Despite the fact that call center workers have shown overwhelming support for a workers’ union, their employer has contracted a company to feed workers misleading information in an attempt to bust the union.
Student workers who raise money for Ohio University at Bobcat Phonathon (aka the call center) filed for an election to unionize, which will be held the week of Nov. 12. That comes after months of effort culminating in an overwhelming majority of call center employees signing union cards in support of the unionization effort. By far the most important reason for student workers to sign on were the increased wages that a union would bring. Despite the fact that those workers raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for OU, they are only paid minimum wage. For those workers, confronted with student debt, rising tuition costs and other expenses, the union offers a concrete way for the workers to make their own situation better.
The company’s response? Well, on Sunday, a union-busting firm called International Labor Relations paid the call center employees a visit. In a description of the company’s services, its website, speaking to an audience of employers, states, “The union is fighting to represent your employees and gain access to your company. Make no mistake about it, this is war.” The statement goes on to say that the company will educate “employees so that they know their rights and make an informed decision when they cast their vote,” but the intention is clearly not one of neutral education. Instead, it is union-busting propaganda. The CEO of the firm recently served as the vice president of the Labor Relations Institute, as well, a consulting firm self-described by its website as “the preeminent firm in countering union organizing campaigns.”
Workers at the call center, with those known to be active on the unionization campaign intentionally excluded, were paid to attend an “educational” session conducted by the firm. At the session, employees “learned” about union dues, the length of the contract negotiation process and how the union would be stressful for the call center’s management. Omitted from the didactic, skewed rhetoric is the fact that it is only after the process of contract negotiations that workers will vote upon whether or not to accept their contract. That means that if the contract, negotiated by the workers’ union and the company, gave the workers a bad deal, they could simply vote no. If, however, workers vote yes, it will be because their new contract includes higher wages that more than off-set union dues and better job security. Workers will pay no dues to the union until they vote to accept the contract they negotiate. Furthermore, the idea that those negotiations will take many months is only true if the company refuses to cooperate with negotiators.
{{tncms-asset app="editorial" id="2ffbc796-784e-11e5-af7a-db05d26a4fbd"}}
Let me be very clear. Forming a union means better wages and better job protection for workers. The only reason the firm was contracted by the corporation that manages the call center is because the corporation does not want to pay its employees a fair wage. Instead, it is a cheaper, short-term investment to bring in those union-busters and prevent the student workers at the call center from collectively bargaining for a better deal.
It is worth noting, too, that the campaign does not exist in a vacuum. At the same time as university dollars (albeit indirectly) are being spent to bust a union, RAs are trying to unionize on campus, as are graduate assistants and teaching assistants. If the call center's employees don’t let the International Labor Relations break their union, it could be instrumental in helping other workers come together and demand a better deal. That is why I stand with the call center union — and that is why you should, too.
Daniel Kington is a sophomore studying English and a Student Union organizer. He is also an officer of the Sierra Student Coalition. What do you think of the call center union? Email him at dk982513@ohio.edu.
