Frustrations have escalated as the College continues contract negotiations with representatives from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who represent the College’s facilities employees.

On Oct. 30, eight employees and SEIU members convened in the Philip Spencer House at 4 PM for the eighth negotiation session concerning the contracts, which expired in July 2018. Previous meetings included just union member workers and union representatives, but this time a third party mediator was present.

The mediator, Edward Garro, ran up and down the stairs of the building, speaking to both parties on separate floors.

Doug McClure and Shelly Ceravolo, SEIU leadership members, explained to Garro that they were very dissatisfied with the deal proposed by the College in the most recent session on Oct. 19. The deal did not address the non-economic demands that the union members had proposed and simply discussed a percentage salary raise each year for the following three years.

McClure said he was supported by many voices in the room, asserting that “it’s not about money, it’s about principle” and expressing his exasperation with the lack of reciprocity from the College during negotiations.

While an increase in salary is important to many members, the reason they continued to negotiate is not because of a raise. They say they have concerns about labor management communication, the College’s subcontracting policies, and how retroactive pay is addressed and reflected in the new contracts.

These problems boil down to communication and wanting to be consulted before decisions concerning employment conditions are taken. The facilities employees say they understand that the College will make the final decisions, but they want more collaboration to exist between management and workers.

One solution they say they have proposed is more frequent meetings between workers and management.

Consequently, McClure says, because the College continues to reject all demands except economic ones, “morale is really low, people want to be respected.” A union member present, who agreed to speak under the condition of anonymity, who worked at Hamilton for over eight years, recounted his experience during the four negotiation sessions he participated in in previous years.

He attested to the difference in how the College is currently handling negotiations compared to the past. “In previous years there has been fruitful dialogue, previously at the very least the College listened and counter-argued, bargained with us, now they plainly reject everything,” he said.

“Collaboration has been a one-way street, we have an interest in growing and changing but they are not engaged with our proposals even if it won’t cost them anything.”

McClure and several union members were present in similar negotiations three years ago and said the tactics used by the College was comparable. They went back and forth a few times but ultimately removed all of the union’s demands and made the package deal about salary increase. Employees say they hope this time is different.

“We don’t want to walk out of here with nothing,” said McClure. “The demands presented to the College are important to the members and it took careful deliberation amongst the union members to articulate and propose them, hence they do not want to have the concerns shrugged off again.”

After a few rounds of back and forth, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 PM by Garro, who informed the union that the administration was not changing their stand.

Garro said that both sides needed to take all demands off of the deal, keeping the previous contract language, and granting the members a raise. He added that there would be no retroactive payment and the raise will abide by the language already in the contract: a 2.5 percent salary increase the first year, 2 percent increase the second and third year.

The union did not accept the terms and scheduled a date for further negotiations, Nov. 26.

The Spectator

previously covered these negotiations in the Sept. 27 issue. At the time, Steve Stemkowski, Director of Human Resources for Hamilton College and a part of the negotiating committee, rebutted the union’s claim that the College has not engaged with the union during negotiating sessions, saying, “I see it as a two-way street, they’ve caucused as much as we have because we’ve presented both economic and non-economic items. So it takes time to sort through some of these things, and there have been plenty of opportunities where they’ve taken a fair amount of time.”

The Spectator

will provide updates to this story as it develops.