If you belong to a labor union, study unions for a living, or are broadly supportive of the role unions play in making capitalist societies fairer, more democratic places to live, you quickly learn the limits of contemporary liberalism's commitment to progressive causes. Individual rights, equality, a voice in the decisions that shape one's life, are all championed for every imaginable identity group, but stop at the factory gates, and the office doors.
People like me, who support the right of groups of workers to act collectively to remedy some of the injustices in the workplace, are therefore used to the outlaw status of labor unions, and their mysterious disappearance from the list of progressive causes supported by students and liberal institutions like colleges and universities. Still, even I was shocked by the mean-spiritedness, insensitivity, and plain stupidity displayed by The Review's editorial on student-worker organizing last week, and many of the students interviewed on the subject. Imagine if a protest against a racial or homophobic slur was described as "amusing" and protesters were invited to "collectively suck my dick."
Much of the objection to this organizing drive appears to come from the belief that students are just playing at work, that they don't really need the money, that, ultimately, being a student is incompatible with being a worker. There is an interesting parallel with the argument, still around, though it was more popular a century ago, that we don't need to pay women as much as men because men are the primary breadwinners, and women just use what they earn as "pin money," a little extra for recreation and entertainment, not necessary to live on. This was ludicrous then, and it is equally ludicrous for Oberlin students today. One of my advisees was unable to register for a workable course schedule next semester because she is working three jobs. She is working three jobs because she can't stay at Oberlin without the money, and because all the College jobs pay around the minimum wage, so you have to work many more hours to earn enough to live on. A casual glance at the financial aid figures makes it clear that students work here because they need to, not just to make a little extra. Higher wages would mean less hours worked, more time to study, and better retention rates.
By the way, The Review editorial suggested that the top level of wages paid to students are so generous that students can earn close to as much as their parents if they work long hours. Very long hours indeed. By my rough calculations, to approach the median income of Oberlin parents at that wage level, one would have to work about 10450 hours a year, or 200 hours a week, or 29 hours a day.
In any case, it is abundantly clear that the main reason for this unionization drive is not money (though anyone earning a wage that hovers around this country's miserable minimum wage should be entitled to more money), but precisely what almost always ultimately motivates people to organize: the search for some minimal respect, some voice, and some dignity at work. These are things rarely conceded voluntarily by employers, and it takes a union to get them. It can hardly be coincidence that Residential Life and Services is only now contemplating an advisory council for student workers. Perhaps such a body was planned before the unionization drive. Yeah, right.
A pool of unorganized, low wage, temporary workers at Oberlin College hurts the entire community. It depresses wages in the town and surrounding area, and it permits the College to replace existing union jobs with students, and to bully the unions into accepting inferior terms and conditions because students currently accept them. And of course, unorganized student workers are potential strikebreakers in the event of conflict between the College and the unions. Furthermore, student workers at Oberlin are in a similar position, in terms of their lack of voice and elementary job safeguards, to the small army of non-student part-time and temporary workers who also do not belong to any union. Unionization of the former would make unionization of the latter much more likely. It is time for students, faculty, and administrators to support this effort to give low-paid workers, who also happen to be students, a collective voice at work.
The Student Workers' Organizing Committee (SWOC) advocates the unionization of student workers for two fundamental reasons. First because it is good for student workers and second because it is good for non-student workers, both on and off campus. I'll focus on the second of these points because this aspect of the campaign seems to be the least understood and most under-reported.
All three unions on campus, the UAW local 2192 (representing food service, janitorial, grounds and maintenance workers), the OCOPE (representing all office workers at Oberlin) and the Oberlin Security Association, have lent active support to the campaign because student labor affects them in a very significant way. With a ready supply of student workers (over 1200) able to perform the same jobs as unionized employees for cheaper, unionized workers must keep their demands within certain limits, giving the college the upper hand in negotiations. A pool of cheap labor will always act as a downward pressure on wages and benefits generally.
