New Haven Independent: Custodians vs. Aramark: Round 2

Custodians vs. Aramark: Round 2

by Allan Appel | February 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

nhiboefeb25%20001.JPG The Board of Education is probably not interested in correcting its unionized custodians’ punctuation with the required comma for the appositive (“Hey, Aramark!”). The custodians are getting their point across, anyway, with this billboard that faces BOE headquarters across Union Avenue.

In fact, the custodians’ union may already have achieved a victory. But that appears unlikely to stop their campaign.

Following picketing over the last month and public denunciations of Aramark’s inefficiencies and poor working environment, Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County, and Mucnicipal Employees (AFSCME), which represents the custodians, launched a 12-billboard campaign against the Philadelphia-based corporate subcontractor. The BOE has been employing Aramark since 1993 to manage food services, facilities, and, most recently, energy usage throughout the sprawling 50-plus building system.

The custodians’ union — and to a lesser extent cafeteria workers — have alleged hostile work atmospheres, poor menus, inefficiencies like Aramark’s purchasing poor, even dangerous, equipment — such as the bear-proof Dumpsters referred to in the billboard — and putting profits above the diet, safety, and general welfare of New Haven Public School students. (The students themselves spoke out against the quality of the lunches in this story.)

On Tuesday, not long after the billboards hit the streets, the BOE put out a request for proposals (RFP) for the food service management contract. In other words, Aramark is not going to be automatically granted another contract.

Was this a result of the serious displeasures expressed by the union?

Will Clark, the BOE’s chief operating officer, said, in an email message. “This was a board decision. The contracts allow the option to renew for one more year or go out to bid.”

In making the decision not to pursue renewal, he said, the board took a number of issues into consideration including “union concerns.” In addition, he said the BOE thought it was the right time to go out to bid to test the market, as, he indicated, the city is doing in finding better deals for its employees’ medical benefits.

Larry Dorman, a spokesperson for Council 4, responded to the news this way: “While the city is not automatically renewing Aramark’s contract as they have in the past, we’ve got a long way to go in our campaign for quality school services.”

He then called for public hearings to scrutinize the impact of Aramark’s business practices. The union issued what they called a white paper alleging poor bulk purchasing practices on the part of Aramark.

Will Clark said the RFP for food services is already posted on the BOE’s web site (click here ). He saidthe RFP for managing the NHPS facilities would be up on the site and ready for bidding as early as this weekend.

But it’s unlikely that will mollify Council 4. Dorman, who in the union’s previous presentations to the board, has cited Aramark’s recent dismissals from school systems such as Hartford, does not think that an Aramark by another name would smell — or cook or clean — any sweeter.

“Our ultimate goal,” he said in relation both to food services and to facilities, “is to return to a self-operated model that would be more efficient, more transparent and more accountable to the public, especially students and their families.”

Council 4, in partnership with two other unions - Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and UNITE HERE, have created an entity caled “Campaign for Quality Service,” which issued a 14-page report called “Putting Kids First?” on Wednesday. The report calls for public hearings, alleging, among other charges, that rebates and discounts Aramark received for food purchases may have influenced the buying of less nutritious food for New Haven’s kids. Click here for the full report.

Kristine Grow, Aramark’s spokeswoman, said, “the report contains very few fact and by its own admission is largely speculation.” She went on to say that the report and activities of the “Campaign for Quality Service” reflect the general campaigns of SEIU and UNITE/HERE! to organize among workers at services businesses - such as Aramark - for card-check neutrality. “That approach,” she said, “which has no secret ballot, is just fraught with coercion for our employees.”

Stay tuned.

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Zach | February 28, 2008 1:06 PM

If you're going to impugn the unions' grammar, don't you think it owuld be wise to edit phrases like "have alleged inattentive to hostile work atmospheres"?

Posted by: king james v | February 28, 2008 3:46 PM

the unions have contributed to the death of american industry, and municipal pension plans are killing cities financially while schools, saftey services and our infrastructure crumble.

Posted by: Ken Krayeske | February 28, 2008 4:05 PM

King James, your version of history is colored. Of course, big business has had nothing to do with the race to the bottom of the wage scale, removing industry wholesale from our Northeastern cities.

Infrastructure crumbles because the municipal tax base that built it - ie the factory employers - have moved away to exploit cheaper labor elsewhere. So workers who stand up for their rights are at the root of our current social malaise? I doubt it greatly, and from royalty, I expect more than such a simplistic analysis of union impacts on industry.

