by David Bego
Once the organizers and supporting groups are in place, first contact is made with the targeted companies, the cleaners, the business and building owners, and the property managers. With the plan underway, the union organizers meet with the contract-cleaning company owners and ask them to sign a Neutrality Agreement. This document, as noted, is the model for the Employee Free Choice Act from the perspective that 1) the provisions eliminate the secret-ballot election, 2) it requires the employer to provide every employee’s name and address, and 3) it prohibits the employer from discussing the union with any of the employees. If it chooses to do so, the union could use the contact information to harass, intimidate, and misinform employees into signing union cards. Once contract-cleaning companies representing 60 percent of the cleanable space in a city sign the Neutrality Agreement and there is a majority of each company’s employees who sign union cards, the employers have the obligation to participate in city-wide negotiations with the union.
As part of signing the Neutrality Agreement, the employer agrees not to speak with its employees about the union regardless of whether the employees ask for information. Additionally, the company is required to send a letter to all employees indicating the company’s neutral stance and that it is in agreement with the union, which for the hourly employees makes it look like the company has caved and they may as well sign the cards. What trickery!
With this plan of attack in mind, the SEIU started its “Corporate Campaign” with GSF (Group Services France), a local company owned by a French conglomerate since the early to mid-1990s. The SEIU picked on GSF who they believed was one of the lower wage-payers in the janitorial ranks operating in Indianapolis. Because it also used what the union believed to be a questionable incentive system that most janitors couldn’t achieve, the union saw its opportunity. It put pressure on GSF to sign the Neutrality Agreement, but the company refused. In line with SEIU’s preconceived plan, the union then put public relations pressure on Eli Lilly, WellPoint, and the NCAA headquarters, three of GSF’s main customers. The threat was obvious: if GSF did not sign a Neutrality Agreement, union members would picket the company’s buildings causing a public relations nightmare. Such a threat caused us to lose even the chance to bid for business at companies like Eli Lilly where I was told by an executive that it did not want to take any chance on bad public relations in the form of picketing, etc. This would occur at Wellpoint as well, meaning we lost the potential for millions of dollars in revenues simply because I would not relinquish my employees’ rights by signing the Neutrality Agreement. Predictably, as the three companies wanted to avoid added bad press, their executives put pressure on the GSF general manager threatening to cancel their contract. The SEIU even called a so-called “unfair labor practice” strike against GSF, putting added pressure on the cleaning company to sign. Unwilling to permit this to occur, GSF caved in and signed the Neutrality Agreement, the first ones in Indianapolis to do so. I’m sure Stern had a smile on his face when he learned the good news. His plan was working.
To gain a perspective as to how EMS fit into the SEIU plan to organize, some comparisons are worthy. There are several major national cleaning companies, with ABM being the largest one in the world. It is a billion dollar-plus company, and for reasons known only to them, they automatically sign Neutrality Agreements in any city where the SEIU operates. Other large national cleaning companies included One Source, later acquired by ABM, and SBM and a regional company 4M. Each of these companies had acceded to the union’s demands. The result: SEIU now had GSF, ABM, SPM, and 4M in tow. Next up on the docket was EMS, as we were one of the largest cleaning companies in the city.
In late December of 2005, SEIU representatives contacted me to arrange a meeting. I finally arranged to have a meeting with Dennis Dingow in April of 2006, the union’s contract administrator from Cleveland. He was a mid-50s, medium-built fellow with a friendly attitude, who appeared to be disarming and non-confrontational. Having dealt with this type of person before, it was not difficult to see through a rather thin veneer, one hiding an intense man who I later learned had one goal and one goal only, to intimidate me into signing the Neutrality Agreement.
We enjoyed a fairly friendly meeting at a downtown club. Dennis told me about SEIU and how altruistic they were—interested mainly in improving working hours and working conditions for janitors across the country. When I asked for specifics, and pressed him on it, he could not, or would not, provide any. I explained that for me to consider any union proposal, I would have to better understand what they had in mind.
Dingow agreed to contact me again, but I wasn’t holding my breath—Based on some research I had done I knew that facts, ones based on truth, were not part of SEIU’s portfolio. Instead, they wanted to work in the margins, with allegations not accusations, all pointing to the end result of having a company cave into their demands. But initially, at least, we wanted to be open-minded as we knew what was coming if continued resistance occurred—pressure just like that imposed on GSF. At the same time Dingow’s demand was quite clear: either we sign the Neutrality Agreement or SEIU would embark upon a “Corporate Campaign” against us using one simple argument with little merit, especially in our case: there is strength in numbers, and more means better for janitors represented by the union. When we challenged this assertion by asking “how?” the union leader quickly attempted to divert us to another subject.
