The Chairman of Prince George’s County Executive candidate Rushern Baker’s slate is the Assistant General Counsel of one of North America’s most notorious anti-worker companies: Sodexo, Inc.
As the Washington Post originally reported, Rushern Baker took $206,000 in contributions from the “County 1 Now” slate and used a technicality to avoid disclosing its donors. Both this blog and the Gazette reported that the slate’s paperwork listed just one candidate at the time of its formation – Baker – and state law requires slates to have at least two candidates at all times. Baker’s spokesman claimed in the Gazette that the campaign was following “the letter of the law,” a statement that is contradicted by the State Board of Elections slate registration reproduced below.
All of the above has been known for over a week. Today, we disclose a fact that is sure to interest many in organized labor: the Chairman of Baker’s slate is a senior official with one of North America’s worst anti-worker companies, Sodexo Inc.
Kenneth Woolridge Johnson is a lawyer who lives in Springdale and has been the Assistant General Counsel of Sodexo (formerly known as Sodexho) since 1998. 
Johnson has contributed $5,225 to Baker from 2000 through 2009. He has also contributed $500 to Barack Obama and $1,250 to the Democratic State Central Committee of Maryland in federal donations with which his employer is clearly marked.
Sodexo is a food services and facilities management contractor that is based in France. Its U.S. subsidiary is headquartered in Gaithersburg. The company works for a large number of schools, universities, government agencies, hospitals, retirement homes, military organizations, private companies and even jails. Sodexo is one of the largest companies of its kind and has operations all over the world. But inside the North American labor movement, it is known primarily for one thing: poor treatment of its workforce.
Any understanding of Sodexo’s labor practices must begin with its shameful record of discrimination. In 2001, its African-American managers filed a class-action lawsuit against the company alleging that it discriminated against them in promotions and segregated them in “black accounts” such as historically black universities. The case featured testimony that a Sodexo manager said, “African Americans were genetically inferior to whites, and genetically most of the criminals in the world were African Americans, and that they didn’t deserve promotion.” Sodexo’s Chief Operating Officer in North America “stated in sworn testimony that a white individual referring to black co-workers in the workplace using the ‘n-word’ was not necessarily offensive and could be meant as a ‘term of endearment.’” Sodexo paid $80 million to settle the case but did not learn its lesson. In 2006, Sodexo paid $61,000 to settle a sexual harassment case brought by the EEOC on behalf of a female custodian who was groped, propositioned and ultimately subjected to exposure by a male nurse. The custodian said management retaliated against her for objecting to the harassment. In 2007, the company paid $788,877 in back wages to settle a case brought by the U.S. Department of Labor alleging that it rejected 4,465 applicants – most of whom were African-Americans – for jobs on oil rigs and drilling platforms. Finally, the company paid $80,000 to settle another EEOC lawsuit alleging that it had discriminated against a pregnant Haitian worker who asked for alternative duty after suffering from pregnancy complications last year.
That is just the beginning. Sodexo pays some of its workers as little as $8.27 per hour. The company lost a contract at SUNY Albany in 2000 after refusing to recognize a union for over a year. In 2006, workers in Plattsburgh, New York claimed the company was “openly harassing pro-union workers.” Sodexo was caught paying tens of thousands of its workers in the United Kingdom less than the country’s minimum wage last year. In January 2010, the company refused to accept an employee petition at the University of Denver calling for better working standards and the right to form a union. Sodexo has had multiple problems with e.coli in its food. The company has a long record of hospital cleaning problems, food safety issues and unfair labor practices. The sheer volume of Sodexo’s controversies is so overwhelming that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is running a national campaign against the company, has established a website dedicated to chronicling its problems.
According to some of its employees, Sodexo’s labor practices are impacting its customers. Here are two Sodexo school cafeteria workers discussing management pressure on them to hurry food preparation for children.
And here is a Sodexo hospital food worker complaining of inadequate food supplied to patients.
As Sodexo’s Assistant General Counsel since 1998, Kenneth Johnson would have known about, and perhaps may even have represented the company in, many of the above legal issues. Interestingly, Rushern Baker accepted a $6,000 contribution – the maximum amount allowed by state law - from SEIU Local 1199 on 1/7/10. That was just two days after Baker made Johnson, a top official of one of the union’s national targets, the Chairman of his slate.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Baker Slate Chairman Employed by Anti-Worker Company
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Washington Post’s Boy King
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite was once called “the voice of God.” And for some people, that’s how the Washington Post editorial page appears. After all, there’s the elegant masthead and logo, the rich tradition of legends like Bob Woodward and Ben Bradlee, all the Pulitzers (8 in 2008 alone) and the often excellent national and international reporting. So the editorials should carry some weight, right?
Not the ones about Montgomery County. Because their until-now anonymous writer is a 23-year-old intern who has never lived in Maryland and is less than a year out of college.
Steven Stein is a Los Angeles native and current Virginia resident who graduated from Emory University in 2008. His first job out of school was an internship at the Washington Post. The Post had him write a handful of blog posts last fall, but it didn’t work out. One reader complained on his last post, “I continue to be mystified at the Post’s rationale for giving Mr. Stein a platform as he never has anything remotely insightful to contribute to any public debate,” and Stein was yanked. But the Post had another job for Stein because longtime Maryland issues writer Lee Hockstader was taking a break. And so Stein was given a task that was a low priority for the Post Company, something that wouldn’t matter even if it was screwed up by an intern: editorial writer for Montgomery County.
