What the UBOT Heard: Shift Change by Seniority

This is the presentation I made to the UBOT, March 29, 2010:

It has been established as fact that the last time a shift change took place at the University of South Florida in early May 2009, the affected custodians were selected by a random process. Their manager wrote the names of the 45 day shift custodians on the backs of his business cards. He then placed the cards on a table top, shuffled them around, picked up 18 of them, and called out the names on those cards to his assistant.

Not a single one of the allegedly crucial qualifications listed in management’s argument was taken into consideration during this shift change.

However, the Union understands that qualifications do matter and so is compelled to address some of the specific considerations presented by management:

1. First, despite management’s argument that academic side custodians are not qualified to work the medical side, it is a fact that some of the randomly selected academic-side custodians were moved to the medical side with no additional training
2. Second, while it is true that night shift custodians need to be skilled on specialized equipment, none were chosen for this shift change because they possessed those qualifications.
3. Third, the concept that a permanent shift change may be critically “time sensitive” strains the imagination and demands clarification.
4. It must also be said that none of the skills designated as specialized by the University qualify their possessors for increased pay or a higher than “satisfactory” performance evaluation.

I repeat, the Union does think qualifications matter. Every staff member knows that workloads increase for those whose coworkers are inexperienced or unqualified. So while we object to some of the specifics of management’s argument, we strongly support their claim that qualifications are important.

That said, we also believe that a worker’s years of service should be honored in the selection process.

The group of 18 custodians to lose their day shifts in 2009 includes workers who had been at USF for up to 20 years. Many of them had been initially hired on night shift and had earned their way to day shift through consideration for their years of service.

In fact,

1. 3 custodians having between 2 and 12 years of service to USF had irresolvable child-care, health and transportation issues that forced them to resign, leaving them jobless and without unemployment rights;
2. Another, with 10 years of service to USF, was forced to resign from a 2nd job that paid for his child’s daycare.
3. Another 10-year employee had to abandon education plans and now leaves his disabled wife and nephew without a night time caretaker.
4. Another, a 20-year veteran who worked nights for 5 years to earn a place on the day shift was left without an adequate nighttime caregiver for her disabled mother, herself a 29-year veteran of USF custodial services, who also earned her former day shift through seniority.

Please note also, that management can make the claim of having no memory of the use of seniority in assigning shifts because no one who made themselves available for the impact bargaining over this issue had worked at USF for as long as the custodians whose years of service had suddenly ceased to matter.

After considering all the evidence presented, the Special Magistrate offered new contract language on shift change by seniority, saying:

It is respectfully suggested that the parties do not appear to be in disagreement on this issue. It does not appear from testimony or argument that USF opposes the use of seniority in shift changes, so long as the employees from which it must choose are qualified to do the work on the changed shift. (original emphasis)

He goes on to say:

Shift changes occur rarely. (T. 41). Nevertheless, it seems appropriate, given the unquestioned significance of the impact of a shift change on the lives of the AFSCME bargaining unit members, to attempt to resolve this issue with a recommendation that both provides some benefit to the more senior employees, while at the same time preserving USF’s right to transfer only qualified employees to work assignments in the shift change. Furthermore, although it may be implicit that USF determines who among its employees are qualified to perform the work to be assigned with the shift change, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, USF’s right in that regard should be explicit.

And yet, management has rejected this considered recommendation, stating that it still does not provide the flexibility it needs to conduct the complex business of shift change. Once management’s recent practice is revealed however, it becomes clear that this is an argument made for argument’s sake that will not preserve any established, functional or defensible process.

If the Special Magistrate’s recommendation is adopted, it will represent a vast improvement over recent business practice, it will demonstrate a recognition by the University that the people doing the job of keeping the environment clean and sanitary for the entire university community are not dispensable, but are, rather, contributing and valued members of that community. It will demonstrate a recognition by the University that staff workers at every level and in every position gain in value to the University as they gain experience on their jobs. At a time when the University, like the rest of the country, is balancing its budget by cutting basic operations, forcing all staff members to do more work for what amounts to less pay, this change will cost the University no money, it will instill fairness into a difficult management process, and it will improve morale among all and particularly among the most vulnerable of the University’s dedicated workforce.