Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
As we first reported a few weeks ago, a labor dispute has been breweing between employees at Mellon Arena and Aramark, the firm that holds the concession contract there. Aramark has notified workers that they must apply for their jobs when the arena is shuttered, and the Penguins move to the new Consol Energy Center across the street.
Today, City Council weighed in on that dispute.
Below, we’ve reprinted a letter that city councilor Bruce Kraus asked to send to Aramark. The letter makes clear that council is siding with the workers. It demands that Aramark reverse its position and promise workers continued employment at the new facility. It also warns Aramark not to use an ongoing union dispute over representation as an excuse to change the terms of their employment.
“Pittsburgh City Council will not stand-by and allow ARAMARK, or others, to put hardworking citizens out of work or create jobs that do not pay prevailing wages and meet area union standards,” the letter warns.
“We stand with these employees,” Bruce Kraus said in coucnil today. Aramark’s behavior, he added was “simply unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.”
Other councilors agreed. Doug Shields said he was “appalled” at Aramark’s position; council president Darlene Harris said it was “nonsense to have to reapply for your job when you’re moving across the street.”
The text of council’s letter follows:
Whereas: the City of Pittsburgh is home to thousands of talented, dedicated and hard working men and women; and
Whereas: hundreds of these dedicated individuals, who have been long term ARAMARK employees and have served the Penguins and the community well for decades, are now being asked to reapply for their jobs, simply because the Penguins are moving across the street to the new Consol Energy Center; and
Whereas: these same hard working employees are not guaranteed a position at Consol Energy Center and are in danger of losing the seniority they have earned through their years of dedicated service; and
Whereas: the Council of the City of Pittsburgh commends these ARAMARK employees who have been loyal, dedicated, workers serving the fans of Pittsburgh Penguin hockey.
Therefore be it resolved: that the Pittsburgh City Council calls upon ARAMARK to:
- rescind its letter of February 12, 2010, to employees of Mellon Arena;
- agree that all existing ARAMARK employees will be offered employment in the new Consol Energy Center and notify all current ARAMARK employees at Mellon Arena that their jobs are not in jeopardy
- recognize that ARAMARK must comply with all applicable provisions of the One Hill Community Benefits Agreement – including the requirements to abide by union area standards; pay its employees prevailing wages; and hire any new employees through the Hill District First Source Center;
- acknowledge ARAMARK’s obligation to comply with the existing union contracts and to negotiate successor contracts with the Union that legally represents the employees;
- allow the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to resolve the question which union legally represents ARAMARK employees, comply with the NLRB order, as soon as it is issued, and make no attempt to use the dispute between Workers United, SEIU and Unite Here to justify, or excuse, the actions set forth in the ARAMARK letter of February 12, 2010.
Be it further resolved, that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh, recognizes that the move of the Pittsburgh Penguins to the Consol Energy Center will result in the creation and retention of hundreds of good jobs for the citizens of Pittsburgh and the surrounding region and supports the team in their statement that “the Penguin organization is pleased with ARAMARK’S services and wants all current employees to work in the new arena and retain their seniority”.
And be it further resolved, that the Pittsburgh City Council will not stand-by and allow ARAMARK, or others, to put hardworking citizens out of work or create jobs that do not pay prevailing wages and meet area union standards.
This article appears in Feb 25 – Mar 3, 2010.
What all of council seems to forget, employment is at will.
Personally I would like to see different food vendors in the new building. Current pricing and food quality is outrageous and disgusting.
BTY some of their current employees are the most ignorant, arrogant SOB’s around. Some do not deserve retention irregardless of a facility move.
Great letter!
If Aramark wants to fire people, let them have the courage to do it. This is the lazy company’s approach to “cleaning house.” It’s pathetic and only encourages the good employees to leave.
It’s the last sentence of the letter that really gets me. It’s as if City Council is doing its best to eliminate the free market within Pittsburgh and put in its place an economy centrally planned by Comrade Kraus and the unions.
