Three-Day Strike Ends As Members Return to Work Without a Contract

By Steven I. Weiss

Yeshiva Manhattan campuses’ 1199 membership returned to work without a new contract on Thursday, following a three-day strike.  Members described their return as “a show of good faith” in hopes that negotiations could continue in a favorable manner, though they maintain that they are prepared to strike again if negotiations break down.  Union members suggested that their return to work was intended to avoid the threat of a lockout.

The strike had been the focus of intense involvement on campus, with many students actively joining picket lines, some faculty refusing to teach in Yeshiva facilities, and local politicians weighing in on the matter.  Concurrently, many students and administrators participated in worker-replacement efforts.

As reported on The Commentator’s website, negotiations reached a standstill in recent weeks, following the expiration of 1199’s contract on March 31st.  The contract had been extended by 1199 from its original expiration last October as a favor following the attacks of September 11th.

Both the University and Manhattan members acknowledged that there was a seemingly unbridgeable gap in the negotiations.  Manhattan members are seeking near parity with the old Albert Einstein College of Medicine contract, which had AECOM employees earning significantly higher salaries for the same position, often for fewer working hours per week and more vacation days.

The Commentator was unable to obtain a full list of salaries for Manhattan and AECOM members, though comparison of several randomly-chosen salaries indicated a differential averaging more than twenty percent.  The union’s proposal would have Manhattan members meet AECOM members’ 2001 salaries sometime in 2004 or 2005.

The Terms

AECOM members had been receiving significantly higher wages than Manhattan members for a number of years.  While University officials did not say how the wage disparity came to exist, union leaders opined that it was the product of two factors: Manhattan members incorporated into the 1199 union years after AECOM workers; Manhattan members had never striked for better wages, while AECOM members had striked for their three previous contracts.

In AECOM’s most recent contract, members received rates consistent with those in the recent agreement between 1199 members and the League of Voluntary Hospitals, which essentially guaranteed a 3.8% yearly raise over nearly four years.

Manhattan members are asking for terms that will bring them closer to AECOM’s old rates in a few years.  Two salary figures were obtained by The Commentator: A “Grade 1 Clerk” currently receives  $468.22 per week on Manhattan campuses, and $525.00 per week under AECOM’s old contract, a difference of more than 12.1%; A “Grade 1 Cashier” currently receives $468.21 per week on Manhattan campuses, and $580.65 under AECOM’s old contract, a difference of 24%.

In seeking eventual parity with AECOM members, Manhattan members proposed a series of raises that would bring parity with AECOM’s 2001 salaries sometime after November 2004.  A number of raises scheduled for 2005 would achieve full parity with AECOM’s new contract.

Heading into the strike, Yeshiva’s best offer – according to a letter issued by Vice President of Business Affairs Dr. Sheldon Socol – was for a thirty-six-month contract offering yearly raises of 3%, which would bring the salaries of both the Grade 1 Clerk and the Grade 1 Cashier to approximately $511.63, leaving a disparity of 2.6% for the clerk and 13.5% for the cashier.

The Strike

The strike began early Monday morning, with union members forming picket lines in front of Furst Hall, on Amsterdam Avenue’s pedestrian mall, and in front of the loading dock on Laurel Hill Terrace.  Noisy picketers shouted chants, including “Y-U / Shame on you” and “No contract / No peace,” and waved posters, one of which declared “YU Students / Do Not Let Yourselves Be Used / Don’t Be A Strike Breaker / It’s A Shanda.”

Picketers were present on the Wilf Campus around the clock, though in lesser numbers during the evenings, when picketing took place primarily on the Midtown Campus.  Many Wilf Campus students chose to walk on the picket lines for periods of several hours, and attended class in 1199 t-shirts and caps.

There were reports of some students joining picket lines on the Midtown Campus as well, though the larger number of students was reported to be replacing striking members.

Negotiations took place sporadically during the three days of the strike.  On the second day a federal mediator arrived at 1:00 PM.  While it is unclear whether the mediator influenced negotiations, Commentator sources learned that, at some point on Tuesday, Yeshiva made what administrators referred to as “Sheldon’s final offer.”  It included a $900 bonus, plus successive yearly raises of 3%, 2% and 4%, beginning on January 1, 2003.