Now the Post has always had an anti-union lean to its editorials because it is an anti-union business. But with Stein at the writer’s desk, the propaganda reached new lows: clobbering the Fire Fighters, calling collective bargaining a “ruse,” ranting about “the sway that unions exert over county politicians” and congratulating Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) for supposedly being willing to criticize unions. The Post even ran an election-day smear alleging that the unions were “funneling contributions” to Nancy Navarro.
But Stein is no ordinary intern; he has an agenda. At the Emory Wheel (the campus newspaper), Stein wrote this about Barack Obama:For all his talk of unity, Obama has a platform only a far-left liberal could love. He’s Edmund Muskie with sex appeal, Walter Mondale with charisma. If you’re a diehard liberal, Obama is your man. If you actually believe in unity, you might want to look elsewhere.
And on the Post’s intern profile page, Stein wrote this about his career goals:The ultimatum came early my freshman year of college: “Get a job or forget about us paying tuition!” my mother frostily exclaimed. Having no discernible talent other than the ability to string sentences together semi-coherently, I sought refuge in the Emory Wheel, my university’s student newspaper. Three years and more than 150 articles later, I’m preparing to make journalism a career. I’ve interned as a reporter at the Garden Island (Kauai, Hawaii), where the governor of Hawaii publicly criticized one of my first articles. I’ve also interned as an editorial writer at the Austin American-Statesman, where a tongue-in-cheek blog post about San Antonio left the Alamo City up in arms. Needless to say, my goal at The Washington Post is to practice hard-hitting journalism — even if it means infuriating a high-ranking politician or the residents of a major city. Besides writing things that anger people, my interests include playing bad basketball, playing worse golf and raving to anyone who will listen about the genius of the film “Being There.”
How on Earth could the Post permit such a thing to appear on its website? Stein is in bad need of an adult in the company to approach him and say, “Look, kid. This is the Washington Post, not the Emory Wheel. The goal of our editorial page isn’t to infuriate politicians for its own sake. We have opinions, but they have to be fact-based and fair.” But no one is interested. Montgomery County just doesn’t matter to the Post leadership.
But the Post leadership does matter a lot to Montgomery County politicians, a few of whom still regard the editorial page as the Voice of God. Some in the County Council building have been working Stein for months, feeding him all the propaganda he can regurgitate. They gleefully cavort before the Boy King’s throne and Montgomery voters are none the wiser.
What does this say about the Post’s senior management? Their pick of an intern who has never lived in Maryland to write Montgomery County editorials reveals their true regard for us. Montgomery County politics is irrelevant in their world and, in any event, the editorials supply a pleasant way for a callow neophyte to hurl invective at government employees and move up in the ranks.
And what about the Post’s editorial integrity? It lies in shredded tatters, decaying at the feet of the Boy King.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Washington Post Steps Up Anti-Union Campaign
The Washington Post Company, long an opponent of unions in both its editorials and its business operations, is accelerating its campaign against labor. In the last few months, it has emerged as arguably the biggest promulgator of anti-union sentiment in the Metropolitan Washington region.
In four successive editorials, the Post has ramped up its criticism of Montgomery County labor unions. First, the Post attacked the Fire Fighters in February for seeking to give salary concessions in the form of deferred pay rather than COLA eliminations, calling them the “worst offender” among the unions. The Post failed to mention that the Fire Fighters’ deal had been negotiated with officials on the Leggett administration’s management team. Next, the Post editorialized on the county’s disability program twice, characterizing the desire of some to negotiate it through collective bargaining as a “ruse” and painting the issue as “a window into the sway that unions exert over county politicians and the lengths to which some council members will go to protect them.” Yet the Post’s own reporting shows that some of the most suspect cases have involved police managers (such as former Assistant Chief John King), not just the rank-and-file. Finally, in its endorsement of Ben Kramer for the District 4 County Council seat, the Post said this:We supported Ms. Navarro in last year's special election, impressed with her ability to avoid petty politics to produce results on the school board. Ms. Navarro has continued to be an effective board member, taking a leading role in persuading school unions to forfeit some of their pay increases. Yet Ms. Navarro has been less willing than Mr. Kramer to criticize labor, and it’s hard to imagine her standing up to the union leaders who hold excessive sway over the council. Mr. Kramer has been endorsed by the firefighters union, but that has to do with his support for public safety.
What happened to the Fire Fighters being the “worst offender” of the unions?
The Post’s repeated references to “excessive sway” by the unions do not conform to recent history. First, every union save one has given up its cost-of-living increase in Fiscal Year 2010. The only one that has not – the career Fire Fighters – is now apparently forgiven by the Post because they support the Post’s preferred County Council candidate. Second, the decision by the county’s Labor Relations Administrator that the County Executive is not required to fund union contracts in his proposed budget is a heavy blow to labor that the Post ignores. Third, the county’s public employee unions will certainly be subject to furloughs and perhaps the loss of step increases, again a fact that the Post ignores. If the unions were as powerful as the Post believes, none of this would be happening.
