December 2007 Newsletter
U of M Strike of 2007 - What We Faced, What We Accomplished
Local 3800 Newsletter Editorial
The 2½ week strike of the clerical, technical and health care locals at the University of Minnesota has ended, but the discussion of the outcome of the strike, what we have learned and what we have gained, continues.
Two recent comments from AFSCME members stand out. One Med Area member, commenting on recent IRS data showing the median tax filer’s income had fallen 2% when adjusted for inflation, between 2000 and 2005, said “Our wages actually fared worse than the national average, but the trend is clear. I am so proud of us for taking a stand against what is happening to working people all over the country.” And from the St. Paul campus, another member responded, “I second that emotion. I realized recently that as difficult as it was to strike without the majority of the membership’s support and without a tangible, positive outcome, I would feel much worse if I had not done what it was in my power to do. Thanks to all of you who chose the difficult road of speaking truth to power.”
The general consensus from striking members is that it was worth it to stand up against the assault on our standard of living. We united our four locals and refused to let management pit us against each other. We exposed this university management across the university community, the Twin Cities, and beyond. The word is out. This university management has no respect for its workers and their unions. This university management is a union buster. And we won widespread support.
Standing up provided us with a source of dignity and self-respect. It has given us an invaluable lesson in who is really on our side and who is not. It has given us a graduate course in how to fight for our rights. We are stronger as a result.
What were we up against? A consensus by the most powerful and influential corporate/banking/business interests in the State that resources should continue to be shifted from the poor to the rich. At the U that means a priority on corporate-oriented research accompanied by financial rewards for the University's top administration – mimicking corporate compensation – at the expense of workers, students, and undergraduate education.
The numbers we presented, both before and after the strike, showing that the lowest paid University workers had fallen seriously behind inflation, showing that our jobs had been devalued by nearly 5% between 2002 and 2007, were on the mark. The administration referred to the 2003-2005 contract period as one of “sharing the pain” and the 2005-2007 contract period as a time of “fairness and equity.” We unmasked these slogans and showed that a predominantly male administration had made unprecedented economic gain while driving the wages of its predominantly female front-line staff well below the cost of living.
The University administration's arrogant and unfeeling intransigence went so far as to defy the mandate from the Legislature to use a State salary supplement to give all University staff a 3.25% general wage adjustment – a supplement, we might add, won by AFSCME through our legislative lobbying.
We might have decided to accept defeat in advance, by accepting the University’s contract without a fight. That’s always an available option. Instead, in our campaign, on the picket lines and at the negotiating table, healthcare, clerical and technical workers were united, for the first time in the history of U of M negotiations. We educated and organized ourselves and inspired people everywhere. Those of us who wore buttons into grocery stores, coffee shops, bookstores and in our neighborhoods couldn't keep them on our shirts and jackets – they were in such high demand. We received a huge outpouring of support from the University community, other unions, public officials and candidates. During the strike, our picketing was wider, more visible, determined and effective than during the 2003 strike. Our members moved more decisively to take charge of the strike and to demand an accounting for each step we took.
Our inability to win our demand for economic justice stemmed, in large part, from the fact that a big percentage of our co-workers crossed the picket lines, thus weakening our struggle. This fed the arrogance and intransigence of an administration whose ultimate goal is to bust the unions at the U of M and move toward merit pay for all employees. At this juncture, we were not strong enough to overcome management’s course. However, since our legitimate demands for economic justice have not been resolved, the University will experience ongoing turmoil. Employees will continue to respond, in one form of another, to shrinking paychecks.
Anything short of the economic justice we fought to achieve is a bitter pill to swallow. The fact is that University administrators had some 140 years to deliver livable wages to the U’s staff before a majority of clerical, technical and healthcare workers unionized. Every economic gain – from step increases negotiated in our first contracts to the $12.00 base pay achieved through our 2002 livable wage campaign – has been the result of our collective energy.
There is no doubt that our struggle has inspired and will continue to inspire the University’s workforce that there is an alternative to bowing our heads and taking whatever is dished out. We return to work with a renewed and stronger commitment to educate and organize our ranks. The energy and commitment of our struggle can only have a positive impact as we continue to demand a University administration responsive to the economic well-being of its entire workforce. H