On Wednesday, the entire Manhattan membership met at the union headquarters on Forty Third Street.  There, they discussed strategy for the strike, developing short-term and long-term plans.  They eventually decided to return to work on Thursday.

The Community Response

Response to the strike was varied throughout the Yeshiva community.  Students on the Wilf Campus primarily joined picket lines or kept about their daily business; many non-union employees and administrators replaced the striking members; some students on the Midtown Campus joined the picket lines, while many assisted administrators by replacing the striking members.

On the Wilf Campus, many students could be seen wearing the 1199 t-shirts and caps, as well as holding posters and joining in chants.  One such student, YC sophomore Ari Davis, commented that he was joining in the picket lines because he “felt it was important,” and because he would “like to see the workers get a fair deal.”

This response was in relative contrast to elected student leaders’ response the previous week, when they had replaced workers taking part in the official strike authorization vote.  At that time, several elected leaders, including Student Council President Lou Shapp, Associate Vice President Gennady Gelman, and Sy Syms Student Association President Mikey Davis, replaced Food Services workers by serving lunch.

While Shapp later declared that he would refuse to participate in further worker replacements after meeting with members of the Yeshiva College Democrats, none of the other elected leaders stated a similar reversal of their position.  No students were witnessed replacing workers once the strike actually took place, though some, like Yeshiva College Senior Adam Cohen, indicated that they supported students replacing workers.

Administrators and non-union employees on both the Wilf and Midtown Campuses replaced striking workers in numerous positions.  Stern College Dean Dr. Karen Bacon, Associate Dean of Students Zelda Braun, Secretary to the President Gladys Cherny, and most of the Public Relations and Academic Computing Departments as well as the Development Office cooked, prepared, and served food in the cafeterias.

Director of Facilities Management Jeffrey Socol was seen picking up trash on the Wilf Campus and scrubbing toilets on the Midtown Campus, while various employees assisted in limited mail deliveries.

Several employees, when asked by The Commentator why they were replacing striking workers, said simply that they had “chosen” to do so, and that they had not received requests or instruction to do so from management.  When asked by The Commentator how they knew to participate in the replacement effort if they had not been requested to do so, they did not answer.  One employee, Midtown Campus Academic Computing Administrator Przemek Bartkiewicz, told The Commentator that he “was asked to help and…am volunteering to do so.”

On the Midtown Campus, numerous students, including some elected leaders, joined in the replacement effort; some were paid for their time.  Among the replacements were Stern College student Shira Goldwag, whom sources said was “very against the strike” assisting in the cafeteria, and Shayndi Cohen, who worked in the registrar’s office; neither could be reached by The Commentator for comment.  One Stern student, senior Anya Sedletcaia, told The Commentator that she received work-study wages for her hours assisting in the cafeteria.

The contrast of the lack of student replacements on the Wilf Campus against the significant number of student replacements at the Midtown Campus has been traced to several factors.  Many students cite the intervention of the Yeshiva College Democrats during the first string of student worker replacements, which caused Shapp – and perhaps subsequently, others – to avoid replacing workers in the future.  Some also note the distribution of Special Issue 10 of The Commentator, the bulk of the copies of which were distributed on the Wilf Campus.

The primary reason cited by student leaders, though, is the intervention of Dean of Students David Himber, who met with approximately thirty female student leaders at the Midtown Campus.  There, Himber repeatedly emphasized Yeshiva’s bargaining position.  While The Commentator has been unable to obtain the full text of Himber’s speech, it is clear that at least several student leaders left the meeting believing that Yeshiva had received a $1.8 billion dollar grant to raise wages at Einstein, an evident misunderstanding of the League of Hospitals contract.

Other student leaders quoted Himber saying, “The whole point of the student leadership is to help the student body, and you can help the student body by keeping the school running,” as well as “we don’t have to agree or disagree [about the respective bargaining positions] we just have to keep the school running,” in addition to emphasizing that Yeshiva “cannot afford” 1199’s proposed contract.