Largely because of cheap student labor, an Oberlin community that already suffers from poverty conditions has over the years lost from the college a number of good union jobs, which provided living wages, health care, and economic stability to families here. This is not to say that student workers and current union workers should be pitted against one another, but instead to show the relationship Oberlin College creates between them. Student workers bargaining together with current union members would raise both's collective power allowing for all workers on campus to fight for a better conditions and wages. The union workers on campus will tell you about the many struggles they have gone through to squeeze a decent living out of the college, and they are quite aware of how the college uses student labor as a strong card in its bargaining hand.
The other group of workers that will be deeply affected by this unionization campaign are the (cynically titled) 'temps,' 'subs,' and 'part-timers' currently making up about a third of the CDS work force. These workers, which Marriot usually hires through a temp agency, are the most exploited workers on campus. They get paid around minimum wage, while many have worked at the College for several years, sometimes working full time hours of thirty to fifty (even reports of 70) a week trying to support families on poverty wages and receiving not health, pension, or other benefits. They have no real voice at work and can be (often are) fired for minor slip-ups.
One woman who had been working in CDS for over a year, had a stack of dishes fall on her leg, causing it to swell up. She called the temp agency saying she couldn't make it the next day. The temp agency failed to contact the college and she was subsequently fired. In a union she would have kept her job, received paid medical leave, and her health insurance would have paid the medical bills. Instead Marriot and Oberlin College left this woman, her daughter and her granddaughter without an income and with a hurt leg.
This woman in particular, along with many other temp workers, have expressed to SWOC organizers a strong interest in unionizing, but there is understandably a lot of skepticism about the prospects for such a drive. SWOC sees the success of a student unionizing drive as the first step to making Oberlin College an all union workplace, providing living wage jobs and, as the largest employer in town, setting the standard for the rest of Oberlin. If student workers unionize, and SWOC helps develop a core of 'temps,' 'subs,' and 'part-timers' alongside the campaign, the road will be paved and the confidence built for their unionization drive.
One temp agency worker, who remains anonymous for fear of her job, expressed it well when I asked if she supported SWOC. "I think unionizing is the right thing to do. You need respect and you need more benefits." I asked her if student unionization would help the temps. "I think so, it will show people (temps) that it can be done. Some people aren't so sure right now. I know I want a union. Being represented helps you keep your job, stops you from being harassed or thrown from job to job, whether you know how to do it or not. They try to take away your self-respect and your dignity so they can talk down to you. I get worked too hard they get upset when I don't want to do something."
The College's initial response to SWOC's unionization drive has been vague and non-committal. Res. Life has tentatively proposed setting up an "advisory committee" with the intent of giving students the ability to recommend changes, within a limited sphere of 'practical constraints.' Also, though supposedly unconnected, CDS put up signs two days before the public launch of SWOC's unionization drive advertising raises for next semester. (If just threatening unionization can get us that, imagine what an organized campaign would do!) Both of these moves are classic union-busting tactics and I think it safe to say they have been cynically conceived of.
But even giving the administration the benefit of the doubt in terms of intentions, SWOC does not support the advisory committee. Instead of furthering the institutional links (therefore power) of labor on this campus, a Res. Life run committee would exacerbate the divisions. It would do nothing for the current union workers and nothing for the temps. And it wouldn't help students much either. With no real bargaining power, and cuddled up next to our employer, student's wages would remain near the minimum wage.
SWOC is calling on all Oberlin students, faculty, and administrators to seriously consider the issues before throwing out quip remarks or making false assumptions. This campaign, if successful, will have a very real affects on many peoples lives for years to come. Please support the unionization of student workers.
I have been working with SWOC since the beginning of this year. Last week, I read an article in the Review, "Unionize now? Consider all facts." I was disappointed by the number of myths which were passed off as facts in this article. It seems that whichever editor or editors were responsible for this article have a prejudice against student unionization and wanted to steer other students away from it through any means in their power. I was also disappointed at the amount of hostility expressed by the students whose quotes were gathered. I hope that the staff person who gathered these quotes worked long and hard to glean them from a variety of quotes, good and bad. I hope that not everyone asked about SWOC's unionization replied with as much vehemence as the quotes which were published. Without knowing much about this particular unionization drive, those quoted expressed the anti-union sentiment which is so rampant in this country. I suppose it is quite safe to express the majority's prejudiced opinion so venomously. I encourage all of you who supplied quotes to keep up with what is going on with SWOC and the unionization, and to feel free to question SWOC members or argue with us about specific points. But don't issue a global condemnation when you really know very little about the issue.