But the Post cannot be regarded as an impartial commentator. It is above all a business, one that has had rocky relationships with its own workforce for many years. The Post’s history of union-busting goes back almost four decades and required an entire blog post to recount. The Washington Post Company currently has expired labor agreements with eight (!) different bargaining units covering more than 600 workers. Its 435 production workers have had no contract since 5/18/03 and have launched a publicity campaign against the company. (No wonder the Post sees collective bargaining as a “ruse.”) The Post’s non-union Gazette subsidiary pays its reporters starvation wages and avoids paying overtime. After we exposed the Gazette’s exploitative labor practices last fall, Gazette management went on a witch hunt for our sources. They never found them. Finally, despite the fact that the Post lost $439 million last year and has had to implement multiple workforce reductions, its top four continuing officers still collected a combined $7,053,662 in compensation – up from $4,678,956 in 2007. That’s right, the Post relentlessly bashes Montgomery County unions over their now-departed raises while giving its executive team a 50.8% RAISE IN ONE YEAR.
Simply put, the Post editorial page cannot be trusted as a source of opinion on any county labor issues. For a long time, management policy inside the Washington Post Company has been to harass its existing unions into oblivion and prevent any more from forming. Now the Post seems intent on spreading that philosophy out into Montgomery County as a whole.
Disclosure: The author is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and has been employed in the labor movement since 1994.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Anti-Union Bragging: How Far Back?
How long has Maryland been spouting anti-union propaganda to businesses on its web site (a story broken by Free State Politics)? Is this something that the O'Malley administration began, or did they simply update a web page they inherited from Gov. Ehrlich? Surprisingly, the answer is neither: This seems to go back at least as far as the Glendening administration.
As Adam Pagnucco points out, the statistics used on the website became available only after O'Malley took office, putting his administration's fingerprints on the deed.
However, a search of old, cached versions of the choosemaryland.org website shows that both the Ehrlich and Glendening administrations were using pretty much the same anti-union approach to business solicitation.
In the summer of 2005, the Ehrlich version of the web page was exactly the same except for the specific years' statistics being cited. No surprise, really.
What about during the Glendening administration?
In the fall of 2002, the Glendening version of the web page had pretty much the same tone and much of the same text as the Ehrlich and O'Malley versions, although it did not include quite as many anti-union stats as its two successors. But it was still pretty bad in its anti-union spin.While not a "right-to-work" state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.
* A quality work force supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.
* The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.8 percent, which is below the national average of 9.0 percent and lower than half of the other states. (Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)
Right-to-work laws are not guarantees of a good management/labor climate
A comparison of Maryland and the 21 RTW states dispels some misconceptions about RTW and depicts the state's favorable labor climate.
Right-to-work does not prevent unions from waging aggressive organizational campaigns and winning union certification elections. It does not prevent them from maintaining a stronghold or from striking to achieve their goals.
* Unions won 42 percent of the union representation elections held in Maryland from 1990 to 2000, which is a lower percentage of union wins than in all but three of the 21 RTW states.
Right-to-work does not prevent employees from joining unions voluntarily.
* From 1990 to 2000, only 28 percent of Maryland's eligible employees joined unions. The RTW states climbed as high as 54 percent, averaging 38 percent of eligible employees joining unions during this period.
(They followed this with a state-by-state chart comparing Maryland to Right to Work states)
If anyone out there wants to pinpoint exactly when particular changes were made to the choosemaryland.org site, you can use the so-called Internet Archive Wayback Machine as a resource. It goes back to 2000.
So it would appear that the O'Malley administration inherited and decided to maintain and update an anti-union sales pitch on the state website, just as the Ehrlich administration had done when it took over.
Looks like all three administrations get a black eye here.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
State Government Proud that Maryland is Anti-Union (Updated)
When I saw this post on Free State Politics, I could not believe my eyes. But it's true: the state's Department of Business and Economic Development is trying to paint Maryland as an anti-union state to attract new businesses.
I encourage everyone to read the original post on FSP but here is the issue in a nutshell. The state is telling business that even though it does not have a right-to-work law, businesses have nothing to fear because unions here are (in their opinion) weak. Here's a sample of their language:While not a "right-to-work" (RTW) state, Maryland offers businesses a very favorable labor climate.
Now Governor O'Malley has been fairly pro-labor. I am sure that he had no knowledge of this vile propaganda spewed by underlings scurrying within the bowels of the state bureaucracy. But as I write this, outraged emails are flying across the state's entire labor movement. We cannot believe that rhetoric typical of Georgia and Oklahoma would be sanctioned at any level inside the O'Malley administration.
A quality workforce supplies a great resource, key to achieving corporate goals.
The percentage of private sector union membership in Maryland is 7.2 percent, which is lower than the national average of 7.5 percent and lower than most northeast and midwest states.
13.8 percent of the state's private sector manufacturing workers are union members, a lower percentage than two of the RTW states, as well as other states including New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
(Source: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.)
An analysis of companies new to Maryland from 1990 to 2001 (excluding firms that were already unionized upon their entry to the state and firms with fewer than 25 workers) reveals that:
Only two percent of the over 3,200 companies were petitioned by unions.
Half of Maryland's counties experienced no petitions for union elections.
Unions won representation rights for only one percent of the total new firms during the period analyzed.
Although petitions were filed most frequently in the services and manufacturing industries, unions won representation rights in just four percent of new Maryland manufacturing firms.