Posted by: billy | February 28, 2008 5:38 PM

Ken,

Economically you proved the good king's point. Union's create price floors for services. Instead of letting the market determine the fair price for a sservice the negotiate a number. This leads to wages that are essentailly unfair and causes more entrants into the market for these jobs which creates unemployment. This is Macro 101. Companies, seeing this trend, look for a better pirce for labor one determined by more efficent markets, not negotiations. Look at it this way, what if a bunch of companies got together and determined that toothpaste should be $15 a tube and then negotiated a contract with each drug store? Unfair right? Actually this is calle dprice fixing and it is illegal. How is this different from unions fixing the price for labor? Why is the government both for and against price fixing? Seems odd that this practice is only okay when it suits "fair choice" fancy wording for union coercion. Before you know it wwe will be Germany, the last country to feel the effects of unions run amok.

Posted by: jade | February 28, 2008 8:29 PM

um, shouldn't it be "There are no bears" ?

Posted by: Ken Krayeske | February 28, 2008 11:13 PM

So without unions, we would still have a 15-hour workday. The market's purpose is to generate capital, which seeks to reproduce. Capitalism without controls is a bad thing. The market should not have a free hand, particularly in dealing with the workforce. The economic power of the employer can overwhelm sui juris workers.

I will agree that not all unions are the greatest thing since sliced bread. But that mystical 40-hour work week, the concept of overtime, and the abolition of child labor in the USA all exist because of unions.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 1, 2008 10:04 AM

First thank you New Haven for seeing the light!

Thank you Ken!! Do people even know what Unions have done!! And that most of there jobs have been effected in positive way because of past Union activity's! Do they realize that Corp. trying to phase out the union is not to benefit the people! And that maybe there jobs may not be effected by it but I can garentee that there children will have a whole different job market to deal with if we allow the trend to continue.

Posted by: Paul | March 3, 2008 9:50 AM

Mr. Appel,
that's not an appositive, since "Aramark" does not rename a preceding noun ("Hey").

Here's an example of an appositive:
The reporter, Mr. Appel, made a mistake.

"Hey Aramark!" would be a vocative.

But thanks for trying to make the union look like just a bunch of dumb plumbers. That's really fair and responsible writing.

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 3, 2008 12:08 PM

Long ago, Congress exempted unions from the anti-trust laws, realizing workers should be allowed to organize and bargain to fix wages and working conditions,

Today, well-organized, national unions have great financial power with $billions of union and pension funds to spread around. Without violating laws, unions are able to support projects that help their employers. Particularly when employers are state and city governments, unions can provide aid important indirect financial aid to politicians. A local example is Shartenberg largely financed by union pension funds.

Union members and their families also provide important swing votes, contributions and political power to politicians who make decisions affecting union contracts. Liberal pensions and benefits granted in municipal union contracts cost contemporary politicians nothing. Chickens come to roost on future generations when pension and benefit costs need to be funded. By that time the officials who made the unwise deals are long since gone reaping large benefits from their own retirements and benefits "negotiated" to give the government officials parity with the union workers.

So when unions say "jump," the tendency on the part of even successful politicians is to say: "how high?

Posted by: Your Tax Dollars at Work | March 3, 2008 12:18 PM

Long ago, Congress exempted unions from the anti-trust laws, realizing workers should be allowed to organize and bargain to fix wages and working conditions.

Today, well-organized, national unions have great financial power with $billions of union and pension funds to spread around. Without violating laws, unions are able to support projects that help their employers.

Particularly when employers are state and city governments, unions can provide important indirect financial aid to politicians. A local example is Shartenberg largely financed by union pension funds.

Union members and their families also provide important swing votes in elections and direct contributions to politicians who make decisions affecting union contracts. Liberal pensions and benefits granted in municipal union contracts cost contemporary politicians nothing.

Chickens come to roost on future generations when pension and benefit costs need to be funded. By that time the officials who made the unwise deals are long since gone reaping large benefits from their own retirements and benefits "negotiated" to give the government officials parity with the union workers.

So when unions say "jump," the tendency on the part of even successful politicians is to say: "how high?" For politicians, giving cosy benefits to the unions is all upside potential. There's no downside risk.

New Haven Independent

Custodians vs. Aramark: Round 2

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed