- Category:
- Student Groups - Political Groups
- Description:
- supporters of the Stand For Security campaign at Harvard
- Privacy Type:
- Open: All content is public.
Ari
Stand For Security!
Join- Name:
- Stand For Security!
- Category:
- Student Groups - Political Groups
- Description:
- supporters of the Stand For Security campaign at Harvard
- Privacy Type:
- Open: All content is public.
- News:
- 4 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD STAND FOR SECURITY
1. Management rights
Most contracts stipulate that employees can only be fired for “just cause”, verified through a company-sponsored investigation with “due process”. AlliedBarton, however, wants to reserve something they call “management rights”, which would deny security officers their right to “just cause” and “due process” if anyone associated with Harvard – administrators, professors, students, etc. – brings a complaint against them. They could be immediately fired and AlliedBarton would have no responsibility to investigate the allegations or to prove misconduct.
2. Recognition
Under federal labor law, managers are not allowed to have union membership. Of about 250 guards, AlliedBarton is claiming that 32 are managers and are, therefore, ineligible for union membership. However, the definition of a manager is someone who can independently hire, fire, and discipline co-workers. None of the so-called “managers” AlliedBarton has identified has that authority. And, in other cities where AlliedBarton has negotiated union contracts, these supervisors have been included in the bargaining unit.
3. Safety
In violation of federal laws regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), AlliedBarton is refusing to take responsibility for providing safe and sanitary working conditions for its employees. They are taking advantage of Harvard’s outsourcing to argue that neither they nor Harvard have the traditional responsibilities of employers.
4. Real parity
In 2002, students and workers pushed Harvard to adopt its Wage and Benefits Parity Policy, which mandates that non-union, outsourced workers receive equitable pay and benefits to the unionized, in-house workers who do the same or similar work. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that outsourcing is not used to lower wages. Unfortunately, Allied and Harvard claim that security officers are most like museum guards and parking attendants hired after July 2006, who inexplicably make $2/hr less than those hired before that date. By creating this obscure B Schedule, Harvard and Allied have been able to evade the Parity Policy. Now, they want to sneak this same income inequality into the new contract.