FSP's Eric Luedtke is asking blog readers to register their protests with the state's leadership. I agree with him and I refer you to his post for the relevant email addresses. If the Governor acts swiftly to revoke the state's anti-union pandering, most reasonable people will probably view it as a mistake and be willing to move on. But quick action is in order.
Update: The state's union-bashing is based partly on National Labor Relations Board election data from 2006. That data would not have been available until well into 2007, after Governor O'Malley assumed office. That proves that the propaganda was at least partially drafted during the O'Malley administration and cannot be blamed entirely - or perhaps not at all - on his predecessor.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Montgomery College Adjunct Professors Vote for Union
In a victory for some of the D.C. Metro Area's lowest-paid professionals, Montgomery College's adjunct faculty voted by a 365-105 margin in favor of representation by SEIU Local 500. We covered the struggle waged by the adjuncts to get an election over the last couple months. Following is the press release from SEIU announcing the victory.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT
John VanDeventer, (202) 730-7758
HISTORIC VOTE UNITES MORE THAN 1,000 PART-TIME FACULTY AT MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
By an overwhelming majority, instructors vote to join together for quality education
Montgomery County, MD – The Maryland Division of Labor and Industry announced this morning that an overwhelming majority of part-time faculty at Montgomery College (MC) have voted to join together with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 500. Instructors voted over three to one in favor of the union.
“This is a win for the entire county,” said part-time faculty member Alan Stover in response to the election results. “The part-time faculty members at Montgomery College want a stronger voice for quality education for our students. We’re going to work to protect and improve the valuable resources we provide to our community.”
Part-time faculty members teach about half of all courses offered at MC. Recent surges in enrollment, coupled with strains on available funding, have forced adjuncts to do more with less to meet the increased community demand.
To address their growing concerns, the part-time faculty filed a request for a vote on representation with SEIU Local 500 in early March. Since that time, the instructors have received an outpouring of support from both students and community leaders. Over 400 students at MC signed a petition in support of the part-time faculty’s efforts to organize and elected officials from both county and state government have reached out to congratulate the instructors’ victory.
“It is your passion for excellence that has made Montgomery College such a valuable asset to our community,” wrote Montgomery County councilmember Valerie Ervin in a statement to part-time faculty at the college. “And I know that same passion drives you to unite together for a stronger voice in the services you provide.”
This vote is a first for part-time instructors in Maryland and only the second such effort in the Washington, DC metropolitan area after George Washington University voted to unite together with SEIU Local 500 in 2004. The instructors at MC hope this will start a trend for more adjunct professors in the region.
“The opportunities we now have to win improvements for ourselves and our students are endless,” said part-time faculty member Terilee Edwards-Hewitt. “This experience has been a real eye opener as far as the positive things we can accomplish for ourselves, Montgomery College, and our students when we unite together for a stronger voice.”
###
Service Employees International Union Local 500 represents over 17,000 women and men working in education, public services, community services and child care in Maryland and Washington, DC. Local 500 members serve the public at the Montgomery County Public Schools, Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, The George Washington University, Head Start organizations (Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Rosemount), Maryland Child Care Providers, National Children’s Center, Oxfam International, Public Citizen, and the United States Student Association.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Montgomery College Agrees to Neutrality - Or Does It?
Regular readers will recall how Montgomery College told its adjunct professors that they were "not public employees" in order to avoid allowing them a union election. Now the college is claiming to be "neutral." But is it?
Two days ago, the President of Montgomery College sent out the following memo to adjunct professors:MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
It is encouraging to hear the college proclaim its "neutrality" though I have heard such statements from anti-union employers many times over the years. The true test of neutrality is not what the college says, but what the college does.
Office of the President
April 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Part-Time Faculty
From: Brian K. Johnson, President
Subject: Service Employees International Union for Part-Time Faculty
Many of you are aware of the petition filed by SEIU Local 500, seeking to represent adjunct faculty for purposes of collective bargaining. I wanted to clarify the College's position in this matter. We are not anti union, we are neutral, and will respect the right of adjunct faculty to decide through a secret ballot vote on whether you wish to be represented by the union. Throughout this process we must perform our organizational and legal duties. This includes making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law. These steps followed in accordance with the requirements of Maryland law result in benefits to all concerned and eliminate tremendous legal and logistical problems in the future.
We are working with the Maryland State Commissioner of Labor and SEIU Local 500 to seek an expedited election process that will allow you to vote on this question as soon as possible. Information regarding the election procedures will be forthcoming from the Commissioner's office in the very near future.
Montgomery College has a rich history of harmonious labor relations with our employee unions. We are committed to that tradition continuing with SEIU or any other union, should they become your collective bargaining representative.
The adjuncts are seeking an election prior to the end of the semester, which occurs in mid-May. The college states that it "must perform our organizational and legal duties," which include "making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law." If the college contests the definition of the bargaining unit - a common tactic used against workers who want a union - it can easily run out the clock on the semester. That would give the college all summer to plan a more aggressive campaign against the adjuncts in the fall.
If the college is genuinely neutral, it must agree to an election in the next couple weeks. Otherwise, its declaration of neutrality will be proven as baseless as its claim that the adjuncts are not public employees.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
More Union Busting at Montgomery College
I’ve seen quite a few union-busting tactics in my time but the latest one used by Montgomery College against its adjunct professors ranks as one of the most creative.
