0 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 powerless. 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 ong oppos 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 pro-management arbitrator. 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 they do. 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 nursing responsibilites. 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 rganizing 3 HouseOfficers able to even begin bargaining a contract. 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- tification election. 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 struggle? 1) Organize unorganized campus workers. The position of University labor is significantly weakened as long as the largest group of workers-clericals-is unorganized. 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 struggles 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 cil. 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 win. 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- ing Committee. THIS MEMBER OF the Building Trades union is one of hundreds who struck the University last summer. I 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 *gins *1- aai\\ 1\\ i ,\\\\\\\\ .S Krugerrands 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. Harassing t 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 workplace. The new rules apply to physical or 'verbal sexual harassment in gover- nment workplaces on the state, federal, .or local level. Private businesses with and apartheid 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. he harassers 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. I he CANALAp ~~, S p Generations 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 be concerned? 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") disturbances. 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 services. In addition, a good part of the treatment is letting the "bruxer" know what is causing the sym- ptoms. Just knowing what it is helps tremendously. 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 much salt? 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 Health Service Handbook system, treatment is carried out QT TA" AID [L)Llil"tLI - n l11rCM.,..