Tufts' janitors are in limbo as a new contract negotiation could either ensure the security of their futures at Tufts or put their jobs in jeopardy. Tufts is in the midst of searching for a new janitorial services provider following the expiration of the university's contract with ABM Janitorial Services over a year ago. The university's justification for finding a new provider is to update the current contract and come up with one that is "more efficient," according to Dick Reynolds, vice president for operations.
However, the janitors and their Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representatives, as well as members of Jumbo Janitor Alliance (JJA), have expressed concern that the new contract may not protect the wages, conditions and rights of current janitors. This concern is particularly relevant because although university representatives have said that they are reviewing only union contractors, SEIU claims that of the four providers Tufts has requested, two are non−union contractors. They would, thus, not be required to honor the janitors' current employment conditions.
While the university has indicated its intentions to protect the janitors' rights, no specific promises have been made to ensure that, upon signing with a new provider, janitors will not lose their jobs or be forced to take pay cuts if they wish to stay at Tufts. This evasive behavior and unwillingness to make assurances have made janitors rightfully uneasy.
Tufts' janitors deserve protection, and the university should pledge to maintain the janitors' current contracts and sign with a union provider. Reynolds said that while the university hopes janitors' positions will be protected, the decision would be made at the discretion of the new contractor. Leaving the future of janitors' contracts up to a new, potentially non−union company is unacceptable. Tufts' janitors are members of the university community and have formed relationships with students and administrators alike. They have established themselves as integral to Tufts, and they should be treated as such. Not only is it imperative that their jobs are secured, but their benefits and the conditions of their employment should not have to take a hit when Tufts makes the transition to a new provider. Choosing a union contractor will help to ensure this protection.
Although both Reynolds and Director of Public Relations Kim Thurler said that they expect the university to seek out union contractors, this statement offers little comfort to janitors who are well aware that Tufts does not have a history of being particularly favorable to unions on campus. The university in 2009 began a campaign specifically aimed at fighting efforts by employees to unionize the Tufts Employee Association, which comprises mostly clerical and techincal workers.
Tufts made its anti−union stance clear in 2009, a stance that is particularly problematic and discomforting for the janitors, because without the protection of the SEIU, their livelihood is in serious jeopardy. A non−union provider would have no reason to keep current janitors on board who do not agree to the new company's policies or wage and employment conditions.
Nearly all of Tufts' janitors have signed a petition imploring the administration to sign with a union contractor, and the union representatives have taken the same position. Students have spoken out in defense of the janitors. Now it is the administration's turn: The university must ensure the janitors that their current contracts will be maintained and that Tufts will sign with a union contractor.
--
