Page 4-Sunday, April13, 1980-The Michigan Daily
'U' has 1
Workers know through bitter struggle that
the way to force the University management to
be accountable is to organize and act together.
University management knows that, too.
That's why, since 1965, management has
leveled continual attacks against the efforts of
campus workers to organize and to increase
the strength of their unions.
What is the union-busting record of Univer-
sity of Michigan management?
The University vs. Campus Labor
In 1965, the Michigan Public Employment
Relations Act (PERA) was amended to give
public employees the right to union represen-
tation and collective bargaining. The Univer-
sity of Michigan was the only university in the
state to refuse to recognize unions after
passage of the act. It filed for exemption in the
courts and refused to bargain with any union.
The University lost the battle to keep campus
workers from organizing. But that didn't stop
the University managment. The attacks con-
tinued. If the University had to deal with
workers, it would attempt to render the unions
IN THE SPRING of 1977, following a contract
extension and unsuccessful attempts to
negotiate a decent contract, ;the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) workers went on strike.
The University responded by hiring large
numbers of 'scabs to replace the striking
workers, and by hiring the Ann Arbor police
and plain clothes observers to harass and in-
timidate the picketers. William Neff,
management's chief negotiator, taunted
workers on the picket lines and actually struck
down one picket captain with a laundry truck
while careening through the lines. Over 30
AFSCME workers were suspended or fired
during or following the strike.
Management continued its attacks on
AFSCME workers. After the 1977 strike, it
brought in an outside management firm, Ser-
vicemaster, which ruthlessly overworked
University Hospital workers by cutting the
custodial staff by one-third. Many older
workers who couldn't keep up with excessive
work loads and arbitrary shift changes were
forced to quit. A subsequent union grievance
filed against Servicemaster was dismissed by a
The Graduate Employees Organization
(GEO) was certified by the Michigan Em-
ployment Relations Commission (MERC) in
1974. The University agreed to a certification
election only after GEO threatened to strike.
GEO's first contract was obtained in 1975 only
as the result of a stike that lasted a month.
DURING NEGOTIATION of the second GEO
contract in the fall of 1976, GEO members
voted not to strike. When GEO bargainers went
back to the table to accept the fairly poor
University offer, the University left the table,
refusing to sign the already initialed contract.
A GEO suit against the University for failure to
bargain is still tied up in the courts.
The more than 2,000 teaching, research, and
staff assistants represented by GEO have been
without a contract for over three and a half
years. University management hoped this
delay would destroy GEO, but it did not. GEO is
still here, and graduate student assistants still
demand better pay, smaller class size, and
more control over the teaching and research
In June of 1966, along with AFSCME, the
Building Trades and the Operating Engineers
also filed for collective bargaining rights at the
University. They were recognized in October,
1967. Management forced the Building Trades
to strike in both 1977 and 1979 and chose to drag,
out both strikes for weeks. They failed to
demoralize the spirited Building Trades
strikers; nevertheless, the Building Trades had
to settle for wages well below those for com-
parable jobs in the rest of Washtenaw County.
THE CERTIFICATION of the University of
Michigan Professional Nurses Council
(UMPNC) was delayed one-and-a-half years
because of the University management's
refusal to cooperate with the certification
ed labor o
procedures. The nurses had to negotiate for 13
months to get a first contract. In recent mon-
ths, UMPNC has had to fight speedup as a
result of increased workloads and "floating,"
severe reduction in the quality of patient care,
and erosion of its bargaining unit through at-
trition and the use of medical students to fulfill
The House Officers Association, representing
interns and residents at the University
Hospital, had to wage a three-year struggle for
recognition. Not until the state Supreme Court
ordered the University to negotiate were the
3 HouseOfficers able to even begin bargaining a
The largest group of University workers,
over 3,300 permanently employed clericals,
remains unorganized. The clericals had a union
from November 1974 until August 1976, when
they lost a management-backed decertification
election by a very narrow margin..
SINCE THE SPRING of 1977, the Organizing
Committee for Clericals (OCC) has been at-
tempting to reorganize the University
clericals. The independent committee of
University clericals conducted one
drive-which culminated in a certification
election-amid intense management
harassment in November, 1978. The OCC lost
the election, 1335 votes to 1103. In January, 1980
the OCC started another drive, and already has
close to half the number of clerical signatures
required to petition MERC for a union cer-
Campus Labor vs. the University
The University has at one time or another
refused to bargain with every union on campus.
It's clear that the University will continue
trying to weaken existing campus unions and to
prevent workers . from organizing.
Management will continue to have some suc-
cess until campus workers realize the power
we have to fight back. How do we begin the
1) Organize unorganized campus workers.
The position of University labor is significantly
weakened as long as the largest group of
Organized, clericals could not be used to un-
dermine the efforts, particularly during
strikes, of other campus workers, but instead
could openly and effectively assist them.
Organized campus workers must support the
efforts of all unorganized faculty and campus
labor-clericals, technicals, student tem-
poraries, and others-to organize.
2) Link the needs of the workers and the
needs of students. Adequate wage increases for
campus workers do not have to result in in-
creased tuition for students. Campus workers
must reach out to students, seeking their sup-
port during negotiations and strikes an
making it clear that they will not perm
University management to pass the cost of in-
creasing workers' wages on to students.
GEO's demands on class size, teacher
training, and educational planning directly
benefit students. The Regents want to see this
university turn out cloned executives-to-be. If
anyone tries to steer students on a different
course the Regents retaliate fast. Just ask
Prof. Samoff or the Women's Studies Depar-
tment. We must all-labor, students, and the
Ann Arbor community-act together if we ar@
to gain the rights which we deserve.
3) Unite to fight management. Having cam-
pus workers organized into separate unions
doesn't have to be to mangement's advantage.
