Building Trades Workers at the University of
Washington: A History
By Tyson Burchak
(June 2002)
I
began my project in April 2002 and learned quickly that the skilled
trades workers at UW were in the midst of a tense struggle. After
years of representation by the Seattle King County Building and
Construction Trades Council, some members had petitioned for a
decertification election to end the relationship with SKCBCTC. This
paper was written in May. The election was held a few weeks later.
By a narrow margin, the union was decertified. What follows is a
history the University of Washington’s Building Trades written prior
to the union’s surprisingly defeat. Though I doubt the workers will
stay unorganized for long—it is in their blood.
* * *
The University of Washington Building and Construction Trades
Council represents a miniscule part of a rich and storied history in
building trades unionization. For nearly two hundred years, skilled
workers have been organizing with various amounts of success in the
United States. To a spectator it is a lot like watching an ocean as
the years pass—ebbs of highs and lows. The U.W. union is actually
the last trades-only union on a university campus in Washington
State. The carpenters, electricians, plumbers, painters, and other
skilled workers at other state campuses, like Washington State
University, are members of one all encompassing union. General
unions consist of secretaries, librarians, carpenters, food staff,
janitors, etc.—all union staff on campus bargain together. The
different employees have to work together as an unified whole. At
the University of Washington the skilled workers are a bargaining
unit unto themselves and are able to focus specifically on their own
issues. Resembling its larger history, the U.W skilled workers have
fought both internally and externally, but all the while have kept
together in hopes of improving their work and lives.
The men and women
of the University of Washington Building and Construction Trades
Council are a highly skilled group of employees vital to the
maintenance and improvement of the university. The union is broken
up into sixteen specialized classifications ranging from carpenters,
painters, and electricians, all the way to such initially puzzling
titles like control technician, facilities operation specialist, and
refrigeration mechanic with another ten sandwiched in-between. As of
May 30, 2002 the union had 326 member at the University of
Washington. Ninety-five percent of the workforce is male, which is
not an enormous surprise considering the type of work, but is
something the union says it would like to improve. Seventy percent
of the skilled workers are white. The remainder are African
Americans, Asian, Native Americans, and Latinos.[i]
During the nineties the union had made a concerted effort to
diversify its ranks—partly out of fairness—and partly to ensure the
union’s longevity. Only by increasing the ever-growing number of
minority employees can the union compete with the non-union sector.
Though the skilled workers at the University of Washington can
expect to make about thirty percent less then private sector workers
they still do quite well. A carpenter and painter can expect to make
about $41,000 a year—a facilities operation specialist makes in the
neighborhood of $49,000—a refrigeration mechanic $46,900.[ii]
Workers at the University admit they could make more money in the
private sector, but say they trade the fiscal perks for job
security. If the construction economy in the Puget Sound hits hard
times, they won’t have to leave town to find work. While other
workers travel around the country looking for a job, U.W. employees
can stay put with their families.
The carpenters,
electricians, and painters at the University of Washington can be
seen where one might expect, repairing a building, risking a shock
at an outlet, or covering up an anti-frat doodle in a restroom
stall. Most of the workers are highly trained specialists. The
painters seen walking around campus would be considered chemists by
some, having to know what the combinations of a multitude of paints
and chemicals will or will not do. At least that is what a painter I
talked with would have one believe. His expertise benefits everyone.
Nothing could be worse then a bathroom full of students
simultaneously passing out from an invisible toxic cloud. Our health
is literally in their hands. Control technicians take care of the
instruments controlling the building environments around the campus.
If one ever sees someone working on a thermostat in a classroom, he
or she is looking at a control technician, or an extremely bored
student. A facilities operations specialist is supposed to keep the
school in one piece when the campus sleeps. A refrigeration
specialist keeps all the freezers operating, including the ones
holding various fluids at the hospital. Each of the sixteen
classifications is trained at least as rigorously as a painter, but
according to their job specification. The preparation is
accomplished through a five-year program of intense on and off the
job apprenticeship training. These men and women may avoid the
notice of self-interested students, but they indelibly impact our
campus experience.
A Long History
Current members of the University of Washington Building and
Construction Trades Council are part of a relatively lengthy and
extremely complicated history. From the early 1800’s, skilled
trades’ workers throughout the United States were organizing
themselves into unions—each with its own interesting story.
Historian Michael Kazin writes about the early history of the
skilled trades in San Francisco. The San Francisco Building and
Trades Council, run by P.H. McCarthy in the late 1880’s through the
early 1900’s, serves as a good representation of where the skilled
workers at the University of Washington came from. People in the
early twentieth century were witnesses to the Building Trades at the
height of their power. McCarthy wanted to secure higher wages,
better benefits, a shorter workday, and a safer workplace to all
members of the trades, using a variety of methods to obtain these
goals. Keeping a closed shop—employers only used union employees—was
one method. If a man was not a union member he would only have a
certain amount of time to join the union, or else lose his job. One
way to ensure employers adhered to the BTC’s demands was to withhold
skilled labor from troublesome employers’ jobs, stopping the work.
