance for the employer to maximize its inducements and threats so that they are at their peak effectiveness at the moment of the vote. In that world, there are no "neutrals".

But wait. It gets stranger. President Shalala thinks that there's some magic "third way" heretofore unknown to labor lawyers, and that we here at UM are going to invent it:

I suggested last night that everyone sit down and see if they can find a third option that is free from intimidation. We need a fair democratic process for the employees of UNICCO to decide whether or not they want SEIU to represent them, free from intimidation or coercion from either side, or concern about their job stability. That discussion will begin Friday at noon.

As I've said before, labor law is way outside my areas of even minimal competence. But I do read the newspapers. And if there was a third way beside polling people asynchronously (card check) and polling people synchronously (ballot), identifying it would seem to me to be something of a feat.

Ashe Building Compromise

I just drove by the Ashe Building, and all is quiet. No crowd, no police cars, no media except for one Channel 7 truck with two slumped and sleeping figures in the front.

The Miami Herald reports in UM students end their protest, that

The protesters ended their sit-in having agreed with the administration on three issues:

• The university would put out a statement saying it would not tolerate intimidation or coercion of workers;

• The university would encourage Unicco and the union to reach an agreement over the labor dispute;

• The university would host a meeting within 48 hours involving the union, Unicco workers, faculty and student groups.

This isn't exactly a statement of support for card-check elections, but it's a better outcome than one might have feared given President Shalala's record of stomping pretty hard on people who get in her way. It's a tribute, I think, both to the maturity of the students for accepting half a loaf -- for now -- and to President Shalala's savvy in being willing to tender any loaf at all. The late Bart Giammati, Yale's President, whom I got to know pretty well during the year I covered him for the Yale Daily News, would not have been capable of this--angry confrontation of any sort put his back up and seemed to be the only thing that could shut down the reasoning powers of his formidable brain.

Picketline blog claims victory:

At about 1.30 am Farther Frank Corbishley and the students occupying the Admissions Department in Ashe came out of the building, unarrested, unexpelled and in good health. In return for their leaving, Donna Shalala released a statement to the Associated Press (we have not double-checked that) that within 48 hours there will be good faith talks to resolve the situation with the participation of the administration, the faculty, the law faculty, the students, UNICCO, the SEIU and the workers themselves. This will be the first time the workers' voices will have been officially heard (not to mention the voices of some of the other parties).

This is an incredible step forward. The students were magnificent and this achievement is due to their courage and integrity. They were prepared to stay there for as long as necessary; they were prepared to get arrested and possibly expelled.

That might be a bit strong, but it's still a good outcome.

Another Hour at the Ashe Building

11:35 Shalala spotted -- briefly goes into the room where the students are, remains for less than a minute, then goes out. But not back up this time. Is Elvis leaving the building? We all run out to the back to intercept her. The camera crews get excited. And she's not there. Another false alarm? (Maybe Shalala is going to use one of the bathrooms she's locked the students out of)

A UM student in the back of the backdoor crowd is complaining loudly: "Why did she agree to negotiate with them? She's playing right into their hands."

A cop goes in the back door holding a large white bag -- carryout? Donuts? There are about a dozen cops on the sofas in the main lobby. The night shift cops lolling on couches look a lot more comfortable than the people outside the doors, many of whom are would-be SEIU members, who have already had a pretty long day. One of the cops has something that looks like an old-style movie camera.

11:45 The camera crews are having a shift change too. The new guy from channel 4 is sporting a red Bruce Lee t-shirt. How long will you stay, I ask. "As long as it takes, he says." Easy duty; the weather is good tonight.

11:50 I fall in with a group of sociologists, faculty and former students. They're well informed. From what they've heard, the first time Shalala met with the students, in addition to threatening to expel them, she also agreed to consider signing a letter endorsing a card-check election...if the union would agree to state that UM is not a 'co-employer'. And the union drafted something, gave it to her... And we don't know anything more...

11:55 back at the front: Shalala spotted again, entering the room, bearing a piece of paper, trailing two aides. Lots of shouting outside.

The cop with the big movie camera is filming from the open area into the room where the students are. I suppose it will be evidence if there are arrests and trials.

12:03 Father Frank is outside the room again, talking on his cell phone..

I meet the lawyer for SEIU, a charming young woman just down from NY. (A union man says that she's here to make sure the local SEIU people do nothing more than observe.) She says she's amazed and heartened by the outpouring of student support, including the law school -- "people in my law school would never approve of the work I do." What law school was that? U. Chicago.

12:20 One of the pastors has spoken to Father Frank, and to the cops. The cops are riled and want to go home, and have announced that if they have to arrest anyone they won't release them on 'promise to appear' but will take them down to Turner-Guilford Knight, book them and lock them up. The kids inside are warned, but no more have come out. Negotiations are continuing, but about what exactly we don't know.

