Alleging that the college hired workers who are not paid a
livable wage, the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters has been
protesting the construction of the Matchbox, the college’s four million
dollar-plus new fitness, wellness and theater building. The Philadelphia-area
union has stationed itself outside of the college’s entrance by the SEPTA
station with a sign reading “Shame on Swarthmore” since last June, and argues
that the college’s decision to rely partially on non-unionized workers who are
not paid the prevailing area wage and benefits is out of sync with its
purported commitment to social justice.
“Swarthmore College speaks of fostering social
responsibility and cultivating the moral sense of how to live in a community,”
said Jason Rhode, a member of the union and a protestor. “I don’t think paying
someone substandard wages or benefits reflects those characteristics.”
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and
Industry, the prevailing wage for carpenters in the Delaware county region is
approximately $36 per hour while benefits are roughly $24 an hour. The school
hired CVM Construction to complete the project, a company that uses a mixture
of unionized and non-unionized labor for projects. Thus, while some of the
subcontractors it hires pay their workers prevailing area wages and benefits,
others, including the carpentry firm Paramount Contracting, do not.
As a private institution, the college is not bound by the
Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, which requires that publicly financed
projects in excess of $100,000 to pay their construction employees the
prevailing wages and benefits. But union representatives argued that even
though the college has no legal responsibility to pay prevailing area wages and
benefits, it has an ethical obligation to do so.
“I don’t think it’s morally responsible to go the route they
did,” said Rhode.
Stuart Hain, vice president for facilities and capital
projects, declined to provide the Phoenix with the wages and benefits of the
non-unionized workers hired for construction of the Matchbox. But he asserted
that the wages and benefits offered to them
— while less than that of those in unions — were fair.
“I will not tell you they are paid the same way union
workers are, because they are not,” Hain said, adding that the biggest
difference was in the size and comprehensiveness of the benefit packages, and
not in the actual hourly wage. But, Hain said, “They are, we think, paid in a
way that represents the skill and commitment they bring to their employer.”
Both CVM Construction and Paramount Contracting did not
respond to multiple interview requests from the Phoenix.
The college also argued that it was using its construction
projects to advance social justice in other ways. Gregory Brown, the school’s
new vice president for finance and administration, said that the decision to
look beyond unionized workers was also an attempt to recruit a more diverse
workforce through an economic opportunity program.
“We are also making sure that, where possible, if it is a
woman-owned firm or a minority-owned firm, we are able to give preference,” he
said, noting that many such firms are not represented by the union. “We want to
make sure we have access to all the contractors.”
He added that as part of its projects, the school was also
creating a workforce development program aimed at helping train contractors. He
said the school believed that such workforce development would help train local
firms, particularly those based in Delaware County.
Rhodes was not convinced, and was particularly critical of
the college’s decision to hire Paramount contracting.
“Paramount is not from the local area — they’re from
Lancaster,” he said. “They don’t hire local employees, and they pay them
substandard wages and give them very little if any benefits at all.”
He noted that the school’s decision to use a mixture of
union and non-union contracting on a major project was a departure from what
the school had done in the past.
“On these bigger jobs, they hired contractors who paid the
prevailing rate to their employees,” he said.
Hain and Brown acknowledged that this was a change from the
previous sizable projects, but listed several reasons for the departure from
past practices. In particular, Hain said, the school wanted to avoid having to
adhere to the union’s work rules, which would have made the construction more
complicated and expensive.
“The trickiest issue would have probably been around
installation of the skin on the top of the building,” he said, referring to the
red cement panels on the Matchbox’s rooftop. If the school had hired unionized
workers, he said, there would have been a struggle about how many different
trades would have to be involved in that process.
Now, the various tasks necessary to install the panels can
be done with one group, as opposed to several.
“There is more flexibility,” Hain said.
The college is not the only institution that has run into
trouble with the carpenters’ council when it comes to work rules. The
Philadelphia Convention Center is currently engaged in an ongoing battle with
the union over who can do what work on its premises. The carpenters’ union,
along with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, refused to sign a
revised Customer Satisfaction Agreement which, while raising union worker
salaries, granted exhibitors the leeway to set up their booths themselves, so
long as they are smaller than 600 feet, use full-time employees (who need not
be unionized), and refrain from use of complicated power tools.
The other four unions that work at the Convention Center all
signed the agreement, which many believe has been instrumental in bringing back
business to the center, which was previously struggling.
But since last May, the carpenters have been protesting
outside its premises.
Brown said that, while not the same, the problems the
Convention Center faced were similar to the ones the school was trying to
avoid.
“They’re parallel issues,” he said.
The school also said that the savings it was incurring from
avoiding the carpenters’ work rules and the higher wages and benefits were
enough to justify its decision, particularly in light of the many upcoming
construction projects, which include a new residence hall and a biology,
engineering and psychology building.
“If you think about how big these next several projects are,
it really is a question of making sure we can make the financial resources
cover what we need to do,” said Brown. “We need to make sure we’ve got the
flexibility so that the financial resources can go to actually educating the
students.”
But Rhode rejected the notion that the financial costs would
be too high for the college.
“I don’t think Swarthmore College is hurting for money,” he
said.
He also suggested that whatever costs the school might incur
would be worth it in light of the social capital they lose by hiring non-union
workers.
“They want to be respected in the community,” Rhode said.
Beyond construction, wages have become an increasingly
salient issue at the college. The Swarthmore Labor Action Project is engaged in
an ongoing campaign for higher pay for many members of the college’s staff,
most notably Sharples workers. In 2013, the group estimated that a living wage
would be approximately $14.03 per hour.
Kim Canzoneri ’17, a member of SLAP, said that the school’s
points about financial savings tie into a larger debate on campus about whether
the school ought to spend a higher portion of the return it gets on its
endowment now instead of investing it for the future. She found herself on the
side of those who say the school ought to spend more now.
“We need to spend more of that endowment and not pretend
that we don’t have enough money to pay an extra few dollars to these workers
without taking away a bunch of money from the students,” she said.
Still, it looks as if there is little prospect that the
school will change its mind, at least for now.
“We have a lot of construction coming up,” said Brown. “And
we need to make sure the dollars get done what we need the dollars to get
done.”
Source: The
Swarthmore Phoenix
No comments:
Post a Comment