The Political Response

Local politicians expressed concern for striking workers and indicated a willingness to assist in their fight.

Ydanis Rodriguez, who was endorsed by 1199 and The Commentator in the recent City Council elections, addressed members on Amsterdam Avenue.  He spoke of the importance of the battle for fair wages and led the picket in a chant, saying “The people united/Will never be defeated.”  He joined picket lines for more than two hours.  Rodriguez expressed hope that union members could receive what they would see as a “fair deal.”  He added that “progressive activism should be used to get fair wages for workers,” noting that, “it is very refreshing to see the students offering their support.”

State Senator Eric Schneiderman, who was in Albany and could not attend pickets, offered his solidarity with striking members.  “I supported [members at] Albert Einstein in their struggle, and I support [Manhattan members] now,” he said.

Schneiderman validated the Manhattan members’ struggle by noting, “It’s not like anyone can argue that these are workers who are spoiled or overpaid, they work hard for their wages.”  He went on to acknowledge the reasonableness of seeking parity with AECOM members by noting, “it’s not just Albert Einstein [that has such wage levels], it’s a lot of other institutions.”

District 7 City Councilman Robert Jackson also noted the validity of Manhattan members’ proposals, saying, “For them to want what their colleagues earn in the Bronx is not unusual… I would hope that management could meet them on these demands.”

Classes Off-Campus

Many faculty expressed concern regarding the strike, leading some to seek off-campus venues for their classes.

Physics Professor Gabriel Cwilich is believed to be the first professor to refuse to cross the picket lines, teaching his Monday classes in Kaffeine.  Cwilich said he made the decision because “I don’t like to cross picket lines, but my students deserve a class.”  He said that he sent an e-mail to “members of the senior faculty” proposing that they develop a uniform practice for responding to the strike.

“If the majority of the faculty decides to teach in the school, I won’t go against the majority of the faculty…[similarly] if the majority decides the other way, that’s what I will do” Cwilich explained.  He added that he was communicating primarily with tenured faculty, “who are more free” to make such choices.  It does not appear that any faculty consensus was achieved, though some specific departments did act in unison.

The tenured faculty of the History Department, Drs. Jeffrey Freedman, Ellen Schrecker and Hadassah Kossak, all taught in Kaffeine.  “The History Department feels strongly that we want to display solidarity [with striking workers],” Freedman said.  He acknowledged that taking classes out of the school buildings was “largely a symbolic gesture,” but added that “it’s something that we can do.”

Students seemed generally comfortable with the switch in location, as no complaints were reported.

The Administrative Response

Yeshiva’s administration issued two missives in response to the negotiations and strike, and Business Affairs Employee Bernard Pittinsky discussed Yeshiva’s position with The Commentator.

The first communiqué, discussed in an article on The Commentator website, was written by Director of Labor Relations Steven Mayo.  His letter was released on Friday, April 26th, the last day of negotiations preceding the strike.  Mayo set the tone for administrative responses to the strike, emphasizing the League of Voluntary Hospitals contract as the reason for Yeshiva’s signing AECOM’s new contract.

As The Commentator has already reported, the League contract provided 1199 workers at failing private hospitals with their deserved wage increases, with the necessary funds to pay the workers coming in the form of special funds approved by the state.  Yeshiva repeatedly emphasized the League contract in what union members characterized as “an attempt to make [1199’s] proposal seem unfair.”  As Mayo noted, Yeshiva “will not receive a penny of such supplemental financing” for wages for either AECOM or Manhattan members.

1199 Organizer Lisa Brown said that the only reason for Yeshiva to emphasize the League contract would be “to confuse” the university community into assuming that Yeshiva might be receiving some of the $1.8 billion in funds that the League stands to receive from New York State, and that those non-existent receipts would have to be earmarked for AECOM operations.

Sheldon Socol sent a letter to the Yeshiva community on the first day of the strike, detailing his perspective on the negotiations.  In it, Socol repeated the sentiment that Manhattan members were seeking a contract on par with League rates.  He referred to such demands as “not a realistic or achievable goal.”

