With an impressive number of construction projects on the
horizon, Swarthmore College plans to consider both union and non-union
contractors on a project-by-project basis. The college will choose between
contractors according to their treatment of workers, the quality of their work
and their ability to meet budget requirements. Local unionists, however, have
noted a stark drop in contracts from the college since the recession of 2008,
when the school stopped factoring union wages into their preliminary budget.
The margin allotted for wages during the planning process dropped so low that
it became nearly inconceivable for unions to meet the college’s budget needs
for any given project. Since 2008, the college has tended to hire
subcontractors who in turn employ non-unionized workers from out of state at
wages far below the local union average.
As far as the college administration is concerned, the
wages provided by Paramount Contracting are fair. Stu Hain, vice president for
facilities and capital projects, even argued that employees are paid “in a way
that represents the skill and commitment they bring to their employer.” The
prevailing wage in Delaware County is $36 per hour, with additional benefits
worth approximately $24 per hour. In the Phoenix’s September 4 article, he
admitted that ours were paid less than unionized workers, who receive the area
is prevailing wage and benefits. If the college admits that Paramount
Contracting is not paying its employees these wages, then Hain’s comment can
only mean one thing: the position of the administration is that the carpenters
who build our student facilities do not deserve the prevailing wage. The
college can hardly claim financial hardships as justification: the new Matchbox
building is the direct result of donations from alumni. Why was it that, upon
learning of the astounding generosity of Salem Shuchman ’84, Barbara Klock ’86
and other alumni, the first reaction of the building’s planning committee was,
“I bet we can turn a profit if we skimp on wages”?
In that article, Hain argued that a main reason that the
college does not want to hire union labor is to “make sure that, where
possible, if it is a woman-owned firm or a minority-owned firm, we are able to
give preference.” We are curious as to why the hired firm is considered a
woman-owned firm or a minority-owned firm; we would be remiss to assume the
race or gender of the executives pictured on both Paramount and CVM
Construction’s websites so we would like to let the college, with more insight
into the matter of diversity, explain. Hain also suggested that, generally, firms
that represent the diversity the college community wants tend not to be
unionized. In speaking with Jason Rode, a union representative, he provided us
with a number of firms represented by his union that are minority- or
woman-owned, who would be more than happy to work on building projects at the
college.
However, regardless of whether or not the college is
hiring firms that are diverse, there is no excuse for the college refusing to
pay a living wage to those employees that are subcontracted. If, in fact,
Hain’s comments meant that the college wanted to hire a workforce more diverse
in gender and racial background, it should be a red flag that the college is
happy to pay those workers less than the area standard for the sake of
“diversity.” Moreover, the union responding to this mistreatment of workers is
not necessarily asking for firms to be represented by a union, but rather is
concerned that the firms currently employed by the college are exploitative —
they pay substandard wages and provide few to no benefits. According to Rode,
the college had a strong relationship with local area unions in the past, but
has recently moved away from unions and fair wages altogether.
Irrespective of unionization, employees — direct or
otherwise — of the college deserve a fair living wage, which are most often set
by local unions. There has been easy dichotomy made between unionized and
non-unionized workers throughout the labor dispute at the Matchbox as well as
the Town Center West. However, in speaking to union representatives and reading
the literature they are providing to the public, we have found thattheir
concerns fall squarely on the shoulders of Swarthmore’s decision-makers, who
are intentionally avoiding hiring local laborers and employing local firms in addition
to paying wages and providing benefits below union standards. This is not
authentic work at community-building with the borough of Swarthmore and
surrounding townships. And this behavior by the college is not regular practice
by other institutions in our area. For example, the University of Pennsylvania
agrees to and follows through on hiring local contractors and employing local
laborers.
We also think it is important to remember that the
construction workers hired to complete the Matchbox not only did not belong to
unions or receive union wages, but also that no group on campus has a union
presence. In other words, despite its posturing as progressive, Swarthmore
College employees have no collective bargaining power. Additionally, there are
plenty of other employees on campus who are subcontracted and exploited by
their employers, but have not had a union to campaign for them. The college,
like any other business, makes a profit off its laborers, and those laborers
have no collective power to argue for their rights to better wages or increased
benefits.
What students, faculty and staff should keep in mind when
considering the issue of outside labor on our campus is that there are many
more buildings slated for construction within the framework of the strategic
plan. The backlash that the college is experiencing from the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners can be expected to continue as the college keeps
undermining area wages and benefits in the name of a bottom-line, instead of
using its hefty power in the region to work in tandem with the local workforce
and build sustainable relationships over time. As members of the Swarthmore
Labor Action Project, we want to hold our decision-makers accountable to
treating all of the college’s workers with respect and dignity in the form of
fair wages and power to collectively bargain without the intimidation paired
with a concerned smile we see happening in faculty and staff meetings, as well
as the school’s contracting and subcontracting practices.
Leo Rayfiel ’15
Jason Clayton ’16
Nora Kerrich ’16
Eden Barnett ’17
Kim Canzoneri ’17
Aaron True ’17
Sophia Zaia ’18
Source: The Phoenix
No comments:
Post a Comment