It occurs to me that in a way Shalala is pretty lucky. Yes, this is a genuine student protest, and yes, potentially a black eye for a university President who promised a student-centered regime and made it her signature act to shake the hand of every graduate. It can't be good to arrest your customers. But the very genuineness of this means that it's amateur hour out here. Consider: there's no one in charge. There's no appointed outside spokesperson, no regular bulletins to hearten the crowd, no information about what's going on or even what the demands are, no media strategy. They didn't secure the bathrooms or bring much in the way of food and water.

12:28 Or is there? A student has just come out of the building, says she's spoken with the students inside, and they want us to make a lot of noise and show our support. "They're still strong, it isn't over yet" . The crowd cheers loudly for about five minutes, then quietens down again. It could be a long night.

12:35 Some time while I wasn't looking, Shalala went back upstairs. Frank is back inside. The dozen or so cops are chatting happily. We can see them, but we can't see very much into the room where the students are holed up.

That's all from me for this evening....And I still don't know why Donna Shalala is afraid of Frank Corbishley.

---

Coverage elsewhere:
CBS4, Protest Supporting UM Janitors Now A Sit-In,
AP, Miami students support striking janitors with university sit-in,
Miami Herald, UM students stage sit-in at administration building in support of janitors (& longer version),
Picketline blog,
UNICCO brags it has 20 supporters.

An Hour At the Ashe Building

When I arrive just after 10pm, there’s a crowd of about 75 or so at the back door of the Ashe building, about half look like members of the would-be bargaining unit, and the other half are students and other hangers-on (“I’m an outside agitator” the retiree I find standing next to me says).

There are more Coral Gables police cars here than I have ever seen in my life. Who knew they had 18 cars (including K9, a paddy wagon, and one labelled “Lieutanant”)

Apparently, just before I got here around ten pm a large number of cops entered the building to get the students out (“Shalala goes around the front to give a thumbs up,” the outside agitator says bitterly, “and they bring the paddy wagon ‘round the back”).

Rumors run rife: Shalala is coming back when the arrests start.

“We thought she’d wait until early in the morning” says another, “but I guess they want a show for the 11 o’clock news”.

There is press, and they’re prepared to wait, and the crowd consensus is that the university figured there was no point in delay. Arrests any minute.

But maybe not. Off to the side I find Lt. Paul Miyares, a bluff well-spoken man who is happy to speak for attribution. “The last thing we want to do is arrest anyone” he says. Why so many police? They’re just here, at the University’s request, to “monitor” things and make sure no one does anything they shouldn’t. Just like at any other demonstration. Why so many cops going in and out of the building? It’s just the night shift coming on to relieve the day shift. Why not tell the people milling around that you are not arresting anyone? But what if I have to later for some reason, he responds, “then the trust is gone.”

Some of the other cops are bit more cynical. For one thing, this comes on the heels of real policing–talking out the US 1 gunman without injuries to himself or others as they did earlier today. “Notice that there’s no one from the union risking arrest” says one hard case. “It takes real smarts to get arrested for someone else”. Some might call it altruism, but this uniformed (and unionized) gentlemen sees it as rich spoiled kids being irresponsible. What will mommy and daddy think, asks another.

***

Around at the front of the Ashe building there’s a lot of chanting going on (in Spanish). What do we want? JUSTICE. When do we want it? NOW.

There’s a tent pitched on the lawn for no obvious reason. Maybe supporters plan to sleep here, and are afraid of rain although none is forecast.

At the table where I’m writing this, undergrads are trying to do their homework. One student is obsessing – I can’t go home, what if they arrest my roommate, I have to be here to get her out of jail.

A guy doing his math explains why I can’t seem to get a wireless connection near the Ashe building – the administration turned off this part of the wireless cloud that covers the campus so that the students couldn’t communicate via Internet.

***

So it looks like a standoff.

Or does it? One of the chaplains outside the front says that the reporter from Telemundo told her that the cops have orders to arrest everyone as soon as Shalala leaves.

Donna Shalala? Yes, it seems UM’s President has come back in and is meeting with the remaining dozen or so students. And, judging by what we can see through the large glass doors, Father Frank has agreed to leave the room.

A young woman is passing out the lyrics to the star spangled banner urging everyone to get ready to sing it together .

***

11pm. Back to the back door. The cops swear up and down that they don’t have any instructions to arrest anyone. The Lieutenant has gone home. “It’s private property,” the cop in charge outside says. “The kids can stay as long as they like. Of course, if the University tells them to leave, and they refuse, then they are trespassing, and then they can be arrested.”

So we really don’t have any idea what’s going on. Shalala came in this way, her car is parked back here, will she address the folks out front before leaving or skulk out the back?

***

Over to the front again. They say they spotted Shalala leaving the ground floor room where the students are and going upstairs towards the President’s office. “She gave us a wave and a smile” a student says.

Not much to go on, is it?