Campus unions could form an "All-Campus
Labor Council," through which, we could keep
in touch and begin to address common needs.
Such an organization could be the arena in
which to develop common demands and com-
mon action against University management.
Such an organization did at one time exist. It's
time to resurrect the All-Campus Labor Coin
Campus workers are joining together to
stand up for their rights as workers in the Ann
Arbor community. On Thursday, April 17, the
Ann Arbor Big Business Day Coalition is spon
soring a workshop on campus labor. Thge
workshop is part of a focus on the University as
a corporate entity and is one of a series of
discussions on how to make the Board of
Regents accountable to labor, students, and the
community as a whole. We all have the sam'
problems, and by working together we can conk
front the University Board of Regents-and
This article was written by David Marker
of the Graduate Employees Organization
and Jo Wilsmann and Cheryl Peck of the.
Organizing Committee for Clericals Steer-
THIS MEMBER OF the Building Trades union
is one of hundreds who struck the University
t"6' tt n :43 a t I li
Ni elY Years o f F.dlilorial Freedom
Vol. XC; No. 154
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
aai\\ 1\\ i ,\\\\\\\\
G OLD PRICES may have dropped
from their w outrageous levels of
some weeks ago, but the precious
metal remains a very attractive in-
vestment to many Americans. No
.wonder the most successful gold coin
on the market-the South African
krugerrand-has been experiencing
even greater popularity.
Unfortunately, the origin of this coin
makes its purchase immoral. South
Africa, as everyone on this campus
surely knows, is the haven of apar-
theid, a system of racism sanctioned
and enforced by the government.
SAY WHAT YOU will about big
government, sometimes it does
its work. When new social problems
'arise, or old ones are newly addressed,
provisions to deal with them often can
be found in existing law. This occurred
most recently when a section of the
1964 Civil Rights Act was applied to
prohibit sexual harassment in the
The new rules apply to physical or
'verbal sexual harassment in gover-
nment workplaces on the state, federal,
.or local level. Private businesses with
Every troy ounce of gold (the contents
of each krugerrand)' from South Africa
is mined with litres of sweat from vic-
timized black miners.
If a graphic reminder is necessary to
dissuade Americans from buying the
lucrative coins, consider this: In a
mining accident in South Africa
several weeks ago, the bodies of dead
white workers were identified im-
mediately. Identification of the bodies
of blacks had to be delayed several
days-until the registration numbers
on their wristbands could be matched
with their names.
15 or more employees are also subject.
The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is to be commended on its
issuance of the new guidelines.
Any sexual advance that carries a
threat of firing or being passed over for
promotion falls under the provisions.
Harassment that breeds a "hostile or*
offensive working environment" is
prohibited as well.
The law does have teeth: Employers
who permit offensive behavior can be
forced to reinstate, promote, or
monetarily compensate employees.
Night gnashing noxious,nasty
Q. My roommate keeps telling
me I grind my teeth in my sleep, but
if I do, I'm not aware of it. Should I
A. According to Dr. Jed Jacob-
son, University Clinical Instruc-
tor in Dentistry, teeth grinding -
or bruxis m -'is a forceful jaw
m venent with the teeth together
that serves no functional pur-
pose. It often occurs during sleep.
It has been estimated that bet-
ween five and twenty per cent of
,the general population are teeth
grinders. Among students, it
probably falls in the upper end of
the range, around 15-20 per cent.
Loosening of the teeth and even
tooth decay can occur as a result
of this continual forceful
movement. In addition, the
muscles that control jaw
movement and mastication may
begin to spasm, tighten, and pull
the jaw out of its normal position.
THERE ARE three main
causes of teeth grinding: local,
systemic, and psychological. An
example of local cause is a filling
that is too-high, or teeth that have
drifted into incorrect positions,
causing occlusal ("closing")
ancy in your mouth and may
unknowingly try to remove it.
MANY PEOPLE who do brux
do not realize it. They seldom
make the discovery by them-
selves. Someone else, such as a
roommate or a spouse, complains
that the nighttime grinding is
waking them up.
Another clue is that the
"bruxer" may awaken in the
morning with fatigue in the
muscles of the jaw or neck and
back of the head, or may ex-
perience frequent earaches or
headaches in the terple area.
If the bruxism is being caused
by disturbances elsewhere in the
treatment addresses the
psychological component. The
patient needs to identify the
emotional source of the tension
and to reduce the stress that
precipitates the teeth grinding.
This may involve seeking coun-
seling, such as at counseling
In addition, a good part of the
treatment is letting the "bruxer"
know what is causing the sym-
ptoms. Just knowing what it is
Q. Is sugar a dangerous drug?
A. Sugar is not a drug, it is a
food. But like drugs and other
foods, it is capable of being
overused and abused.
contribute to diseases such as
hypoglycemia and diabetes; and
(6) not enough high-fiber foods
being eaten (sugar is a highlya
refined, low-fiber food).
Sugar that is added to food
during processing may be "hid-
den" under the guise of corn
syrup, corn sweetener, and dex-
trose. Read the food labels when
they are provided.
Q. Do Americans consume too
A. Estimates are that the diet
of the average American adult
contains from 10 to 15 grams off
salt. Because salt contains both
sodium and chloride, this is
equivalent to 4-6 grams, or 4,000-
6,000 mg., of sodium a day. There
is a general agreement among
experts that there is a correlation
between sodium intake an4
hypertension, but only in those
who are genetically susceptible.
The Senate Select Committee on
Nutrition and Human Needs (2nd
ed., December, 1977) recommen-
ded for all American adults a
reduction of salt intake to around
5 grams per day. Some
suggestions are: cutting down on
hiah salt foouds from fst food
system, treatment is carried out
QT TA" AID [L)Llil"tLI - n l11rCM.,..