Bottom line: the decision of whether or not to hire, fire or continue to employ someone is a decision that only a business can make and that City Council has no right to interfere in.
This letter would make me think twice if I were a company thinking of moving into Pittsburgh.
@ Giles — But bear in mind (and this is a point Peduto made at the council meeting yesterday) that government is ALREADY tinkering with the free market. The new arena is being built with tens of millions of dollars in public investment. It will be owned, as the previous arena was, by the Sports and Exhibition Authority, a quasi-public government agency. (Which means, by the by, that the new arena will be exempt from property taxes.) The arena, like the other two stadiums on the North Side, receives public subsidies from the county’s Regional Assets District sales tax.
Point being that city government has ALREADY interfered here — by creating the very facility where Aramark will be reaping profits. So why does Aramark get to benefit from city actions, but its workers do not?
Of course, there’s a spirited debate about whether government should invest public resources in sports facilities. (I’ve long opposed such investment myself.) But that battle was lost long ago. Rightly or wrongly, cities across the country have decided to invest public resources in sports palaces. So the question NOW becomes: When government becomes an investor in such a project, does it have the right to use its investment as leverage, as PRIVATE sector partners often do?
Why so hard on Giles? He scratched the surface masterfully.
we paid for the damned arena. workers should have protections.
(as far as public funding of sports arenas, it is an obscenity–especially so here, where black neighborhoods have suffered so a bunch of canadians can engage in an inane tundra pastime.)
people on the right like to paint environmentalism as a pseudoreligion, but the true psychosis is their unwavering faith in the magic of the market. the market gave us the triumph of wal-mart. yeah, it solves everything.
@ Chris – Simply because the city government has already (and inappropriately) interfered by creating the facility doesn’t mean that we should let the resulting meddling go unchallenged. You are right that private sector partners regularly leverage their investment to influence how a company operates but the way in which City Council is leveraging its investment illustrates one reason why public sector investment is flawed: governments leverage investments for political purposes that drive up costs whereas private investors leverage investments to cut costs.
In the case of Aramark, City Council seems to be intervening here in order to help out a political constituency (unions) at a time when unemployment rates make unions vulnerable because a company like Aramark could easily hire new employees at lower wages with no union frills attached.
But we also can’t pretend that City Council only meddles in the market when it is a direct investor. Just look at the last line of the letter where it says, “City Council will not stand-by and allow ARAMARK, or others, to put hardworking citizens out of work….” The most important two words in that sentence are “OR OTHERS” and they clearly indicate that City Council doesn’t just see this as an isolated issue of employment but instead as shot across the bow warning other area businesses not to fire Democratic constituents/union members.
I appreciate your steadfast adherence to laissez-faire principle, Giles. If Aramark were as consistent, they wouldn’t be on the receiving end of this letter. But a company ought to expect this stuff when it moves into a place that someone else paid for.
I mean, my landlord tells me I can’t have pets; why can’t government officials tell Aramark not to treat its workers like dogs?
Your point about the letter’s mention of “others” is well made. I’d find that language more ominous, though, if I hadn’t seen developers dodge even modest requirements of this kind. For example:
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A39538
I suspect we have a philosophical difference over government’s role in the marketplace. As a lefty, I accept and even embrace all kinds of meddling. (Consumer-protection laws, environmental regulation, the use of unemployment benefits to turn us into statist drones capable only of obeying Barack Obama’s will …) It’s just that to me, some kinds of meddling are better than others. Compared to a diehard libertarian, say, I don’t get to make absolutist arguments. Then again, neither does Aramark.
Giles now pay attention here. ARAMARK agreed to certain conditions of the One Hill CBA. Now they want out. It is a very simple situation as far as ARAMARK is concerned.
Public money used to build so the public (Govt)has a voice. ARAMARK did not require people to reapply at either of the other venues. They choose to try this here because of a strong hard fought contract.