Raia Small

n September 19, Faculty House workers leafleted on campus to protest Columbia's refusal to negotiate a contract. For three months, negotiations between union leadership and the administration had gone nowhere. Twenty-five workers, unionized under Unite Here! Local 100, decided that the negotiation process was fruitless and that collective action was necessary. They posted leaflets to get public attention and pressure the University to compromise. Within a week of the leafleting campaign, Columbia changed its tactics: after months of stagnation, contract discussions began.

The current contract between Columbia University and Unite Here! Local 100 is set to expire in March. Before Columbia announced its plans to renovate the Faculty House this summer, Unite Here!'s demands were “very tame,” said Julian Gonzalez, an attorney for Unite Here! “They were asking for a very small wage increase.” When Columbia announced the renovation plan, it also announced its plan to re-staff the building. “The initial proposal from Columbia was for all employees at Faculty House to quit their jobs and for the union to give up its right to defend them legally,” Gonzalez said. “Columbia is using the extended closing of Faculty House to get leverage to eliminate or break the union.” The plan to renovate Faculty House, over the course of 18 to 24 months, could leave approximately 30 employees jobless and destroy the local union.

Unite Here!'s collective bargaining contract states that “in the event [of] the closing of the Faculty House, the Employer shall make efforts to refer Employees... to other departments... where the Employee is qualified to perform the work.” This statement allows Columbia great flexibility of interpretation. “Making efforts” encompasses temporary or permanent relocation, or even management helping individual employees look for outside jobs. As many Faculty House workers have held their jobs for decades, job security is an essential right, and Columbia's proposal is an affront to its staff. “The union's main concern was, What will happen to employees?'” Gonzalez said. During the renovations, the Faculty House dining facility will be temporarily moved into Lerner. Employees are baffled as to why they were not given the option of working at the Lerner facility during the renovations and moving back permanently when Faculty House reopens. Instead, Columbia is offering a three-option system: employees can quit and take a severance pay, be permanently relocated elsewhere on campus, or be laid off and contacted when Faculty House reopens.

Ramón Valderrama and Juan Aquino, who are cooks at Faculty House and have been working there for 11 and 17 years, respectively, were surprised at Columbia's treatment of employees. Their shock only increased after they demanded to see the blueprints of the renovation. “The only difference,” Aquino explained, “was that the new Faculty House will have central air conditioning.” It was never explained to Valderrama and Aquino why a new air conditioning system demanded an entirely new staff.

Since Unite Here! mobilized around the leafleting campaign, raising the stakes of negotiation, workers have noted heightened vigilance and strictness in the workplace and have been punished for such trivialities as being late for their breaks.

Despite this tense atmosphere, workers have tried to conceal their displeasure. “We don't want to get fired,” Valderrama said, but added that “there have been new rules since the negotiations began.” On September 20, the Columbia Spectator published an editorial expressing support for Faculty House workers. Valderrama and Aquino said that for several days following the coverage, stacks of the Spectator were routinely removed from the building. “They kept delivering them, but our manager kept taking them away,” they said. They seemed more amused than outraged over this absurd attempt at media control, noting that they could just walk over to East Campus to get a copy.

“The real test will be two years from now, when Faculty House reopens,” Gonzalez said. Since Columbia will not temporarily relocate workers, it will need to hire or rehire about 30 employees. At this point, Columbia could offer to give jobs back to the employees who were laid off. Conversely, it could hire a new group of non-unionized workers, effectively breaking the union. While Unite Here! has pushed Columbia from its hopeless initial proposal, Gonzalez warned against underestimating the use of this interval to weaken the union, cautioning, “It's possible that the fight is just delayed.”

The conflict between Columbia and its workers forces us to consider the contradiction between Columbia as a corporation looking out for the bottom line and as an institution of higher learning, embracing the ethical spirit of labor rights. While Columbia is a private institution and is therefore not bound by the laws that protect public-sector employees, it should not follow a corporate model. Though Columbia technically allows employees to unionize and exercise their collective bargaining power, its actions regarding the workers at Faculty House show a callous disregard for its veteran employees.

The relationship between Columbia and its workers has become increasingly important during the Manhattanville expansion project. Job creation is one of the main benefits that Columbia touts. Unemployment in Harlem is at 18 percent, and although Columbia rejects the community-proposed plan for revitalization, it nonetheless claims that job creation will invigorate the Harlem economy with 7,000 new jobs and improve living standards. The plight of Faculty House workers raises a pointed, nuanced question about employment: even if 7,000 jobs are created, and at least those in the service sector are filled predominantly by area residents, what type of relationship will they have with their employer? Columbia's conduct during the Faculty House renovations raises doubts about the drive behind Columbia's labor policies. Has the administration now agreed to negotiate because it values its employees, or because it fears a backlash from students, which could weaken its image as a benevolent giant in the Harlem community?

In the coming weeks, Columbia and Unite Here! Local 100 will continue negotiations. If workers feel that Columbia is stymieing negotiations, they will act collectively to make the administration acknowledge their rights. Columbia's dependence on its public image for funding gives workers some leverage. As its Manhattanville plans unfold, Columbia workers and neighborhood residents can raise public awareness to hold Columbia accountable for its actions.