+++

(Posted from Richter library)

Ashe Building On-Scene Report

Shortly after posting the last update, I got an email from a unionization supporter reporting that

• The students are still in the adminission office, with no A/C, no access to bathrooms, no water, little food.
• there is a large crowd around the Ashe Building, supporing the students inside; there's also police
• UM President Donna Shalala offered to meet with the students, but only on condition that Father Frank wouldn't be in the room. The students "didn't like the sound of this," and brought Father Frank with them to the meeting, so Shalala walked out on them almost immediately.
• UNICCO has threatened to start firing people as soon as Thursday

What I'd like to know is why is Donna Shalala afraid of Father Frank Corbishley?

Ashe Building Update

The latest I have heard is that there are about 20 persons inside the Ashe building, primarily students but also including Father Frank Corbishley. The administration is not letting them use the toilets, but they have brought kitty litter.

Here's what I have on reliable authority: The UM Administration ordered reporters to leave the building at 5pm under threat of arrest. The students stayed. The police have been called, but as of last rumor no arrests had been made--yet. Instead, negotiations are under way.

Things were sort of on hold for a while because of an unrelated nearby incident in which a gunman barricaded himself in a house about a mile up US 1, causing all Southbound (returning commuter) traffic to be stopped at Douglas Raod, which resulted in a tie-up going back several miles to I-95.

I am told there was great coverage on CBS Channel 4, making this one of the rare times I am sorry I don't have a TV. When I get back home, I'll try pulling up the online video.

Ashe Building Occupation Ongoing

I am told that the Ashe Building, the administrative center of the University, and also the home to many faculty offices in the Arts and Sciences, is currently being occupied by a student group. Here's the text of an email from an Anthropology professor that is making the rounds,

As of 12:30pm today, a group of approx 20 UM students occupied the downstairs lobby of the Ashe building, and plan to stay there until they can meet with Pres.Shalala regarding workplace justice at UM. They are being supported by about 40 or so faculty, staff, clergy, and union organizers who made it into the building before the Coral Gables and University police arrived and the building was shut down. Currently faculty who have offices and classes in Ashe are being turned away at the door, others are being allowed to enter if they show a University ID. Some members of the UM community are staying inside until 5pm, when a vigil begins outside the building to protect the students in this action. Please consider joining the group of clergy, students, faculty etc outside the building, or entering the building yourself, if possible. Please consider bringing water or food to those inside-when I left a few minutes ago, no one was being allowed to use the water fountains (!) or restrooms (!!). Even faculty who have offices upstairs, and are currently on the ground floor, are not being allowed to leave the ground floor. The Coral Gables police I spoke with inside say their orders come from the University.

The more of us who witness these decisions by the University leadership, the better.

Rumor has it that there were also arrests on US 1 during the demonstration at lunch time.

I am not on campus at present, but will post more when I learn more.

Official Word from UM

At last, an official statement from Donna Shalala:

A Message from President Shalala

Dear Student,

Welcome back from Spring Break. I hope you enjoyed your time off.

I have some important news to share with you. Last week, the work group I appointed to study wages and insurance benefits of the employees of outside service contractors completed their analysis of the local market and presented their findings to me.

Their conclusions were that some of our outside service contractors were paying hourly wages that were below market, that service contractors were having difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified employees due to low entry wages and minimal annual increases, and that some of the service contractors did not offer low-cost health insurance.

The work group’s findings made it clear that the University needed to take immediate steps to address wages and health insurance for hourly employees working for our outside service contractors.

I am pleased to report that, effective last Thursday, the University adopted and implemented a new policy that sets minimum standards for service contractors doing business on the University’s campuses. The primary components of the new policy are as follow:

• Effective immediately, the minimum hourly wage for all employees of outside service contractors is $8.00 per hour. Housekeepers, who previously had a starting hourly wage of $6.40, now have a minimum starting hourly wage of $8.55. Groundskeepers, who previously had a starting hourly wage of $6.40, now have a minimum starting hourly wage of $9.30.
• University service contractors are expected to recognize performance and length of service in their pay scales. Many current hourly employees are seeing additional increases that put their pay above the new minimums, based on their total years of service. The University will review wage rates annually and update the minimum standards of the policy consistent with changes in market conditions.
• All service contractors are expected to offer health insurance to all of their employees, keeping monthly premiums low in order to encourage high participation by the employees. Contractors are expected to implement the health insurance within a month, which allows a reasonable time to negotiate physician contracts and conduct enrollment activities.

We are very satisfied that this new University program establishes a wage and benefit level that is near the top of the market. The new policy is already in effect, and hourly contract employees are now receiving increased wages. Most hourly contract employees received their pay increases in their paychecks yesterday, and the rest will receive their increases in paychecks this week — all retroactive to last Thursday.

I requested this study as a response to the outpouring of sentiment from our community — students, faculty, staff, alumni, trustees, donors, and the clergy. We adopted the new policy because the data and analysis clearly indicated a change was in order, but more importantly, it was the right thing to do. Universities should always lead the way, and providing fair wages and health insurance is a necessity.