A couple weeks ago, we ran a four-part series on Montgomery College’s efforts to break a union organizing campaign by its adjunct professors. The college’s adjuncts earn maximum pay of $10,560 per semester and do not have health insurance. When they told the college they wanted to vote on representation by SEIU Local 500, the college reacted by hiring an expensive “union-avoidance” attorney and sending out misleading propaganda to the adjuncts. But as we predicted, Montgomery College’s union-busting campaign had only begun.
It’s common practice for a union-busting employer to argue about the definition of the bargaining unit – that is, the group of workers who would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Some employers want to shrink the unit. Others want to subtract employees that they believe to be pro-union or add employees that they think are anti-union. But Montgomery College’s definition of the bargaining unit is simple: there isn’t one.
In a letter to SEIU shown below, Montgomery College’s union-avoidance lawyer Darrell VanDeusen states, “The College has determined that the employees named in the SEIU’s petition are not considered public employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.” So since there are no eligible employees, there should be no election.
Section 16-412(a)(14) of Maryland law states, “Public employee means an employee employed by the public employer except: (i) Employees involved directly in the determination of policy; (ii) Supervisory or confidential employees; and (iii) Student assistants.” Which one of these exceptions applies to the adjunct professors? Conveniently, VanDeusen does not say. Perhaps a further exchange of letters will smoke him out.
But that would play into the college’s hands because the clock is ticking. SEIU Local 500 wants to hold an election before the semester ends and the adjuncts leave campus. And who knows if the college will allow the pro-union rank-and-file leaders among the adjuncts to return next year? After all, it’s hardly unknown for union supporters to suddenly receive unfavorable performance evaluations after many years of sterling service.
Now that its public employees are not really public employees, we should expect Montgomery College to say that it’s not a college. Or maybe that Montgomery County is not a county. Or maybe even that the institution does not actually exist on Planet Earth in contrast to the mistaken beliefs of some. Clearly, they will say anything to avoid a free and fair election for their adjunct professors.
So here’s our question for the County Executive and County Council: why are you allowing this deplorable farce to continue? And how much of our property tax increase will go to pay for all this union busting?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Getting to Know the Real Montgomery College
A reprint of a forthcoming Montgomery County Sentinel column by Wayne Goldstein.
Montgomery College is in the news these days in some very unflattering ways. The first is because the communities who live near the former Maryland College of Art and Design (MCAD) on Georgia Avenue, now owned by the Montgomery College Foundation, want this land to become a park. Although the College and its Foundation were given the MCAD site for free, they want to sell the land to developers for as much money as possible. The second is what is being called "Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign" documented this week in a four part series where the College is being accused of interfering with the right of adjunct professors to consider joining a union.
I think it's time that a new generation of county leaders and residents be introduced to what I call "The Real Montgomery College." From 2000-2002, I was part of a group who fought to stop the College from building its Cultural Arts Center in South Silver Spring's historic Jesup Blair Park because of the irreversible damage that would be done to the park's remaining old growth oak trees and to the setting of the last of the historic Blair family mansions. Against all odds, our group, with the timely help of others, successfully pressured the College to relocate this building to the corner of Georgia and Burlington Avenues, where it is being constructed today.
As I searched for ways to stop the College's building plans for the park, I began to do research about the College that soon became an exhaustive pursuit of the history of how the College grew its campuses and its buildings. What I found were some very embarrassing, even shameful moments in the College's history, as well as long periods of near-reckless behavior where the College fought everyone to try to get its way. By 2002, I had written a 100,000-word manuscript titled "The Real Montgomery College" covering the time period from the early '40s through 2002. In part, as a result of sharing this long-forgotten history with those concerned about the College's behavior in 2002, more people and institutions stood up to the College and forced it to make changes it did not want to make. And now, in 2008, it looks like the College is once again starting to spin out of control, so it is time to once again tell some of those shameful stories of the past.
For decades, the College has complained about not having room to expand its Takoma Park campus, a problem it continues to struggle with to this day. It might surprise you to know that this problem could have been entirely avoided, except that past College officials intentionally chose to ignore the obvious. In 1946, Montgomery Junior College [MJC] began evening classes in World War II surplus government building at B-CC High School. By 1950, the College was ready to move to its own campus. It ended up preferring the former Bliss Electrical School in Takoma Park.
"In June [1950], "The [Montgomery County] Board [of Education] discussed further the purchase of Bliss Electrical School for the [MJC[" Then on 7/11/50, "...the Board directed that negotiations be proceeded with for the purchase of the property..., including all land, buildings and equipment... Mrs. Baylor [a board member] voted for the purchase of the property, after stating her position as follows: 'I have prepared a statement in regard to my position in connection with the proposed purchase of the Bliss Electrical School, which I would like to have inserted into the minutes of this meeting. First, the campus of approximately 7 acres is, according to all educational standards, inadequate for a Junior College. A minimum of 35 acres is desirable. [Emphasis added] Second, the proximity to the B & O Railroad with its accompanying noise is detrimental to carrying on a school program... However, I want it noted that the proposal for the purchase of the... property has been approved by a committee from the Advisory Council of the Junior College, by the Civic Federation... and by Dean Price. It appears obvious that unless the Bliss Electrical School is purchased, the [MJC] is doomed to struggle along in its present inadequate quarters. With this in mind, and considering the other factors, I will cast my vote with the majority of the Board.'"