Going back to the Review article, there are many misconceptions I would like to address. The author makes the students desire for unionization sound absolutely groundless; it is not. The managers cut certain jobs without even talking to students about the changes. They had to learn the hard way that their jobs were deemed superfluous by the management - going to sign up for the same jobs, and realizing it was an impossibility, since the jobs had been cut. The protest was not as paltry as the Review made it seem. Eight student workers from the same Dascomb shift either walked off, or didn't show up. Two Stevenson workers also walked off.
The "wage increase" mentioned in "Unionize Now?" was certainly not made known to the students before the protest. In fact, it, along with the committee designed to facilitate communication between students, managers, and Oberlin College, are most likely smokescreens to keep us from realizing the power of unionization. I'm not saying we aren't getting something, but it is little compared to what is possible with unionization. Certainly, Oberlin College did not consider these measures necessary before the protest; The College will give us a little now so that we will be pacified, and drop this crazy unionization scheme.
I can't see how students uniting to achieve better working conditions, greater respect, and higher wages is a crazy or unreasonable idea, as so many seem to think. Without a union, the College has the power to treat student workers any way it wants. Of course, it does treat us better than the part-timers "people with families to support" because we are its customers, as well as its main source of cheap labor. Contrary to the author's implication, we would love for the part-timers to be unionized as well; they need higher wages, health benefits and respect. Just because we are concentrating on unionizing student workers first, does not mean that we don't care what happens to non-student workers. In fact, we hope that unionizing ourselves will actually make it easier for part-timers to unionize. We wouldn't let the College get away with not paying part-timers as much or more as they pay us. The author's implication that we do not care about the larger community is unfair and unjust. Although, I myself can not empathize with the problems of low-income workers, because we do have UAW and OPIEU on our side. In fact, some of the student workers will unionize with OPIEU, and others will unionize with UAW; it depends on the job.
"Really? You have union support?"
"Of course. Grant Grace and Julie Weir, union representatives on campus have encouraged us, and even came to one of our meetings to talk more about how we can get the unions started. You should have been there. But you can always ask us what they said."
"Did they say anything about dues?"
"Yes. The dues situation is actually a lot better than most people are assuming. For the students who unionize with OPIEU, dues will not be more than $10 a month. For most student workers, this would easily be covered by a dollar per hour wage increase. And if it isn't, students don't have to vote for the contract, or the union. They never have to pay union dues if they don't think the union will be worth it."
"Well, what about the UAW?"'
"The UAW has unionized the most student workers of any union. They have special arrangements for students, such as making dues a small percentage of the salary instead of a lump sum. And what everybody has got to keep in mind is that you don't have to vote for the union contract unless it achieves what you wanted to. Signing the petition doesn't obligate anyone to sign the contract. It merely shows the college that there are lots of students who would like to be part of the union."
"I guess I kind of gave the wrong impression in my article."
Yes, but hopefully people will read this article, too. Hopefully this one will have more influence..
Ok, so I'm whining. I've been here for almost four years, so I would guess that I have a right to whine publicly at least once, especially since whining is an art form here at Oberlin. But seriously folks, there are problems with this place and though I don't expect to change anything (I don't want that kind of responsibility) I'm going to whip it out and complain.
The main problem is that Oberlin is no fun anymore. Whatever happened to all the fun? I'll tell you. It's not all princess Dye's fault, though it is my opinion that she opposes fun in all its forms. It's our fault too, since we have allowed the de-funning of this place over the years. Let's start with the Oberlin Bike Derby. For all of those too young or uninformed, the Bike Derby was real honest to goodness middle-American fun. People gathered in what used to be Harkness bowl (back when Harkness was fun) using broomsticks or anything else to topple bicycle and rider into the mud until one lone rider remained. All the while, burning compost was hurled off the roof and many interesting combustibles were imbibed and combusted. The end result was muddy fun and very few serious injuries. Good clean fun, right? Well, Nancy and Co. sure nipped that one in the bud. They J-boarded any of the participants that they could catch and they even booted my buddy Cosmo out of school. Now, if that wasn't bad enough, they are building an "environmental science" building on the site of our former fun. Personally, I think this was a transparent ploy to de-fun the entire area by putting a useless friggin school building where there used to be a potential for real fun. God, how lame.