[iii]
Most of the time the threat of a strike was enough to keep employers
from using non-union workers. If an employer insisted on using
non-union labor, as was the case during the 1908 building of the
First National Bank in San Francisco, the union would call to arms.
The contractors hired some non-union workers to finish the bank’s
ceiling. When the Building Trades heard about this they had the
other skilled workers walk off the job in solidarity. Only if the
contractor hired union workers to finish the ceiling would the
carpenters, electricians, and others come back to finish the job.
The threat of having no skilled workers convinced the contractor to
give in to the union’s terms. By withholding labor from the market,
the union had asserted its authority for the security of its
members. Either union labor would be used, or the job would be held
up indefinitely.
Another instrument McCarthy, and other skilled trade groups, used to
accomplish their aims was the employment of apprenticeship programs.
They wanted absolute control over training and hiring. Strict
apprenticeship would guarantee long term security and strength,
allowing the union to pick who was going to join and how many. A
union, through the apprenticeship programs it uses, can basically
monopolize a trade’s workforce. They are able to ensure the quality
of the work being produced and the people who are capable of
performing it. If McCarthy’s vision completely held, the skilled
trades would have immense power in determining what they would do
and how they would be compensated for it. Lacking access to the
different trades’ knowledge and constantly being under the threat of
not getting a job done, from lack of skilled workers, would have put
employers in a very weak position.
The University of Washington Organizes
Throughout the twentieth century, skilled workers at the University
of Washington have been organized in various forms. Originally, the
separate trades bargained apart from one another as they did in the
private sector. The carpenter local would negotiate for the
carpenters on campus and only the carpenters. It was this way for
all the trades. Each member’s dues went to their corresponding
local, not to an unified local of all the skilled workers on campus.
Worker separation created problems in obtaining goals for the U.W.
workers. Union representatives were overlooking the interests of
campus workers because each local saw issues in the private sector
as taking priority over the public. Most of the members were in the
private sector so U.W. workers were often paying their dues and
receiving little representation. Another problem was disunity. The
workers on campus were unable to effectively organize to have common
problems they all faced addressed—every unit was isolated. Due to
the local union's priorities, and a divided workforce, the benefits
and the voice union membership gives was for the most part missing
for the U.W. tradesmen.
In 1974 trade groups agreed to reorganize. Instead of each trade on
campus being represented by its own local, all of the trades came
together as a unified bargaining unit, directly affiliated with the
Seattle King County Building and Construction Trades Council. Campus
workers now had their own representative to address their demands.
Instead of a bunch of business agents running all over campus for
the different groups of workers there was one, that dealt
specifically with University workers unique situation.
The reconstruction came with a price. The group of men and women
skilled workers at the University of Washington was now in a union
quite a bit different than what they were accustomed to. Problems
that arise between people in any newly formed unit were
there—republican versus democrat, man versus woman, individual
versus individual, and trade versus trade. The disagreements were no
longer simply between a group of carpenters or pipe fitters isolated
from each other. It was like sticking a bunch of people together who
spoke a different language and asked them write a book. Each trade
was used to dealing with things their own way. The need to now act
in one determined way was bound to cause growing pains. After a
time, each trade was able to put its own idiosyncrasies aside, but
the initial problems were just a sign of a tiring, but hopeful,
future.
A Lingering Problem
From the mid-seventies to the present day, the union of skilled
trades workers at the University of Washington constantly suffered
from internal discomfort, but through all the difficult moments they
were able to stay together to secure prosperity and autonomy. From
1974, when the U.W skilled trades organized into their current
formation, until the late eighties, life in the union was
comparatively quiet, but one problem came about that could not be
easily ignored. They were not allowed to collective bargain in the
typical fashion. The main dilemma came from being represented in the
public sector. Unions that represent public employees in Washington
are unable to bargain for a number of typical items, most
importantly, wages. Salaries are determined by the state legislature
and are non-negotiable, which frustrates many members of the U.W
skilled trades. They wonder what they are paying their $40 a month
for. The union does offer job protection and legal assistance, but
cannot do much for what people really care about—the pocket book.
Most of the internal problems of the union came, and still come,
from the unhappiness with the restrictions of the union negotiating
power. What good is the union if it cannot get me more money?
In the late eighties the internal unhappiness over union
representation really began to boil over with the help of the United
States legal system. Two United States Supreme Court decisions were
key in beginning the more aggressive discontent. The 1986 Chicago
Teachers Union v. Hudson decision found that unions were required to
provide members with information supporting the union’s financial
breakdown of forced dues; that those figures be verified by
independent audit; and that employees have an opportunity for a
prompt, impartial review of the union’s forced-dues calculations. In
1988 the Communications Workers of America v. Beck affirmed the
right of union members to withhold forced union dues for all
activities unrelated to collective bargaining. These two decisions
required unions to conduct what are known as Beck-Hudson audits,
which the union must conform with or else due payment becomes
optional. The auditor determines how much of the dues are
chargeable. Once the numbers are reached, members not wanting to
support the union’s non collective bargaining activities can have
the percentage of non-chargeable money refunded.[iv]
Optional dues payment severely hurts the power of the union. For
one, the union’s money supply is severely depleted. Also, non-paying
members receive the same benefits of paying members, which creates
intense resentment between employees. Those that pay dues feel like
the people not paying are unfairly taking advantage of union
benefits. They are not paying dues. Why should they benefit?