The College's leaders, knowing the site was far too small for the College's needs, rationalized the decision based on the price and on their hope that they could always use local parks and schools for all of their athletic programs. Within 5 years, they had outgrown the campus and began looking for ways to expand it, including buying adjacent residential properties as they became available. One did become available, the Grabill Property:
"...The following resolution was adopted [4-2]...That the Grabill property at 703 New York Avenue... is needed as additional property for the [MJC], and... that the Superintendent be authorized to make the purchase of this property in the name of the Board of Education... from the estate in an amount not to exceed $17,000." 5/14/57 School Board meeting: "The Superintendent announced that the Grabill property on New York Avenue.., for which the Board had been negotiating for use by the [MJC], had been sold to another party."
"Here's how this institution, at their 6/11/57 meeting, responded to having the object of their desire snatched from their outreaching hand: "The Superintendent and Dean Deyo... briefed the Board on the action to date in connection with the proposed acquisition of a site adjacent to the College for future use. They stated that they felt this land is valuable to the school. In view of the fact that neighbors have purchased the Grabill property during the period of negotiations between the Board and the owners, the Superintendent remarked that he felt condemnation proceedings should be recommended." [Emphasis added]
The School Board voted to have condemnation investigated as a possible action. Miraculously, without any outside intervention at all, the College realized that it should not abuse the condemnation process, and the motion was rescinded on 1/27/58. This may have been the last time in the past 50 years that Montgomery College did the right thing without being forced to do so by others.
As to the issue of relationships between College leaders, professors and students, consider this: "5/10/78: "The faculty at [MC] has voted overwhelmingly to recommend to the college's board... against renewing the contract of college president William C. Strasser when it expires on June 30 of next year... Students, incensed over next year's calendar which crams exams into 3 days scheduled to run from 7:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. are circulating a petition opposing Strasser... Of the 246 faculty members who responded [to a poll], 225 (91.5 %) were opposed to renewing the president's contract, 14 were for renewing... and 7 had no opinion. The poll also gave Strasser low ratings in several areas. On a scale of one (low) to 10 (high), the majority of faculty members against renewing Strasser's contract gave him 1.5 for leadership, 2.8 for administrative ability, 1.1 for communications and 1.8 for public relations. The poll... conducted in Feb. and sent confidentially to the board... also listed the 3 most important problems facing the college as apathy and morale, Dr. Strasser, and lack of communication...
"Several members of the [MC] Student Senate are distributing a petition asking the board... not to consider Strasser as a candidate... Several thousand students have already signed the petitions. The goal is 6000 signatures (about half of the Rockville campus enrollment) to be presented to the board... Previously [Strasser] had been censured by the faculty (1968), asked to resign (Dec.,1976) and hung in effigy by students (Nov.,1977)."
11/8/78: "The president of [MC], William C. Strasser, will step down when his current 5-year contract ends on 6/30/79... Strasser has been president... since 1966. He presided over a great expansion in the college's enrollment, offerings and the addition of a third campus--but will also be remembered for tremendous friction with the faculty and students... during his tenure... The friction at [MC], according to some faculty members, led to the state legislature's unprecedented vote last spring to allow collective bargaining at MC, which is not authorized at any other community college in Md..."
Today, adjunct, untenured Montgomery College professors are paid $880 per credit hour taught, normally as three credit hour courses. Full-time, tenured faculty can earn as much as $3,038 per credit hour. It is also reported that adjunct professors do not have health benefits or defined benefit pensions. Montgomery College's uniquely bad behavior over the decades has caused a number of "unprecedented" votes and actions by other government entities. I hope that all who seek to hold the College to the same standards as all of us will find assistance in this and future installments of "The Real Montgomery College."
Wayne Goldstein is the President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation and is one of the grand-daddies of civic activism in this county.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Four of Four
In Part Three, we began examining the FAQ sheet that Montgomery College sent to its adjunct faculty to spread propaganda about unions. We demonstrated how the administration tried to make SEIU Local 500 look like an intimidating, coercive organization and how they tried to attach questionable generalizations about unions to the local. Now, we expose how their questions and answers serve a third tactical objective:
3. Scare the workers and make them think the union is not worth it.Q. How long does it take for a union to negotiate a contract?
The FAQ sheet neglects to mention that many first contracts are not reached because of “union avoidance” programs of the kind that Montgomery College is now running. And the SEIU action at Carlyle, a troubled company by any measure, involved a campaign at nursing home chain Manor Care. Local 500 does not organize nursing homes and did not participate in the picket action against Carlyle. And Local 500 does not require picket duty of its members because most of its employers are in the public sector and in Maryland are are not subject to strikes. Montgomery College is well aware of this but nevertheless tries to smear Local 500 by talking about the actions of a different SEIU group on a different campaign.
A. Recent studies show that contract negotiations usually take more than one year when employees are represented by a union, and that unions are successful in negotiating an agreement within a year only 25% of the time.
Q. Will I have to walk a picket line?
A. That is a possibility. Although there is a “no strike” provision in the law, a union may require members to picket in an effort to get its point across. Many unions also require their members to serve picket duty at other companies where they have a strike. The SEIU is known for its frequent picketing of businesses that it is trying to get to accept its positions.