Pretty soon they'll be shutting down the drag ball, or even quarter beers. All they need is some sniveling little worm to become offended at some random thing and they'll have the license to shut fun down. I urge you not to let this happen. Don't trust the people who run this school. They are boring aliens from another planet.
I have no idea how it happened, but that brings me to another topic: The food here really sucks. How am I supposed to change the world all by myself when all I get to eat is a god damned crispy patty? This summer I was reading about why we all have to eat on a meal plan. Do you know the reason? It's part of Oberlin's "educational philosophy." As if there was some coherent philosophy behind this place anyways. But Nancy, baby, one question: What the hell does "educational philosophy" mean to you? I'm interested because I wonder what it has to do with me eating in your seedy and overpriced college-supported restaurants. Speaking of "philosophies," were you aware that Marriott also caters to our beloved federal prison system? Is this an embarrassing coincidence or positive proof that a crackdown on fun is taking place?
Then Nancy "Ms. Marriott '98" Dye spends our money on Michelob and cheap champagne to serve to the rich old fossilized jerks (trustees) so they'll be drunk enough to sign the checks. That's how she gets the money to build "environmental science" buildings.
Doubtless there are some of you who think it's just ridiculously unfair to blame Nancy Dye for all this, and maybe you're right. My criticisms are not really directed toward her as a person, though, but refer to her primarily in her capacity as the hilarious figurehead of Oberlin College. The tangible evil which is the administration stands in the shadows behind her. Nancy can follow them to hell when they go if she wants to.
Speaking of hell (or is it heel?), how about that Scofield guy? Was anyone ever more out of touch? I mean, what a burnout, huh? Who the hell goes around getting offended at fake castration rituals at the 'Sco and a bunch of self-indulgent perverts who need money to buy leather and books with which to beat each other? As if that weren't evident. I could show them how to spank themselves. Maybe we should get rid of this Scofield character once and for all and use his salary to finance something worthwhile, like a student-operated liquor store, since we can now sell liquor in this town. I'd work there for free.
The S'n'M 'ers are loopy, too. Why should they get the money to beat themselves when no one pays me to beat myself? Why should I have to join their stupid club to spank and beat myself? If anyone gets paid to spank, whup, whack or beat themselves or anyone else, then we all should. The present situation is absolutely unacceptable.
You know who the only fun person left here is? Mary Margaret Towey. No kidding. At least she's genuinely insane, living in a dorm room in her 40's, complaining about absolutely everything. That I can dig. She's really saying something, though what it is I'm not quite sure. That, however, is the beautiful mystery which is life. She's the only really interesting or fantastic person around anymore, except for that lobster-trap guy on the phone in A-level. Someday, though, even he will be gone. The good guys always lose. The drugs wear off. Evil ideas like authority and responsibility replace the fun things in time and leave us all lame, mindless and boring.
Well, I hope all of you prim little yuppies-to-be are just steaming with moral outrage for some or other stupid reason. Fantastic. Then I'll get not one but two hearty giggles out of this. You might attack my sophomoric stupidity, my total lack of journalistic integrity, or my unreasonable focus on fun. All I can respond to these valid but narrow-minded criticisms is that all you clever little people would be a lot better off if you recognized the genius of a little old-fashioned idiocy.
So what I'm really trying to say, I suppose, is that I'm inordinately glad to be getting out of here. I suppose you guys all wish I'd leave, too. I'll never give Oberlin any money either, not even if I get that big shoe or underwear deal I've been dreaming of. Not unless they get me really drunk. All I can say is that they'd better start soon and get me tremendously sauced or the whole deal's off.
At the risk of sounding unbearably pretentious, let me close this little piece with a few words of real wisdom. In the words of the great Mudbone, from Tupelo, Mississippi: "What I'm trying to say, that is, the point I'm trying to make, is that there really is no point to be made." Amen.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 12, December 11, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.