It is also important to point out that the University’s position on the labor dispute has not changed. The University remains neutral and is not a party to those discussions. That is an issue to be decided between UNICCO, its employees, and the union.

Finally, I want to assure you that there will be no increase in tuition next year to cover the cost of this new program. Tuition is already high, and we intend to honor all published rates for the next academic year.

I appreciate your input on this issue during the past few weeks. And I know that you support our decision to provide increased wages and health insurance for the hourly employees of our service contractors. I wish I could assure you that the next few months will be quiet, as the union, service contract workers, and their employer engage in a debate over representation. We need to respect the process. Democracy is messy.

Best wishes,

Donna E. Shalala
President

It's good to have something official, although I'd still like to see the whole text of the actual report.

I think we have to give UM credit here. UM may be a little late to the party (the faculty agitation on this issue started at least in 2001), but they've done some good things, and for that we should be happy and grateful. That doesn't mean there isn't some fine print to be worried about. The two chief items which jump off the page are the issue of how much "health insurance ... [with] monthly premiums low in order to encourage high participation by the employees" will actually cost or what it will offer. The reality -- which is no fault of UM's or for that matter UNICCO's -- is that decent health insurance is increasingly expensive, and might even cost as much or more than some of these raises.

The even bigger problem, of course, is that if you view this move in context, it's impossible to deny that the only reason this happened in 2006 is that the SEIU came in and organized people. That factor was absent in 2001, ditto 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. Under the circumstances, it would be irrational for either the SEIU or the workers who support them to give up their drive for a union, as it is now painfully clear that it is only through collective action -- headline-grabbing collective action -- that they achieve anything.

And the fundamental impasse on the issue of how the workers' sentiments should be measured (card or ballot) remains unresolved.

Weird Media Blackout at UM Relating to Strike Report

I'd like to read the university's report on pay and benefits for contract workers. I'd like to link to it too. But there's still nothing on the UM web site. Nothing.

I called UM's usually efficient Media Relations. "Evlynne" -- who wouldn't give her last name -- said that she didn't know anything about getting copies of the report. And there was no statement available from the university. There is no press release. "Where did the Herald get its information?" I asked. "I don't know," she said. There will, she said, be a letter to the faculty on Monday. Then she put down the phone.

In fact, it turns out, the Herald sourced its story to an interview with Shalala. I called the President's office. The person answering the phone said she didn't know anything about copies of the committee's report or a statement, and someone would call me back. So far, no one has.

Is it just that everyone is on vacation (it's Spring Break) or is this just slightly odd?

Classes to Resume on Campus

It looks as if the requst to professors to move classes off campus is being lifted. That's very good news for the law school. Here's what it says at the Picketline Blog:

As many of you may have heard by now, Donna Shalala today announced that the university will set its own minimum wage for all contract employees (not just those employed by UNICCO) and offer them some health insurance. ...

This is a step in the right direction. However, we have not yet crossed the finish line and attained a place at the table for the workers. A one-time raise from the University (which, if the details reported in the Herald are true, still does not guarantee a living wage for most campus workers) while a very positive step in itself, is no substitute for the on-going ability of the workers to have a say in the full range of decisions that affect their working lives, let alone for a permanent "place at thetable" where they can ensure that these hard-fought gains do not deteriorate over time.Without successful unionization, it may only be a matter of time before we have to go through this whole process again. UNICCO is still under investigation by the NLRB (indeed, additional charges alleging further labor-law violations will be filed by SEIU tomorrow). The strike continues until UNICCO recognizes the right of the workers to form a union in a manner that is not contaminated by intimidation and ceases its violations of labor law. (Read the SEIU response here.)

What can and should sympathetic faculty members do at this point?

Acknowledging the progress we are making, we suggest that faculty return to teaching in normal class rooms, starting this Monday, March 20th, and that we begin a new series of actitivities and events designed to demonstrate our continued support for the courageous strikers whose preliminary success we celebrate today. We urge everyone to attend and publicize these events as much as they are able.

There's a number of events listed, and they promise more.

Strike Progress!

OK - We're getting somewhere!

Here's what the Miami Herald has to say:

University of Miami will raise the minimum wages of its contract employees, including striking janitors and groundskeepers, by at least 25 percent, according to a new policy that will apply to about 900 workers.

Some UM janitors and other workers have been on strike for three weeks, in a effort led by the Service Employees' International Union, which is trying to organize the employees of Unicco Service Co. While union leaders cheered President Donna Shalala's decision to raise the floor of wages for the workers, they said the strike against Unicco over unfair labor practices will continue.

Under the new policy, the university will raise its current base hourly pay from $6.40 an hour, the current state minimum wage, to take effect immediately. The new minimum pay for food service workers will be $8 an hour; housekeepers will make $8.55 an hour, and landscapers will make at least $9.30 an hour.