For example, look at the article in the Washington Post on February 18, 2008 titled “A Stubborn Union Storms the Gates at Carlyle Group,” which reported on the SEIU’s picketing on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Post noted that picketers “swarmed through the Carlyle building, jumping on and off elevators, running up stairways and trying to get into Carlyle offices in an effort to confront [a] Carlyle co-founder… After some heated moments, security and D.C. police escorted the union from the premises.”
As someone who has been fighting law-breaking employers for more than 13 years, I’m accustomed to this sort of misleading propaganda from private-sector employers. But now a public institution has hired a “union avoidance” attorney to apply these same tactics to county employees – all through our tax dollars. How many thousands of dollars is Montgomery College spending on its union-busting campaign? How many students could be educated with that money? And why is Montgomery College being allowed to pay a “union avoidance” lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour at a time when the county is projecting a $297 million budget deficit and is raising property taxes to pay for it?
What will Montgomery College do next? Union-busting campaigns usually do not end with FAQ sheets. Common tactics include captive audience meetings, one-on-one interrogations by supervisors, promised improvements (which may or may not actually materialize), threats of job cuts and even firing union supporters. Is this what the college’s adjunct professors have to look forward to?
Montgomery College’s union busting campaign is an absolute abomination in a progressive county like Montgomery. Adjunct professors and any other public employees should be free to choose, or not choose, union representation without being subjected to taxpayer-subsidized propaganda and fear. The County Executive and the County Council should immediately take measures to terminate Montgomery College’s “union avoidance” attorney and compel the school to let its employees make their own labor decisions in peace.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Three of Four
When Montgomery College administrators sent a memo to adjunct faculty warning them against joining SEIU Local 500, they attached a document called “Typical Questions That Are Asked During a Union Organizing Campaign.” An FAQ document is a typical opening shot in any union busting program. Provided by the “union avoidance consultant,” the FAQ sheet spins the labor law, spreads misleading propaganda and scares the workforce. Montgomery College’s document is no different and seeks to accomplish the following tactical objectives:
1. Make the union look like an intimidating, coercive organization. Here are a few questions and answers in the FAQ sheet designed to do that:Q. Do I have to let a union representative into my house?
So union representatives are “paid salespersons” who threaten, coerce, pressure, bother and needle workers. And management is the voice of reason merely informing workers of their right to be left alone.
A. No. A union representative has no more right to enter your house than any other paid salesperson.
Q. Do I have to sign a union authorization card?
A. No. You don’t have to sign such a card to teach at Montgomery College. Under the law you have the right not to join a union and no one can threaten or coerce you into joining.
Q. What difference does it make if I sign a union authorization card?
A. If you and other part time faculty feel pressured to sign a card and actually do so, it increases the chances that the union will be able to file a petition for an election. If that should happen, you should expect even more pressure from the union to vote for it if an election is held.
Q. The union organizers say that everyone else is joining the union. Why shouldn’t I join too?
A. It is a common organizing tactic of unions to claim that “nearly everyone has signed” union membership application cards and they want only a few more employees’ signatures to make it 100 percent. Actually, they may have very few people signed up and they use a “don’t be last” approach to get enough signatures to legally petition for an election. Many employees sign to keep from being bothered and needled by the organizers. This is why the law relies on the secret ballot vote as the true test of employee’s choice.
2. Make questionable generalizations about other unions and insinuate the specific local union in the organizing campaign is guilty of them. Here are a few examples from the FAQ sheet:Q. Will it cost me anything to belong to this union?
The FAQ sheet does not mention that the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 guarantees union members the right to vote by secret ballot on local dues and assessments. Union members also have rights to free speech, due process in any disciplinary procedures and to sue their unions in court.
A. In all likelihood, yes. Unions collect monthly dues, and besides that there are a lot of other charges such as initiation fees, assessments and contributions to organizations and causes a union may sponsor or support. Unions also fine and suspend members who violate any of the union’s many by-laws and rules forbidding any “disloyalty” to the union.
Q. What can the union fine its members for?
A. It depends on the union’s internal rules. Most union constitutions and by-laws provide that the union can fine you for almost anything – for not attending union meetings, for trying to come into work if there is a strike, or for talking back to an officer of the union.
Q. Is it true that a union may require its members to pay more than dues each month?
A. Yes. The union may require a member to contribute to the international union, as well as to pay charges for political contributions, informational clinics, building funds and other special project funds. If a member refuses to pay these special assessments, your union membership may be suspended or you may be fined by the union or even expelled by the union.
SEIU Local 500’s bylaws specifically guarantee all members the right “to receive a fair and open hearing in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws on any charge brought by him/her or against him/her.” Furthermore, SEIU Local 500’s bylaws do not require political contributions (which are voluntary) and specifically allow member votes before raising dues or assessments. But of course, Montgomery College is not going to tell its workforce these facts.
We’ll finish looking at the FAQ sheet in Part Four.
