|
Demand Responsible Investment at the University of Chicago!
Throughout the US and Canada, hotel workers have been organizing to demand better treatment and secure better lives from themselves and their families. In an industry that creates high luxury for its guests, many workers struggle to make ends meet. They work long hours in jobs that tax their health, and many cannot even accord the healthcare plans offered to them.
At one company in particular, HEI Hotels & Resorts, workers are standing up to demand the respect they deserve. They have called on their employer to respect their right to organize for better conditions in an environment free of fear and company pressure.
Students have a special opportunity to support these workers because HEI, one of America's largest hotel management companies, receives much of its capital, nearly $1.2 billion, from investments in university endowments. The University of Chicago alone has invested over $50 million, making it one of HEI's largest investors. Because our school stands to profit from the hard work of room cleaners, dishwashers, cooks, and other HEI workers, we also bear a special responsibility to ensure that this profit does not come at the expense of workers' basic dignity.
The workers in HEI hotels with whom we have spoken have often been given workloads more than twice those of unionized hotel workers, by managers whose focus on cost-cutting comes at the expense of employee health and dignity. These practices have very real health consequences, especially for hotel housekeepers: a study of 2/3rds of the housekeepers at the HEI owned Sheraton Crystal City, for example, showed that 100% of the workers surveyed experienced work-related pain. In light of this, it is particularly despicable that under current conditions in HEI hotels, workers like Jose Landino, who spoke to us on campus, must work two jobs in order to pay for basic health insurance for themselves and their families. While HEI may contend that it pays its workers "competitive wages" and provides "excellent benefits", the experiences of their workers clearly say otherwise.
To address these problems, HEI's working men and women must have the right to organize as they see fit. HEIÕs communication states that the company would be willing to recognize a union only "if a majority of our employees choose union representation through Ésecret ballot election." The National Labor Relations Board's process has, however, long been recognized as inefficient in realizing the majority's wishes and ineffective at protecting workers who want to join a union. Current labor law allows employers to drag out recognition of a union indefinitely through numerous appeals in the NLRB process, and numerous studies have shown that company coercion is rampant in the weeks leading up to NLRB elections.
According to a recent paper published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, for example, "pro-union workers were fired in 26 percent of union election campaigns over the period 2001-2007." The story of Mike Archeta, from HEI's Le Meridien hotel, is telling: earlier this year, Mr. Archeta had been organizing workers and speaking out against problems he saw in his workplace, and was suddenly fired without regard to his seniority.
In order to minimize these abuses, HEI workers have been fighting for a different process of choosing whether to form a union: card-check neutrality. This process allows workers to sign up for union membership simply by signing a card, in an environment free from employer pressure. HEI has refused to accommodate worker demands for a union formed in this way, despite the fact that the card-check has been a legal alternative to NLRB elections since the 1930s and has been used successfully by thousands of workers since the early 2000s.
Card-Check is a central feature of the Employee Free Choice Act, a major pending piece of legislation, which would provide a fair process for workers. The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to accept the signed decision of a majority of workers expressed through the card-check process, provide arbitration to help unions negotiate first contracts, and toughen penalties against companies violating their workers' rights.
In light of the University's continued monetary support for HEI, despite HEI's anti-worker and anti-union actions, we are concerned that the University will provide funds for interest groups campaigning against the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.
As members of this community and students in solidarity with HEI workers, we therefore demand both that no University investment money be used to support the ongoing disrespect of workers in HEI hotels and that no University money be used to hamper the progress of the Employee Free Choice Act. If, as your recent communication with HEI suggests, the University is attempting to extricate itself from the stain of worker rights abuses, University investments must be pulled from HEI, and the University must commit not to funding the campaign against Employee Free Choice Act.
|
|