Compensation will also be adjusted for years on the job and merit.

Health care benefits, including medical, dental and vision plans, will also be offered to the workers.

The Board of Trustees has already approved the policy, which will apply immediately to all current contracts -- some workers will see pay increases as soon as Sunday -- and to all future university contractors, University President Donna Shalala said in a interview on Thursday.

''We are going to lead the market,'' Shalala said, adding that this wasn't a policy just for Unicco, but for all of its contractors. The policy, she said, was in response what the university had heard from the community -- including faculty, students, religious leaders and the union.

If true this is wonderful news: it sounds UM and Shalala have stepped up to the plate in a big way. Obviously one would like to read the actual report, though.

That's not so simple.

Oddly, the University of Miami's usually hyper-efficient publicity machine has no report of this eagerly awaited event on its web page. In fact, if you look at the homepage for the University of Miami you will no longer even find any links to the University's statements about strike. Ditto, no press release on the news releases page. Over at the "news" page the top story is "New Medical Dean Named".

But here's the thing: the current walkout isn't simply about money. Indeed, as a legal matter, it's about unionization, not wages. So while this sounds like the University is doing the right thing, whether this will end the current walkout is less clear, since it doesn't actually go to the specific issue that sparked the strike, which is unionization. And indeed, as the University kept telling us, those issues are between UNICCO and the workers, and UM is just a neutral party...

And this may explain why the SEIU reply to the UM statement, reproduced at the Picketline Blog (run by faculty supportive of the efforts of the current unionization effort) was a little guarded, almost churlish,

SEIU statement in response to UM's announcement: For the first time since janitors at the University of Miami began their struggle to improve their lives by forming a union, the University of Miami today acknowledged its direct responsibility for the wages and working conditions of workers on its campus. This afternoon a University workgroup convened by President Donna Shalala released a set of recommendations that would set a minimum wage and increase access to some level of health care for contract workers on the campus, including the janitors.

In the report the University did not acknowledge the janitors' freedom to choose to form a union.
...

The details of the workgroup's recommendations and the timeline for implementation are not yet clear. A previous University of Miami committee issued similar recommendations involving worker compensation in 2001, but they were never implemented.

So it may not be over after all.

The UNICCO statement (everyone except UM is online with this) is even more hard-nosed and confrontational, starting with the headline SEIU will NEVER Be Satisfied,

President Donna Shalala just announced that almost all of UNICCO’s workers at the University of Miami will see significant pay increases, some by as much as 35 to 45 percent. And they will be eligible for healthcare benefits.

SEIU calls the step “incredible” but not enough. The strike goes on.

What’s with these people?

All along, they said this “strike” – which was never authorized by a secret vote of the workers affected – was about higher pay and healthcare benefits.

SEIU wants more … but it will never get enough. We believed from the start that this action was not about our employees. It was – and remains – about SEIU egos.

We are happy for our employees. But we still say, let them vote in a secret election monitored by the Federal government for fairness. Perhaps the faculty and students who supported the SEIU action will now turn their support to our employees.

Let them vote. It’s what we have wanted from the outset.

More soon, when there's more to relay...

Settle in for a Long Haul?

Picketline blog reports that the national SEIU has raised half a million dollars for the UM strike fund. And promises that much again if needed.

This sounds to me like a very strategic development in that it means the strikers are unlikely to fold soon. My solar-powered calculator suggests that $500,000 is enough to support the entire would-be bargaining unit at $7.50 for 40 hours a week for almost four weeks. And if UNICCO is right that only 25% of the employees are actually not showing up for work (presumably the only ones eligible for strike pay), that means we should multiply that times four, which carries us well into the summer. And that's not even considering the other donations they may have received, or the possibility that strike pay may be less than 100% of lost wages.

UNICCO's latest line is that everything should be on hold until Shalala's committee issues its report. While the committee report certainly offers a face-saving way for the University to get out of this mess, and I hope it takes it, from its make-up this isn't a committee which looks very independent of President's office, nor one that has any great history of pro-worker sentiment. Rather the contrary, so while I'm hopeful, I'm also not that confident.

Meanwhile, other than the obvious facts that (1) card-check elections are more likely to result in a union than NLRB-managed elections, and (2) both sides say the method they dislike is too easily manipulated by the other side, and (3) the apparent fact that UNICCO has allowed card-check elections elsewhere, but doesn't want want here for some reason, is there anyone who can point me to a discussion of the merits and demerits of card check vs. elections as a fair means of measuring what workers actually want?

Last-Minute Rally Downtown?

Maybe, probably, I'm not on the right mailing lists, but I just got the following e-mail, which was the first I'd heard of this event:

Rally to Support Striking UM Workers,

Friday March 10, 4:30 pm County Bldg. 111 NW 1st ST That's Government Center in downtown!!

