Opinions

Implicit intimidation exists for staff

In print | March 30, 2006

To the Editor:

Vice President Young is correct in asserting that intimidation of staff members is a serious allegation. However, in private conversation several workers have expressed fears about openly supporting a union organizing effort and challenging the administration. While the Human Resources Office may have a policy expressing fairness, honesty and compassion towards their employees, the policy has no effect if the employees still feel intimidation.

There have already been several instances of intimidation of workers. For example, the two employees who recently went public with their support of the union were written up, two “managers-in-training” attended an off-campus workers’ meeting and were openly hostile, and a rumor was recently spread to workers that if a union was formed all benefits would be cut. While the employers may not be physically or openly challenging workers, they are subtly sending powerful messages to workers warning them against organizing.

Ultimately, the staff members will determine whether or not they would like to form a union. They should be allowed to make their decision in a neutral environment, without fear, management persuasion and false rumors. The administration should take a principled stand to enforce the policy that Vice President Young referenced and ensure that workers feel they can make their own decision in a neutral environment.

In addition, President Bloom recently denied the request for card check neutrality put forth by a worker at the college. While President Bloom advanced the idea that a traditional NLRB election process would facilitate dialogue and openness, many academic studies indicate that the NLRB election process stacks the deck in the favor of the employer. Once again, our administration’s rhetoric does not match its actions.

Opinions

Implicit intimidation exists for staff

To the Editor:

Carrie Floyd ’07 Ruth Schultz ’09

Carrie Floyd ’07
Ruth Schultz ’09