Correction: An adjunct professor wrote me to state that not all adjuncts receive $880 per credit hour as the Gazette reported and I cited in Part One. According to this adjunct:Please take note of the fact that $880 per ESH (estimated semester hour) is the MAXIMUM that an adjunct can presently earn at Montgomery College. The minimum is $810 per ESH. The next level, $850 per ESH, can only be obtained after a teacher has taught at least 6 semesters (three years) and has accumulated a certain amount of professional development credit by taking various workshops. In three more years, the teacher can advance to $880 per ESH; once again professional development credit has to be earned. These courses must be taken during the adjunct's own time, so of course there's no compensation. Also, it's up to an adjunct to petition for the next pay level by submitting the appropriate form along with proof of professional development credit to his or her respective department. There is no such thing as automatic advancement. If an adjunct doesn't follow the above procedure, he or she will remain at the same pay level indefinitely.
So after six years and much training on the adjunct’s own time, the professor may earn up to $10,560 for four courses in a semester. Nice.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Two of Four
On March 3, Mary Kay Shartle-Galotto, Executive Vice-President for Academic and Student Services and Marshall Moore, Vice-President for Administrative and Fiscal Services sent a memo warning adjunct faculty not to support SEIU Local 500. This document has the fingerprints of a “union avoidance consultant” all over it. The memo begins:As some of you may already know, organizers of the Service Employees International Union Local 500 have approached the part-time faculty at Montgomery College and have asked them to sign union authorization cards. If a sufficient number of part-time faculty sign these cards, the union intends to submit a petition for a representation election to the State Commissioner of Labor.
So Shartle-Galotto and Moore admit to maintaining “good relationships” with their other unions but nevertheless say “the College does not believe” that unionization would be in the interest of adjuncts. Why not? They refer to “many complicated facets to this issue – and some misunderstandings.” They talk about the “sizable fee/cost factor” of unions but avoid mentioning that U.S. union members were paid on average 30% more than non-members last year. They also do not want their adjuncts to know that while 69% of U.S. unionized employees have access to a defined benefit pension plan (which the adjuncts do not have), only 15% of non-union workers have similar access. And their discussion of “standardizing” the workforce omits the fact that any employee classifications are a subject for collective bargaining in which the employer has full rights of participation.
Montgomery College has always maintained good relationships with its full-time faculty and staff unions; however, the College does not believe that the unionization of part-time faculty would best serve the interests of this faculty base, the College, or our students. There are many complicated facets to this issue - and some misunderstandings - that part-time faculty members should understand and reconcile before they commit themselves to union representation. Unions can promise a lot - namely wage increases, better benefits, job security - but the union may not always be able to deliver everything it intends. Faculty should also be aware of the sizable fee/cost factor involved with any union membership.
Part-time faculty members are a diverse group of people with many different goals and priorities. We have faculty who work for a variety of different industries and institutions, and this diverse, real-world perspective is something we highly value in this faculty base. Unionization would almost necessarily standardize the treatment of this population, which could result in difficulties with the assignment and scheduling of classes, not to mention possible difficulties involving full-time faculty relationships.
Later in the memo, Shartle-Galotto and Moore claim that adjuncts received an 8 percent salary increase in the 2007-08 academic year. They neglect to mention that the college's adjuncts receive as little as one-third of regular faculty pay for the same work. They also fail to mention that their hired “union avoidance” attorney, Darrell VanDeusen, could be making more in 30 hours of billing (perhaps $12,000- $18,000) than adjuncts can make teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
But Montgomery College is not merely selectively releasing information. They attached a list of “frequently asked questions” about unions to their memo which was probably drafted in consultation with VanDeusen. We’ll take a look at that list in Part Three.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part One of Four
Management calls them “union avoidance consultants.” Labor people call them “union busters.” But whatever term you use for them, you can count on them showing up whenever workers dare to tell the boss that they are thinking about forming a union. All across the country, thousands of lawyers, consultants and outright shysters rake in billions of dollars working for anti-union employers. They spread fear and propaganda and some of them even assist employers in breaking labor laws just so workers will be too scared to choose union representation. And now Montgomery College has hired a “union avoidance” lawyer of its own.
Montgomery College’s union busting started when the college’s adjunct professors approached SEIU Local 500 to discuss representation. Many of us remember college faculty as being tenured, comfortable residents of the ivy tower. But today’s college professors are increasingly part-time, paid by the class, with few benefits and no job security. Montgomery College’s faculty is now mostly comprised of adjunct professors who, unlike tenured faculty, have no union representation. According to the Gazette, the college’s adjuncts are paid $880 per credit hour taught, with most classes worth three credit hours. Full-time faculty can make up to $3,038 per credit hour. SEIU reports that adjuncts do not have health benefits or defined benefit pensions. When SEIU began gathering authorization cards from workers for a state representation election, the college acted quickly to put an end to it.
Montgomery College hired Darrell VanDeusen, a lawyer with Baltimore law firm Kollman & Saucier. VanDeusen, recently named as one of Maryland’s “Super Lawyers” in Baltimore Magazine, describes his practice as “providing advice in matters such as compliance with anti-discrimination laws, union avoidance and collective bargaining, family and medical leave and fair labor standards.” The law firm also states that VanDeusen “has defended employers in hundreds of charges before the EEOC and other state and local fair employment practice agencies” and “has argued cases in state and federal courts that have interpreted the law in favor of employers.” SEIU states that the going rate for top “union avoidance” lawyers in Maryland is $400-600 per hour. If that is true for VanDeusen, he could earn more in 30 hours of billing ($12,000- $18,000) than an adjunct professor could earn teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
What is Montgomery College getting from VanDeusen? We’ll take a look in Part Two.