Every Miami Worker Deserves A Chance for a Better Life. You Can Help UM Janitors Get That Chance.

IT'S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE ENDS MEET in Miami on $6.40 an hour. Yet that's all many contract cleaners at the University of Miami are paid. $51 a day with no health benefits. Less than half the county median wage. On these tiny salaries, we're forced to make choices we never thought we'd be faced with in the United States: Do we pay rent or buy groceries? Buy shoes for our kids or fill a prescription? UM's mostly Cuban-American janitors have been joining together to build a better life for ourselves one where we don't have to make these choices. But the company we work for--UNICCO, the cleaning contractor hired by the university--has been punishing those who speak out by threatening, intimidating, and even suspending union supporters. So we've decided we must strike to make our voices heard. You can help send a message to UNICCO:

Give Miami janitors a chance to live the American dream.

Support Striking Janitors
RALLY: Friday, March 10 ? 4:30 p.m.
County Building, 111 NW 1st Street

For more information, contact SEIU Local 11 305-672-7071, ext. 246
Service Employees International Union Local 11

This all seems rather last minute. I'm certainly not in a position to go. I hope they know what they are doing.

Update: The organizers' account of the rally -- 300+ is a good turnout for this sort of event.

UM Law Sets Up a Strike Blog

The law school has set up a strike blog to aid communication between the school and students. It's brand new, so there isn't much content there yet, but I'm told there will be more within 24 hours.

From: "Coker, Donna K."
Subject: Strike Blog & Other Related Matters

Dear Students,

I want thank those students who participated in the two events on Tuesday - the information session organized by students at noon and the town hall discussion in the afternoon. While faculty differ in their responses to the strike, the conversation at the town hall meeting made clear that they are strongly committed to student education. The video of the town hall meeting will be posted on the "web cast" page of the web site.

The strong differences of opinion and the robust nature of public debate regarding those differences exemplify the kind of thoughtful community that is the University Of Miami School Of Law. We would expect no less from our passionate and intellectually engaged faculty and students. While some of these issues divide us, we share commitments to intellectual honesty, to justice, and to the value of a community of learning.

The Law School has established a blog to continue the conversation about the strike. You can find it at http://www.umlaw.net/strike/. We asked faculty to post strike-related messages to students on the blog rather than via email. The blog, of course, gives students an additional way to communicate with each other as well as with administration and faculty.

We will continue to monitor the situation with the strike and the ramifications for the law school community. We anticipate sponsoring further informational sessions. If you are having difficulty with locating taped classes (web or otherwise), please let us know. Our AV department is working overtime to keep up with the demands of the current crisis.

Donna Coker
Associate Dean

Class Warfare

Steve Vladeck has written up some thoughts spurred by the Town Meeting yesterday. When Students Strike Back -- Some Reactions. Go read it. (The comments are well worth reading too.) I'll wait.

Like Steve, I find myself taken aback by the size of the anti-strike faction among the students, and especially at the vehemence of a significant minority of the students who experience some of their professors' decisions to move classes off campus as a wholly unreasonable imposition on their time (rather than as an understandable attempt to deal with difficult circumstances), or even as a cheap political stunt enacted by unfeeling hypocritical brutes.

I am lucky I am not teaching this semester, as it saves me the painful choices and the massive amounts of extra work that face my colleagues. So instead, let me ruminate out loud. It seems to me that there are two surprising things going on here: one is the lack of solidarity between (quite a few ) students and workers with whom they are in close proximity. The other is the lack of solidarity between (quite a few) students and the faculty with whom they are in close proximity. Indeed, one might go so far as to wonder at the hair-trigger anger of (quite a few) students at the faculty and administration. (The third thing going on -- that so many people see their view as 'neutral' and the other view as 'biased' is unfortunate, but hardly surprising.)

I can't help compare this to my memory of being a first semester 1L during one Yale's many strikes. It may be that because I was off campus I wasn't exposed to the full breadth of anti-striker and anti-strike-supporter sentiment, but my sense then, almost 20 years ago now, was that these views existed, were articulated, but were held by only a tiny minority. And while there was deep grumbling about individual faculty members' choices, I don't recall much hatred. I certainly resented my Contracts prof's decision to stay on campus but it never felt terribly personal. It was just the way he was going to be.

So I'm wondering if it's the times that are different, or the place?

There's something to be said for the times: unions and strikes are much rarer now than they were when most of the faculty were students. Students are thus much less likely to have grown up hearing about respecting (or not respecting) picket lines, and also less likely to have a living family member in a union.

In one small but telling way it's clearly the place: the Yale workers and their supporters did a much better job of pre-strike preparation than did the SEIU. This strike landed on UM very suddenly. Not only was there almost no well-publicized warning of the looming strike vote, but the time between the vote and the strike was short. At no relevant time did the union or its supporters do the hard work of explaining what might be likely to happen and why. That didn't help make alliances.

But I think that's only part of the story.