Initially, the University of Washington Building and Construction
Trades Council was not in compliance with the Beck-Hudson audit.
Mandatory dues collections were suspended. The potential shortfall
of money for the union could have been its end, but after a couple
years the union straightened out its accounting system and passed
the audit. For the last two years the independent auditor found that
ninety-five percent of the dues collected were chargeable, basically
the maximum. Once in agreement with Beck-Hudson, dues payment became
mandatory again, with members only being able to withhold the
non-chargeable money—the union had survived the audit challenge. But
the newfound power dissenting members found during this time
manifested itself in a number of other detrimental ways for the
union.
Supreme Court decisions allowed any member of a union to call into
question the results of any audit. Once objected to, the matter goes
to an arbitration hearing. Substantial legal costs are accumulated
during these proceedings. No one member usually has the financial
means to go through with calling audits into question. It is too
expensive, but there are pro-business organizations like the
National Right To Work Committee, based in Virginia, who will offer
legal support anti-union membership. These associations and members
see arbitration hearings as a way to break up a union, driving it
bankrupt. Some of the people at the University of Washington are not
happy with the union’s current form because it cannot deal with
issues they see as most important—wages and benefits. They resented
the cost of dues and challenged it through arbitration. A small
union cannot afford to deal year after year with the process of
arbitration—it would drain all its money away. The U.W. Skilled
Trades Council had to face arbitration hearings on three separate
occasions in the late nineties. Each time the arbitrator ruled in
the union’s favor. At the third case’s conclusion, the arbitrator
decided he would allow no more cases against the U.W. Skilled Trades
unless they stood on more well-founded ground, seeing the attempts
as a waste of everyone’s time. Even though the audit line of attack
did not work, it did serve to spur on dissenters to look for other
means to get out of a union system they were not happy with.
Another method for anti-union people in the U.W. Skilled Trades to
dissolve the union came in the form of two different types of
elections. The first was a union shop election. Four such elections
have taken place between 1990 and 2002. These elections are held to
decide whether or not dues payment should be optional or mandatory.
All four of the elections have ended with dues payment remaining
mandatory, but if one were to succeed the union would basically
cease to be. Some people would not be paying their fair share for
representation—creating animosity and drying up vital funds—a
situation most unions cannot survive.
The second means used to put an end to the union was a
decertification election, which would immediately end union
representation if successful. If this happened, the skilled trade's
workers would not be allowed union representation for a year, and at
that periods end the prospects of reorganizing would be an uphill
battle. To get a decertification election started, thirty percent of
the union’s members must sign statements. So far, all
decertification votes have been defeated, but there will be another
one in May, 2002.
Given the frantic nature of the University of Washington Building
and Construction Trades Council over the last fifteen years, one
might conclude the union is headed towards its demise, but positive
signs do exist. Assuming the May decertification vote fails, a more
stable future could be around the corner. Though there have been
numerous attempts to dismantle the union in its current state, the
sentiment for unionization runs extremely deep throughout the rank
and file. During the TA’s June 2001 strike ninety-nine percent of
the University of Washington skilled workers refused the cross the
picket line in a show of solidarity. Even with all the internal
strife, deep down most of the skilled workers do value unions. Most
of the problem revolves around the small spectrum of items they can
negotiate for. If more were on the bargaining table skilled workers
internal strife would drastically decrease.
Early in 2002 the Washington State Legislature passed a law granting
unionized public workers collective bargaining rights like those
prized in the public sector. When it takes effect, what was once off
the table in negotiations will be fair game. Unions will be able to
negotiate over work rules, pay scales, and benefits. If the
decertification vote in May fails, the future for the University of
Washington Building and Construction Trades Council could be as
bright as it ever has been.
Conclusion
The Skilled workers at the University of Washington undeniably
resemble aspects their past. The skilled trades union requires
employees to become members within sixty days of being hired. If
they don’t, they are let go. They will withhold labor just like
their brethren of the past. During the TA strike of the 2001 summer
the trade’s workers respected the picket line in a show of
solidarity—willing to sacrifice their own pay in the hopes of
strengthening the union cause. Apprenticeship programs are also
employed. As in the past, they use these to ensure quality work and
union loyalty. The Building Trades past and present actions benefit
their unionized workers of today—still representing a powerful force
on the job and in the state legislature.
Despite all of the apparent problems the University of Washington
Building and Construction Trades Council does accomplish a good deal
for its members. Members might not make as much as private sector
employees, but they are by no means starving. Your average carpenter
or painter at the University makes around $41,000 a year. While
their private sector journeymen counterparts earn in the
neighborhood of $58,136 and $52,000 respectively—with equivalent
benefits. These private sector figures have been reached using each
trade’s prevailing wage and assuming full time work throughout the
year. The higher wages, better benefits, eight-hour workdays, safer
workplace, and job security P.H. McCarthy sought at the dawn of the
twentieth century are all staples university workers presently
enjoy.
© Tyson Burchak 2002
