Summer settlement hopes dashed

A near-agreement falls through,
leading to accusations from both sides

Settlement.

Last May, that one word, which carries the hopes and fears of an entire city, almost became a reality. Secret one-on-one discussions between Chief Union Negotiator Michael Boyle, PC '79, and Yale Director of Labor Relations Brian Tunney took place at the New Haven Mayor's Office throughout the early summer. Yet the question still remains: why has the current labor situation not improved?

Union members on strike last spring

The back-room negotiations were obscured by the hoopla and propaganda surrounding the Commencement protest. New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., confirmed that these negotiations brought both sides very close to a settlement, and the failure to complete a deal left him dismayed. According to a member of Local 34, "The mayor was ticked." However, "I'm disappointed that they haven't settled," was the only comment DeStefano would offer.

Starting with the surprisingly quiet rally at Commencement, the details of those summer sessions have been the subject of much speculation, which may have affected the strategy of both sides. "We thought we had a deal and that's why we toned down the rally," one 34 member, who asked to remain anonymous, said. "We could have been much louder than we were." The union member hinted that a contract could already have been signed, save for the fact that "Yale threw a wedge into negotiations with 35," leaving both unions without a deal. According to union sources, the substance of that "wedge" was Yale's decision at the eleventh hour of the negotiations to alter the language of its demands regarding subcontracting. The unions believe that the alteration was a breach of the understanding they thought they had with the University.

When asked to comment on the Local's accusations that Yale had disrupted a potential settlement, Mayor DeStefano had a firm "no comment," while Fryer denied any change in the University's position. "I do not believe that ever happened," he said. Furthermore, Fryer said that the cessation of summer negotiations was due to union stubbornness. "The union and the University came very close to terms, but the union added certain provisions that we found unacceptable," Fryer said.

Article 22 or Catch-22?
The expired Local 35 contract contains a clause known as Article 22, the root of the subcontracting debate. Article 22 guaranteed that only members of the bargaining unit [the unions] could do work for the bargaining unit. In plain language, this equals a ban on subcontracting, since subcontracted workers would not be members of Local 35. Moreover, the unions are opposed to open subcontracting in the dining halls. "We agreed that they could bring in some outside franchise, but that our people would staff them," a union negotiator, who asked not to be identified, said. Yale wants this clause to change. "It is our goal to have it [Article 22] read differently than it does [in the old contract]," Fryer said. The University has proposed that it be allowed to subcontract any work subject to certain limitations, including guaranteeing jobs at the current pay level for all current employees for 10 years. The trade-off is the loss of Article 22 in its present form.

The complexity of the debate over Article 22 is compounded by the implications of the secret meetings held in the mayor's office. With so much dependent on developing trust between the two sides, having unprovable allegations of dishonesty hanging over the proceedings could prove devastating. The first signs of this were visible at this fall's initial negotiating session. According to the OPA web page, "The unions' new position [against dining hall subcontracting] clearly conflicts with its prior agreement that `the University may subcontract any work.' Mr. Boyle claimed that he did, in fact, raise an objection over subcontracting in dining halls during his meetings with Mr. Tunney, but since only two people had been party to those meetings [in the Mayor's office] he acknowledged he could not substantiate the objection." For the unions and for Yale, the inability to substantiate such crucial details could prove disastrous in future negotiations.

The unions want all subcontracting to be done through attrition, meaning that as people retire, Yale could subcontract workers to fill those positions. "We've finally given in to letting them subcontract between 15 to 20 percent of the workforce. We agreed that they could subcontract through attrition, and they're saying they want to be able to lay-off workers and subcontract wherever," one union negotiator, who asked not to be identified, said.

According to the University, 15 to 20 percent is an accurate figure, and the problem is not who gets subcontracted, but how. The unions claim Yale has threatened to lay-off current workers to allow subcontracting. Meanwhile, Fryer complained that "They [the unions] wanted to have a no lay-off guarantee for future employees."

Trouble in the ranks
Despite the Federation's extreme solidarity, Local 34 has faced its own troubles this summer. Numerous members are skeptical or disgruntled. Margaret McGovern, a Local 34 member who works in Cross Campus Library, summed up the problem faced by many members of her union. "The situation with the unions is that Local 34 is a weaker union. The economy is so bad and a lot [of us] are mothers. When it comes to having people go out, it is hard to get the go-ahead. Right now, Local 35 is stronger. They are an older union. Local 34 is a growing union and a union is only as strong as its individual members."

Union morale, especially among Local 34, has become a serious concern for the Federation. In one notable case, an entire branch of the Alumni Fund office resigned their union memberships. "Everyday Laura Smith would pressure us. When she started coming to our houses we resigned--all of us....Basically, they pushed us so much that we up and quit," one former member said. Chernoff said that she had no knowledge of that specific case, but added that "this is not the first time that people have said that they were being pressured and have left. We find that those people, in their heart, support the union." Not all of Local 34 would agree: "I am beginning to lose hope. At this point, I just want to see this settled," another member of 34 said.

Also causing city-wide concern was a letter which the unions mailed to high school guidance counselors in July, warning them that New Haven is unsafe because of the problems the residents suffer at the hands of Yale. "I think the point is a valid one, and maybe we didn't make this point in the best possible way," Chernoff said.

Rallying the troops
The unions' efforts in the near future will center around drumming up support in local New Haven communities, through a series of town meetings orchestrated by union leadership. "Now the unions are putting a little pressure on society, through the clergy and the public. They are trying to raise more awareness," McGovern said. The town meetings will involve local officials and community members in forums which explain the unions' positions. The hope is that the meetings will counteract the advantage Yale has in public relations power.

The University holds several trump cards in reserve. The possibility of another strike has raised the question of replacement workers, or scabs. When asked if Yale would resort to such measures, Fryer said, "The University would consider and reserve all of its options. Our goal would be to maintain effective services."