The other part of the story has to do with fear and resentment. There's just a lot of it around here and now. It begins with the fact that for an appreciable fraction of our class, UM was not their first choice. Coming to class is not a source of joy and delight and the future seems clouded rather than necessarily bright. Almost all of our students got good to excellent grades in college. Not all do well here -- the skill set the law needs is different from what makes a successful undergraduate, and people catch on at different rates (I sure didn't get it my first semester). Those first term grades, and even some of the later ones, leave much of the class worrying that so long as they are not at the very top they may end up as losers. I graduated during a time of rapid expansion in the entry-level lawyer market. Today the economy is uncertain; students here and now have no less debt in real dollars, and have reasons beyond the relative statuses of the schools to be nervous about their futures. Add in the fact that many people find law school to be both hard and boring, and not all of them are actually here due to any great love for the law or related subjects (for many of the upwardly mobile, as for the scions of the upper middle class, law school represents a chance at a respectable, moderately interesting, and well-paid career), and pretty soon you have an explosive mix: a lot of fear, not all of it unreasonable, either, basted with resentment. Hard, hard work with an uncertain payoff beyond substantial debt.

It's not a stretch to see how this fear translates into disinterest in the plight of janitors on the part of some: If you're working harder than you ever have before and have more debt than ever before, and don't have a job in hand for after graduation, it takes a pretty high degree of communitarianism to react well to the sudden announcement that your life is going to get harder and more complicated because people want you to spend some uncertain amount more on tuition. (The amount at issue may be quite small in the grand scheme of things but (1) no one in the SEIU has tried to explain that, if only because there are no specific demands other than unionization itself currently on the table; and (2) even a small amount rankles when that's the reward for the end of the inconvenience.)

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that these same fears cause anger at the faculty. It's only human nature for students to internalize that they earned the good grades while blaming the faculty for issuing the bad ones, especially when they are used to doing well with less effort. Yet, like Steve, I am taken aback by the extent of the bitter resentment an appreciable group of students is directing at the law school's faculty and administration. Neither group has any say in the University's labor policies. To the extent that the law school's contribution to university 'overhead' (which I imagine includes cleaning services?) is a fixed percentage of tuition, it's not even obvious that a single dollar of any settlement will necessarily come out a single law student's pocket, although obviously the law school administration can't say that right now even if it's true.

There are one or two faculty members who are notoriously insensitive in the first year. But I don't think that's the root cause for this anti-faculty animus any more than I'm going to blame the TV blowhards whose anti-intellectual and especially anti-academic rants so frequently fill the airwaves.

I'd expect that most of the faculty see students as junior versions of themselves and their friends. After all, we were (almost) all law students once. What the current fracas reveals is that many students not only don't see the faculty as senior versions of themselves, but seem quite unaware that even when it doesn't feel their pain, the faculty wants them to learn, and to go out into the world prepared to do good and to do well.

What we have here is a serious failure to communicate.

But it seems I got my halloween costume about right.

UM Promises to Be Good About Something

Students are not the only ones with strike-related anxieties. Anyone who is a "supervisor" -- a term that can reach quite low down the food chain -- is considered management and could in theory be disciplined for wearing a pro-union button.

UM issued a statement this morning reaffirming the principle of free speech on campus. I would guess that the statement is in response to the recent incident involving intimidation by the campus police. I think it also in effect promises 'supervisors' protection for button wearing and other expressions of personal opinion:

Statement to the University of Miami Community Reaffirming Freedom of Expression

Last week the University of Miami issued a statement reaffirming the rights of the University community to express opinions regarding the UNICCO employees who are involved in organizing activities with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This includes exercising the right to free speech, engaging in peaceful demonstrations that conform with established University policies, and other expressions regarding the UNICCO employees (buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.).

The University maintains that commitment and reminds all administrators to honor and respect this activity insofar as it does not disrupt the workplace or the provision of services to our various constituents. As members of an academic community, our faculty, staff, and students have an obligation to continue to teach, to do research, and to see patients-fundamental missions of the University. Therefore, any exercise of freedom of expression should be consistent with the rights of other members of the community who wish to attend classes, conduct research, practice medicine, receive health care, or visit our campuses.

UM Law Communications Barrage Begins

The law faculty had a meeting yesterday, and there was general agreement about many things most of which I'll leave to the Dean to discuss. But three items are worth noting now: I think that there was consensus on the need for each of us to reassure students that they will not be penalized for physical absence from lectures (a latitude which will not, however, apply to exams...sorry guys) whether on or off campus and to provide meaningful alternatives, be they tape, video, handouts, or alternate meetings, which will meet students' educational needs and expectations.

There was also widespread agreement among the faculty that this is a major teaching moment: many of our students have never seen a strike up close, or a picket line, and with unions down to circa 10% of the US work force, this is a chance to learn about labor relations, worker economics, and many other things it will be valuable to know.