When you challenge SEIU organizers about what they have been able to accomplish in other cities, they will change the subject as well since they are very crafty as to how they handle questions asking for facts. But the “or else” message is very clear, as evidenced by a threat I knew about to a fellow business associate by an SEIU organizer to the effect that he better sign the Neutrality Agreement or they would destroy him, ruin him. This sounds to me like Jimmy Hoffa at work using tactics that in my view are unethical, and possibly even illegal.
In their campaign, the SEIU will also point to poor working conditions in the buildings being serviced by contractors like us. But most of the buildings are what are called “Class A” buildings owned by competent developers who care about quality as much as we do. The union’s main objection is usually to point to the use of hazardous chemicals, and while some contractors attempt to cut costs by using inferior products, reputable companies like ours would never do such a thing, as the SEIU fully knew. But it didn’t matter as before long the term “sweat shop” entered the equation portraying images of dark and dreary southeast Asian plants where workers are treated like animals while being paid fifty cents an hour. The reality is that in my industry the vast majority of the janitors/custodians work in safe environments as most of the plants or buildings cleaned by contractors have less exposure to hazards that we do in our homes. This is where workers work their tails off at an entry-level, but competent wage while performing a very difficult job because it is tough to maintain an acceptable productivity rate while they vacuum, clean, dust, and empty trash cans over a long period of time.
To be certain, the work done by these individuals is vital to the success of any company as poor cleaning procedures leads to a bad health work environment, an environment not conducive to acceptable productivity. Regardless, the union will file complaints with federal agencies to soil the reputations of companies regardless of the lack of merit of the allegations. And the union public relations wing will publicize the allegations so a company’s reputation is battered for all its customers and the public at large to see as evidenced by experiences with OSHA and the NLRB. SEIU flyers trumpet allegations such as “EMS is under investigation for multiple labor law violations including . . .” when in reality the investigation was based on the union’s own trumped up charges! Soon, we are looked at as the “bad guys” trying to prevent worker’s rights, a far cry from the truth but more interesting than the truth in the media’s eyes.
Viewed through a wide lens, SEIU goals are easy to pinpoint. Keep throwing spitballs at the targeted companies until some
thing sticks forcing executives to throw in the towel and agree to be organized. And it works as the toll is heavy for those who decide to stand up for what they believe in and say “no.” One kind gentleman I know was at the point where he decided simply to sell his business when things turned sour, or just close it, and walk away. Another in Cincinnati who decided to make a stand nearly ended up in a divorce before finally signing the Neutrality Agreement. In the far west, one business owner filed lawsuits against SEIU while spending, as EMS would have to do, thousands of dollars in legal fees while taking way too much time away from his wife and family dealing with such matters. A fellow businessman fought long and hard, and his health suffered as a result.
One common SEIU tactic is to falsely proclaim that an employer pays poverty wages and publicly vilify the employer for doing so. Regardless of our paying some of the highest wages in the industry, and certainly higher than the union contracts in the cities where we do business, we were lumped in with others who did not do so. Hell with the facts, of course, causing us to look like money-grubbing business owners hurting the little guy or gal when nothing was further from the truth. They conveniently forget that companies, not unions, create jobs. But the union didn’t care because it had to make these accusations to rally those in the community they needed to assist their cause.
Examples of union infiltration allegedly based on improving employee wages abound. A couple of years ago, the union in Houston touted their ability to gain a six dollar per hour wage despite the fact that in many cases the employees in the city were making more, except possibly for those who were illegal or undocumented. But once again the union didn’t care, dues are dues whether the workers are legal or not. And I will bet that some of the undocumented workers were actually making less than six dollars per hour because they were afraid of being reported and deported. With companies like EMS, this is not an issue as we don’t hire undocumented workers—never have, never will. Like many other reputable companies, we carry out stringent background checks, I-9 checks using the government’s e-verify program, and other document checks to make certain we are hiring properly documented workers.
Regarding wage levels—in cities where EMS operates, our wages and certainly the benefit packages including health care and vacation are far superior to those negotiated by SEIU. Interestingly enough, our company not only provides better wages and benefits, but also permits people who work 30 hours or more to qualify as full-time, earning health care benefits. In contrast, the SEIU Indianapolis and Cincinnati contracts require workers to spend at least 35 hours on the job to be eligible for health care benefits. Normally union health care benefits don’t kick in until two to three years after the contract has been negotiated. But SEIU press releases never mention these points because it is not in the union’s best interest to do so. Instead, the union boasts about the great package the workers are getting which is nothing more than a smoke screen, plus the employees are now paying dues. What the union never tells anyone concerns the first two items that are non-negotiable for them. Items that will cause the union to make major concessions at the expense of the employees: 1) A union security clause that requires all eligible employees to pay union dues. (In other words, even if you voted against the union you still have to pay dues and initiation fees as a condition of employment.) 2) Check-off clauses forcing the company to collect dues from the employee’s paychecks. (They don’t trust the employees to keep paying, and the unions keep their administrative costs down.)