Socol indicated the “Union’s belief that the University can somehow transfer funds from the College of Medicine to fund an 1199 settlement for employees elsewhere in the Institution,” describing it as “simply a fantasy.”

Socol went on to write that Yeshiva “asked the Union to consider the finances at the Manhattan Campuses not as a hospital or medical school, but comparable to other colleges and graduate schools.”  Socol did not communicate the average salary levels for employees at colleges or graduate schools, or how they might differ from those at a hospital or medical school.

Attached to Socol’s letter was an article from the New York Times’ Premium Archive detailing the League contract.

Yeshiva’s Finances

The repeated claims by administrators of Yeshiva’s operating deficits prompted The Commentator to investigate Yeshiva’s financial status.  Managing Editor Yehuda Kraut reported on Yeshiva’s finances in Issue 1, after Moody’s released a report on Yeshiva’s finances.  The report evaluated a $65 million bond issued by Yeshiva through the New York State Dormitory Authority.

The Moody’s report concluded that Yeshiva had a 1.8% operating margin in fiscal year 2000.  The report noted that “annual operating margins are positive, though not as robust as in previous years,” adding that “Yeshiva is maintaining a powerful balance sheet position.”  Moody’s analyst John Nelson had not returned repeated requests for comment as The Commentator went to print.

While the Moody’s report differed from the repeated claims of deficits by administrators, the consolidated financial report disclosed by the Dormitory Authority presented a far more positive reflection of Yeshiva’s finances.  The report claimed that Yeshiva had an operating income of $54 million in 2000.

The Commentator met with Bernard Pittinsky to discuss the disparity between Yeshiva’s declarations and the reports provided by the Dormitory Authority.  Pittinsky explained that the NYSDA had included temporarily restricted and permanently endowed donations in its operating revenues figure, meaning that the reported income was inflated by donations that could not be used towards immediate operations.  If such donations were, indeed, incorrectly included in the operating revenue figure, Yeshiva would actually have had a deficit of just over $2 million in 2000.

Before meeting with Pittinsky, The Commentator held phone conversations with several Sy Syms accounting professors who stated that under normal circumstances such donations could not be included in operations figures.

Claudia Hutton of the NYSDA informed The Commentator that her department’s reports were prepared from financial statements audited by KPMG and said that the NYSDA used Government Accounting Standards Board standards to produce consolidated financial statements.  According to sample financial statements provided by Roberta Reese of GASB, the restricted donations in question would not be included in operating revenue figures.

A technical query specialist at the Financial Accounting Standards Board, whose standards Pittinsky claimed Yeshiva uses, also said that restricted and endowed donations could not be included in operating revenue figures.

Asked to respond to Hutton’s assertion, Pittinsky replied that representatives at the NYSDA “don’t know what they’re talking about.”  When asked to explain more fully Yeshiva’s financial reporting standards, Pittinsky did not provide an unambiguous answer.  Pittinsky repeatedly modified the wording of his answers during a phone interview, denying requests to repeat himself or to state his answers in full sentences.

According to Pittinsky, Yeshiva often has operating deficits in excess of $10 million and has not had an operating profit “for as long as I’ve been here.”  Pittinsky told The Commentator that he has been an employee of Yeshiva since 1975.  Pittinsky indicated that the $2 million deficit in 2000 was “unusual” owing to “larger than usual” donations.

The Commentator has filed several Freedom of Information Act requests for Yeshiva’s financial statements that may provide a better understanding of Yeshiva’s finances.

Returning to Work

Manhattan employees have returned to work, unsure of what the future will bring.  Many are optimistically hoping that Yeshiva will accede to their proposal for what Ricky Nieves, a painter at the Midtown Campus, called “Fairness…equal pay for equal work.”  Negotiations are expected to continue.

Sheldon Socol issued a statement on Friday, May 3rd, “welcom[ing] the 1199 members back,” expressing hope that Manhattan members and Yeshiva can “continue negotiations.”  He thanked staffers who “performed above and beyond their normal duties” in replacing striking members and declared “great appreciation to our students for the way they conducted themselves.”