Another item of consensus was that the law school hasn't done a great job of communicating what the faculty are doing with their classes -- in part because they've been too busy doing it to tell the registrar's office. Or indeed communicating our thinking, or much of anything.

So, law student readers, expect a barrage of communication efforts in the days to come. And indeed, it begins:

U.M. Law Town Hall Meeting. The meeting will take place today, Tuesday, from 4:30 – 6:30 in Room 352. Dean Lynch will moderate the discussion. All students and faculty are encouraged to attend. The meeting will be an opportunity for students to voice their concerns about the strike and its ramifications on the law school community. Unfortunately, the meeting time conflicts with some classes. Given the pressing nature of the concerns and the importance of meeting before spring break, this was the best time we could find. We will tape the discussion and make it available on the web for those who are do not attend. Conflicting classes will meet at their usual time unless your instructor decides otherwise. Any issues related to class conflicts should be directed to your instructor.

Student Organized Panel on the Strike. Also today is a panel discussion of substantive issues regarding the strike. This panel, organized by students, consists of a UNICCO spokesperson, SEIU (union) representative, a UNICCO worker, and Professor Michael Fischl. The meeting will take place in the student lounge from 12:30 – 2:00 and pizza will be served.

Strike Economics -- Questions and a Back-of-the-Envelope Calculation

Having been away when the strike hit, I am perhaps unduly perplexed as to some aspects of it.

Here's a quick summary of what I (think I) understand, and what I'm fairly sure I don't know about the economic issues.

I think that there are about 450 mostly janitorial employees in the would-be bargaining unit. This includes both the Coral Gables campus and the Medical School (and perhaps the Rosenstiel campus too?). The workers' current grievance is with UNICCO, which contracts with UM. The UM contract is only one of many held by UNICCO.

Most people I've talked to believe Donna Shalala could end all this with a phone call and money. Whether that's true or not, UM's leverage is both economic and moral, and especially the moral aspect is a reason why one might reasonably expect Donna Shalala to take a leadership role.

One thing that seems generally agreed is that whether or not there are any current constraints on the extent to which the University can insert itself into what is in form a dispute between its contractor and the contractor's employees, this contract ends soon, and there are fewer limits on UM's ability to announce what terms it will wish to put into the next contract, be it with UNICCO or a competitor. If UM were to announce that the next contract will require a minimum wage of $N per hour, or a specific level of health benefits, that would be legal, subject only to questions of timing (I'm told that were the announcement too close to a unionization vote it might be seen as an unfair labor practice); the downside from UM's point of view is that it would undercut UNICCO, which the University seems strangely loath to do, and would ultimately cost money. How much money is itself an interesting question (see below).

As to the specific desires of the would-be bargaining unit, there are, I gather, at least four families of issues, each of which raises factual questions of its own.

First, there is the allegation of unsafe working conditions, primarily at the Medical School campus. I would have thought that even a moderately well-managed university would take every allegation of endangerment to life or limb on its premises extremely seriously. I am very puzzled as to why the University hasn't broken out this piece of the controversy and dealt with it, or at least thoroughly investigated it, expeditiously. I would have thought that this should really be defined as a safety (and liability!) issue, not a financial dispute, both to defuse it, and because that is in essence what's at issue.

Second, there is the issue of how the workers should be polled as to their desire to form a union. The SEIU wants to have workers sign cards, until it accumulates the amount that triggers a duty to recognize the union; UNICCO says it prefers a ballot of the employees which tends to be more favorable to management. Strangely, I'm told that in many other places UNICCO co-exists fine with unions, and has even agreed to card drives in a large number of locations. Why UNICCO is playing such hardball here is thus something of a mystery. Some have speculated that UNICCO is only doing what the University wants, or what UNICCO thinks the University wants, or what various mid- or even top-level administrators may have told it that the University wants. It's all quite obscure.

Third, there is the issue of medical benefits. All of us at UM get much lousier medical benefits than we did 15 years ago -- something which I gather makes us no different from almost everyone else in the USA. There were years when the premium increases ate my salary increase net of taxes. We pay more than we used to and get less (unless we choose the plan where we don't pay much and get almost nothing). As I understand it, the UNICCO workers get an even poorer deal than UM employees, combined with the fact that since their salaries are so low, high-cost medical plans are not really a realistic option for them if they wish to continue to indulge their life-long practice of purchasing food and shelter. But I have no idea what specifically the would-be bargaining unit is asking for, or even if they've made a specific demand, much less what that would cost. I suspect that as there's no recognized union yet, there's probably no specific demand, just "better".

Fourth, there's the issue of salary. Again, there not being a recognized bargaining unit, I presume there isn't an actual salary demand. But that needn't stop us from trying to get some ballpark figures. (There's some history here by the way. In 2001 the UM Faculty Senate issued a report on what it would take to raise UNICCO workers to a living wage, which so far I can't find on line but I'm told estimated it would be about $2.5 m