By Sarah Kinney
Staff Writer
On Nov. 19 at 3 p.m. union representatives from Local 26 met representatives from the corporate office of Aramark for the eighth session of negotiations of the workers’ contract.
This meeting was part of the typical legal process of coming up with a contract in collective bargaining agreements. It was the union’s turn to present their counter proposal.
What was unusual about the meeting was that over 30 students and professors attended in support of the union’s proposed contract.
“I’m happy you guys are here,” said one food service worker.
“We couldn’t do this without you,” said another.
“It’s rare we end up at this point of the struggle,” said an organizer, who spoke to Aramark on behalf of the union. “What we want to do is deliver a very powerful message.”
A third food service worker said that the group shows that it’s not just the workers who want this contract, but that they also have the support from the students and other colleges.
“It’s not a normal practice to have an audience,” said the representative for Aramark, who negotiates contracts all over the country, “but we have nothing to hide.”
At the opening of the meeting, the food service workers in attendance all gave testimonials regarding why they believe they need the proposals in the contract and how the timeframe has been hurting them and their families.
“I just think that for the length of time we’ve been doing this, it’s stupid. It’s dumb,” said a food service worker. “It’s money and a little bit of dignity. It shouldn’t take this long. It should be done.”
Another questioned the Aramark representative, “How would you feel if your child was on this side?”
“You don’t just slap a piece of paper on the table,” said the Aramark rep, explaining that creating and debating a contract takes time. “We’re starting from scratch…We’ve only just started to talk about economics.”
He explained that collective bargaining was a tried and true way and that it couldn’t be rushed.
“In our judgment, this is extraordinarily slow,” said the organizer.
Three students spoke on behalf of collective citing concerns that social and economic justice is being taught in class, but not practiced in the college.
“We are the people funding the school that is funding Aramark,” one student said. “It’s really sad that we’re still here and still doing this.”
“Minimum wage is not a living wage, especially not here in Boston,” added another student.
“Is Simmons College a place that allows for pay below the poverty level?” the union organizer said.
He told the Aramark representatives that Simmons was doing well, citing its rankings with the Princeton Review and the high success of the School of Management, but that it’s paying its food service workers wages lower than the poverty level.
The Aramark representative assured the union and its supporters that at the end of the process, Aramark would have a contract that they would be able to “look everyone in the eye” with.
The union organizer said that the union and Aramark are beginning to approach a crossroads where they will either settle a contract or it will become a labor dispute.
After statements, he walked Aramark through the union’s latest proposal. There are still several tentative agreements (T.A.s).
The union’s proposed changes and additions were:
An automatic $0.25 raise with a promotion
Create as many full time positions as practicable
Have holiday pay in addition to regular wage when working on holidays
Create language for an adequate retirement plan or 401(k)
Have affordable health care where the union wants Aramark to pay 90 percent and the employee would pay 10 percent of the cost
A provision for three hours off for preventative and wellness care
Allow for paid leave for jury duty
Purchase MBTA passes through paycheck reduction
Include language for rights for immigrant workers
Assure that wages and work station will not be changed by signing the contract
The Aramark representative said that the insurance payment was unlikely due to recent trends and that the employee percentage would likely have to be higher, but that they were in agreement in having some sort of preventative health provision.
Both agreed that there would be some language so that employees from other Aramark locations who transfer would keep their seniority.
One of the biggest contentions was raising the wage.
The union lowered their request for a $1.00 to $0.95 raise retroactively starting July 15, 2013. Subsequent years are proposed to be $0.75 for a total of five years. One professor noted that this would be a raise of less than $4.00 over five years.
The Aramark Representative noted that this would be about an 8 to 9 percent raise over five years.
The discussion about the change only being $0.05 escalated to the point where the union representatives and their supporters left.
“Eight percent on top of poverty is poverty,” said the union organizer after the meeting.
Many of the proposed changes are from contracts Aramark has with employees at Loyola University and MIT. They also pulled some language from the contract they had with Brandeis, though Aramark is no longer their food provider.
The union thought that because the language is the same as other contracts it should be acceptable.
Aramark countered saying that different colleges in different environments require different languages, and that picking and choosing sections from different places could make things more complicated.
“The circumstances are different,” he said.
There are eight colleges in collective bargaining agreements with different companies in the Local 26 union.
The Voice offered the Aramark representatives a chance to comment after the meeting as was referred to Aramark’s corporate office for comments.
“We continue to bargain in good faith and are hopeful that we’ll soon reach a contract agreement that works for everyone,” Aramark said in their statement.
*Story updated 11-20-13 to include Aramark’s statement that was not available upon original publication.