Unions like SEIU will also tell support groups, those “front organizations” I mentioned, that we are not paying a “living wage,” thus preying on their sympathies for the poor plight of the workers when in fact, none of those in the support groups has taken time to learn that our employees are actually treated well. Why? Because this union doesn’t give a damn, but instead wants to destroy the reputation of a company like EMS so we will sign the Neutrality Agreement leading to provisions like the ones featured in the Employee Free Choice Act.
To present some numbers (please note that I wasn’t much of a math student in college), let’s say you have 20 part-time people working in a building for four hours a night—eighty man/woman hours in all. During contract negotiations, the union over the course of the agreement secures full-time employment, then instead of 20 people at four hours a night, the number is reduced to ten people working eight hours a night. So while requiring more employees to work full time jobs (and thereby qualify for high priced union health care benefits), the union has effectively eliminated half of the jobs in the building. This in turn, though the union doesn’t want to mention it, causes the unemployment rolls to increase. Also, if the people get paid more, the hours will be reduced. Why? Because building owners and managers cannot pay more, the contractor will reduce the total hours worked every night. Fewer workers are needed and although those left may be taking home more money, they are working twice as hard, something the union professes to want to eliminate but actually encourages through its programs.
Unions like the SEIU also point to employees needing to be unionized because employers supposedly intimidate, harass, and abuse them, and they have nowhere to go with their complaints without union representation. But in today’s marketplace, very rarely does this occur, especially at companies like EMS where employees are valued, not chastised. But the union would like people to believe that we are back in the 1930s and 1940s when we had sweatshops, kids were employed, people were working 80 hours a week, and there was no overtime pay or benefits. Today, we have federal and state laws and government regulatory agencies (EEOC, OSHA, DOL) protecting these safeguards. And the country has become more civilized; employers understand that people have to have free time and the ability to do other things. Regardless, unions are stuck in time and are becoming extinct like the dinosaurs as they will not budge from archaic arguments making little sense in today’s modern business world. But when you have no real arguments to offer on behalf of unionization, old ones must be used as new ones don’t make sense. Thus, the unions prey on supporters who simply don’t understand the true facts and unfortunately, bless them, get swooped into a crusade where organizing a union is the ultimate answer to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
Also, remember, any employee who feels wronged may contact the NLRB and file a complaint, report incidents of abuse to the local law enforcement agency, or file charges with the EEOC or Department of Labor. Chief among Stern’s belief that unions must be imposed on every company within an industry is their stand that union companies cannot compete in the marketplace with non-union companies. This simply isn’t true. At a university, for instance, where EMS was ingrained as the cleaning provider, a union contractor underbid us when new contracts were being considered. But EMS won the business. Why? Because first, the union contractor could not agree to a three-year contract as required by the university. Second, university officials discovered the union contractor had miscalculated the wage rates they were going to pay. And third, they had no history with the university, causing officials to be skeptical of the union contractor’s ability to clean the buildings in a quality manner as we had done for years. So cost is not always the deciding factor with government contracts.
When SEIU learned that the college was standing firm by awarding the business to EMS, they asked for an investigation by the State Attorney General’s office. We discovered that the fight might be fixed as several of the state attorneys were former SEIU attorneys. But the university President stuck to his position and resisted any pressure to change his decision. What a strong advocate he was.
An instance where the low bid was the deciding factor in awarding a contract occurred at Sallie Mae in Indianapolis. The competition was between the giant of our industry, ABM, a union contractor, and EMS the incumbent. ABM won with their lower bid as did GSF at the Children’s Museum, another account where EMS was the incumbent.
Bidding at the heavyweight developer Duke was between EMS, QBM, ABM, and One Source—the latter
two union companies. One Source and ABM were the low bidders and won the majority of the contract, proving once again that union companies may compete with non-union companies such as ours. This points out that decisions are not always based on value. With the Sallie Mae and Duke contracts, cost was the driving factor. These examples clearly show: 1) union companies may compete with regard to cost, 2) SEIU doesn’t really care about the employees as in these situations the contractors sacrificed employee wages and hours to be worked in order to secure the business, and 3) the union will still support contractors who have signed the recognition agreement regardless of whether they have good wages and benefits. The reason—an easy and simple one—the union now has more union dues flowing in to fill their coffers. Not much of a pro-employee stance, if you ask me. Even more astounding is that the SEIU and Interfaith Clergy group released statements to customers and the news media praising Duke and Sallie Mae for being responsible corporate citizens by supporting janitors’ rights and choosing responsible (i.e. Union) contractors. In fact, the chosen contractors in most cases were actually paying their employees significantly lower wages and providing reduced hours compared to the supposed irresponsible contractors they replaced!