Hey, there! Log in / Register
That's going to be awkward when the strike is over
By adamg on Fri, 10/21/2016 - 9:23am
The Crimson interviews some of the small number of Harvard food-services workers who have gone back to work.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Demonization
When I worked for a Union I couldn't stand the way the union leadership demonized the company. I had my differences with the company's senior management, but most non-union management was great. It was frustrating when the union would speak in language which would turn off potential customers and in the long term cost jobs.
It drove me nuts how the union leadership would defend lazy and incompetent members. The company wasn't vindictive -- if someone was penalized they deserved it. Often the member who won grievances where the same people who's attitudes were toxic and had every right to be let go.
I think unions are important, especially in low-wage, low-skill jobs. But I'm under no illusions the unions are not without their own major flaws. If this country had stronger labor laws most unions wouldn't be needed at all.
The problem with that
The problem with that is that we're unlikely to get (or keep) stronger labor laws without unions - sure, "the majority" might want them, but there won't be any organization to focus that & keep the pressure on. All of that will be on the employers' side. And in any real world, this goes even if we do have major financing reform.
Irony
The irony is that unions' focus on the political arena, and stronger labor laws, has made them more irrelevant than ever. Once upon a time, if you wanted a raise, or better health benefits, or sick leave, you'd go talk to a union rep about organizing. Today, if you want these benefits you talk to your state legislator.
I for one don't mind that - we're already paying legislators to pass laws. Why would you want to pay a union a chunk of your paycheck every week for doing what the state can do.
You Ran Into Bad Union Leadership
Like every position, there are 'good' and 'bad' union leaders. Sounds like you hit some 'bad' ones.
Note, union leaders are duty bound to defend a member who is in some form of jeopardy. 'Good' ones will do the minimum if the employee deserves the proposed punishment. As you noted, it's bad for the organization to retain toxic employees. But they will go hard to defend an over-charged employee. There are 'bad' bosses too.
'Bad' union leaders (I've really only experienced one) have a chip on their should that's unrelated to the job.
Question
Are these part time workers? If not, can't they collect unemployment during the summer months if one of their demands is pay throughout the summer and employment opportunities in the summer?
Didn't sound like it
One of them was talking about not just being perfectly happy with what Harvard's paying him but with the chance to pay more for health insurance.
9 Month position
The union should be lobbying to change the jobs to 9 month appointments (common in higher ed) so it would be easier to find work during the summer. As I understand it, Harvard won't tell them who will and won't work until just before breaks so it's hard to look for supplemental employment as they won't know their schedule in advance.
That's a big deal and a real grievance, IMHO.
The Crimson states "HUDS
The Crimson states "HUDS workers are laid off during the University’s recesses and are not able to draw unemployment because of the school’s status as a non-profit organization."
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2016/10/10/harvard-calls-on-volunteers/
Thanks Kat.
That actually answers my question.
Strange the municipalities have to give it out but not "non profits"?
Not a black-and-white situation
I know and like people on both sides of this - dining workers and dining management. I've never been a big fan of Harvard, but the situation is not as black-and-white as it's been portrayed.
From what I've heard, workers are offered work over the summer either in other areas (like painting crews) or on other campuses, which many refuse for various reasons. Harvard has also offered to change how they handle the situation about breaks so that workers can get temporary unemployment over the summer.
As to health care costs - these workers haven't had an increase in costs since 2008, which the rest of the university has had many increases (including other union workers). The university plans that I know of have caps on out-of-pocket expenses, so people with chronic illnesses and expensive medications can actually end up not having to pay any co-pays by mid-year (I know this from personal experience) and actually end up paying less than under previous co-pay systems. The union originally wanted to have the option to use their union's healthcare system, but is now rejecting that option.
I hope this strike can be resolved soon, for everyone's sake.
That answers my question
This way the workers can't claim unemployment because they are offered other work, but the work they are offered isn't really planned out fairly to workers.
part of negotiations
From what I've been told, Harvard offered in the negotiations to change things so they could claim unemployment.