I’d like to thank Liz Norrick ’05 and Kate Mulligan ’04 for turning campus attention back to the issue of the Fair Labor Code of Conduct and worker misclassification.  Poorly researched pieces give us the opportunity to present our position, although admittedly, the argument is getting dull—when will someone come up with evidence not pulled from John Bryant’s very old email?  Although open versus closed shop is not, at all, the issue here, while illegal worker misclassification is, it would be easy to pull out alternate studies by various universities and think tanks that would show the benefits of unionization, and disprove the claim that “80 percent of laborers in the state” involved in construction aren’t unionized.  But that’s neither here nor there, I would appreciate someone sending SCA a copy of any paper, article, or flyer we have circulated specifying that construction workers on campus should or must be unionized.

Instead, the Fair Labor Code of Conduct, which was signed by over 1300 students, staff and faculty, calls for College neutrality in campus organizing.  The language is clear—“every employee has the right to free association, to organize unions without fear of retaliation, and to good-faith bargaining. Whenever a majority of employees have expressed the desire to be represented by a union - whether by signing a petition or union card, or by voting in a union election - colleges and universities should recognize their union.”  Does this mean that all workers must form a union?  Of course not.  But imagine if this Code of Conduct had been in place last year when the housekeepers were trying to decide whether or not to join a union.  The College held captive audience meetings, the President of the College sent housekeepers a letter telling them that a union was a bad idea; every person who held the authority to fire or demote workers was strongly and vocally working to get housekeepers to resist unionization.  How is a person supposed to make a personal decision when their boss is telling them what to think, with the insinuation that if they don’t do what their boss wants their job might be taken away?  Is it fair for a boss to get involved in the decision of a group of workers, to use them against one another through promises of future gain or favoritism?  It is paternalism, plain and simple, to believe that staff are too ignorant to make their own decision on whether or not a union is right for them.  Once the decision is made, if a group decides to unionize, it is their responsibility to decide whether or not they want to be ‘open’ or ‘closed’ shop.  SCA members respect both the ability of workers to make their own decisions on whether or not to form a union, which is a serious and lasting commitment, and trust workers to decide how their union should be run.

It is disturbing to me that Kate Mulligan ’04 dismisses Optimum’s (alleged) lawbreaking as unimportant, as workers can “choose not to work for any general contractor that does not meet their standards.”  What a nice world to inhabit, where one can just “choose” to work or not!  Having talked to many of the Optimum workers myself, I feel comfortable stating that they probably aren’t choosing on a whim to come all the way from Texas and Mexico, away from their families, to work in a place where they do not even speak the language.  They are working here because economics dictate their situation—they have families to feed and care for, and when an opportunity arises to work, they are compelled to accept it.  Why hire guys from Mexico when there are many carpenters and laborers in this area?  Chances are, workers from other countries aren’t familiar with American labor laws or pay scales.  Not only can they be paid much less, but they can be forced to work overtime and are often unaware of what kinds of taxes should be taken out of their checks or what benefits they should receiving.

It seems to me that conservatives should be behind the movement to end illegal worker misclassification.  And you know what?  They are.  Many of the Congress members working to create stronger laws to end misclassification are Republicans.  It makes sense—Republicans are typically pro-business, and misclassification hurts the businesses that follow the laws.  They are also concerned about loss of tax revenue from fraud—this is a huge, billions-of-dollars-a-year-huge, source of revenue loss, on the state and federal level.  I would also think that conservatives would want local companies and labor, rather than imported labor, on the job, so that the cash flow stays within the community, rather than leaving for Mexico or Canada or Texas.  For SCA, the issue is simple—anyone, from wherever, should be able to work on this campus with the knowledge that their employer (union or non-union) has hired them legally and that they are receiving their fair wages and benefits.  You might not like SCA, or our politics (which are extremely diverse to begin with), or our magazine, but this is no reason to reject an issue before giving it careful thought and study.  I am also curious about where Norrick came up with the interesting ideas about Marriott and linen cleaning, but that too is neither here nor there.