Carleton College - Algol Yearbook (Northfield, MN)

Page 23 text:

little to end the conflict. But finally, after six weeks of pacing back and forth on the picket line waiting for the elusive settlement, the workers re- turned to work. The whole college breathed a sigh of relief. The final settlement of a 12.5 per- cent wage increase was approximately what the college had originally bud- geted for the union, and the budget — a public document — reflected this. Why, then, was there a strike? Shop Union Steward John Price ex- plained that the union decided to strike “not only because of the substandard wage Offer of eight percent that was then on the table, but also because people in the union were damn sick and tired of being ignored by the col- lege. The institution was telling us that we didn’t matter very much,”’ he said. However, Robert Edwards, talking to reporters immediately after the strike was announced, called the strike ‘‘un- neccessary”’ and “‘a great shame. We very much want to talk,”’ he said. Inter- viewed after the settlement, Edwards acknowledged that the strike forced (continued on page 20)

Page 22 text:

ne Strike Although you would never realize it upon first glance, the gouges in the trees near Burton are obscure remind- ers of a milestone in the college’s histo- ry: its first strike by unionized shop, housekeeping and foodservice em- ployees. The gouges — caused by the erratic lawn-mowing of a top adminis- trator — recall a time when the Carle- ton Community was bitterly divided. The union claimed it was being “‘ig- | nored’’ by the college. The college thought the strike was “‘unnecessary’’. Students and professors were uncon- venienced, puzzled and impatient. Confusion was the one word that aptly described the campus mood. Student mailboxes were regularly stuffed with letters of explanation, re- buttal and accusation from both the union and the college; it became virtu- ally impossible to decipher what really went on in closed-door sessions be- tween negotiators and mediators. Blame was transferred easily: the strike was caused by the administra- tion’s attitude, or was it because of the verbal abuse of the college’s negotia- tor? The strike had unanimous support from the rank and file, or was it being used as a stepping stone for a hot- headed union man? This ambiguity generated interminable rumours, it did (continued from page 19) 18

Page 24 text:

mee Strike the administration to change its labor relations and its attitude toward the workers. ‘“‘This has made us more aware of the fact that when we have a tightly-woven community, we should think particularly hard about how to weave the members of our union into our affairs,’’ he said. Price agreed that the strike did in some ways change things for the bet- ter. ‘‘Before the strike, we had virtually no labor ralations. Now | think we do,”’ he added. But how could the strike last six weeks? During the strike, back-lashing and invectiveness from both camps impeded the negotiating process. But more fundamental, it seems the strike’s duration is best explained by misunderstandings — or perhaps mis- direction — of the negotiators from both sides. The bombastic rhetoric of the col- lege’s negotiators — whose reputation as being loud and abrasive is well-de- served — exacerbated the tension and prolonged the strike. His fiery tirades were surely not representative of the administration’s sentiment; but, the union negotiator used them as a rally- ing point to bring out antagonisms and ultimatums that were invidious to ne- gotiations. As their economic plight worsened, however, the rank and file began to question their negotiator’s in- sistence that the college was attempt- ing to “‘bust the union’. The ground- work for a settlement was ultimately laid when a group of union members superseded negotiators and talked directly to college officials. The strike was settled less than one wee k after that discussion. After the workers returned, and ex- pecially after Winter break, the strike quickly faded from campus conversa- (continue on page 21) 20