Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………….1

Code of Conduct…………………………………………………………….2

Campus Living Wage……………………………………………………….3

Concerns Regarding Subcontracted Workers……………………………….4

Day Laborers

Worker Misclassification

Neutrality……………………………………………………………………9

Enforcing the Code………………………………………………………...11

Brief History of the Campaign…………………………………………….12

Appendix…………………………………………………………………..16

1 February 26, 2004 Board of Trustees Mount Holyoke College South Hadley, MA 01075

Dear Board of Trustees of Mount Holyoke College,

Over the past three years, the Mount Holyoke College community has been engaged in a conversation regarding the school’s responsibility to uphold fair labor practices. These conversations arose in response to specific violations that occurred on our campus, and the Employer Code of Conduct we have developed directly addresses these issues as they are outlined in this report. Mount Holyoke College is a well-respected liberal arts institution with a dedication to social justice, yet we fail to maintain this value in our interactions with the business world. We present the problems and our proposed solution to you because, as trustees, you are in a position to adopt an Employer Code of Conduct that would affirm Mount Holyoke’s commitment to fairness in the workplace. Mount Holyoke College, like all other colleges and universities, is threatened today by the growing sway of corporate values over college life. Other universities have acknowledged the existence of this downward spiral in the labor market and their power to address the situation. Although other universities such as Columbia University, New York University, Wesleyan University, and SUNY Albany have adopted various fair labor codes of conduct, Mount Holyoke has the opportunity to take fair labor a step further. In addition to moving towards a living wage and addressing concerns of neutrality, this code would attend to the specific trends that are quickly becoming the top labor violations nationally such as illegal misclassification of workers and exploitation of day laborers. We are asking the College Administration to take the lead for fair labor, to examine the issues and their implications. We have a chance to publicly remedy and denounce these unjust practices, no longer passively abetting the undermining of the market and of the surrounding community of which Mount Holyoke is an undeniable member.

Sincerely, Student Coalition for Action, Anti-Displacement Project, Local Carpenter Union 108, and UAW Housekeepers 2232 of the Fair Labor Coalition

2 Campus Living Wage Definition A living wage can be defined as, “the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family [of four] above the federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement.”1 Also, the cost of housing, if the worker were making a living wage, would not exceed 30% of total disposable income.

The Problem Many workers in the state of Massachusetts are faced with the problem of deciding between paying for food or paying the rent due to the lack of living wage ordinances. Since the late 1970’s real wages have dropped 9.3%, after adjusting for inflation, while the cost of living has continued to increase. In 1999, the town of South Hadley reported that 4.8% of families lived under the poverty level, while the majority of renters paid over 35% of their income to housing.2 At Mount Holyoke College, the majority of employees are being paid a living wage, but it does not extend to all staff and sub-contracted employees, temporary workers, or day laborers. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an hourly wage of $21.14 would be necessary in Western Massachusetts “to rent a modest two-bedroom home and still pay for food and other basic needs.” 3 The Fair Employer Code of Conduct calls for $12 per hour as a means toward a livable wage that will also be fiscally responsible for Mount Holyoke College.

Precedent for a Living Wage In these increasingly difficult economic times, codification of fair labor practices is the only way to prevent increases in the number of poor working families. Municipalities have been the main implementers of living wage ordinances. Many opponents of living wage ordinances argue that they increase costs to the employer and lead to cutbacks in staff, but there is no evidence to support those claims. The city of Baltimore (Maryland) adopted living wage regulation with no negative effects. In fact, the cost increase for the city “was less than the rate of inflation for the same period.”4 Workers affected by the new ordinance reported that there was no job loss or increase in the number of hours they worked. San José, California, put into effect a living wage based on prevailing wages, which is adjusted annually based on cost of living, CPI, or the federal poverty line. As of October 2001, 71 municipalities have created living wage standards and ordinances for city employees and projects, including four in Massachusetts.

What can be done? The Employer Code of Conduct contains a provision for “ensuring that all workers on campus, including temporary and day laborers, will be paid a minimum wage of $12 an hour.”5 This will help alleviate the burdens placed on our community of workers and will lead to greater stability in the workforce, along with increased productivity. The need to alleviate budgetary constants, namely the fact that Mount Holyoke College Departments are being asked to cut their budgets by 5% each year for the next three years, will inevitably lead to increases in unfair labor practices on our campus unless an Employer Code of Conduct is adopted.6 If budget cuts entail an increase in outsourcing work, the only way to regulate living wages for day laborers and temporary workers is the implementation of the Employer Code of Conduct. Day Labor 1 Economic Policy Institute, “Living Wage: Facts at a Glance.” http://www.epinet.org/ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, “Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000” 3 CBS News, “Minimum Wage Doesn’t Pay the Rent.” September 18, 2002. 4 Economic Policy Institute, “Living Wage: Facts at a Glance.” http://www.epinet.org/ 5 Employer Code of Conduct 6 The College Street Journal. “Demystifying the Budget: A Q&A with Mary Jo Maydew.” February 13, 2004.

3 Definition Day laborers are workers that are employed on a day to day basis. A company hires day laborers through a contract with the agency. Day laborer agencies operate a ‘dispatch’ to which workers must physically report, apply, and wait for work daily. Labor Ready is the largest day labor agency both in Western Massachusetts and nationally. Temporary and day labor work is the fastest growing employment sector in the US economy.7

Problems with Day Labor -Because of illegal fees, day laborers at Labor Ready make below minimum wage. Last year alone, Labor Ready made one billion dollars off illegal fees. 8 Day laborers through Labor Ready in Springfield recieve $6.75/hour out of the money the agency receives from the companies, usually $19/hour. Workers must pay for transportation, cashing their checks, and safety equipment. -Day labor pays less than permanent work, offers few benefits, provides no opportunity for advancement, and no job security. The same work was previously being done by people at the paid market rate - around $17/hour for construction in Western Massachusetts.9 Day labor replaces full-time jobs and shifts the job market to low paid and undependable work. Current labor laws based on the traditional 40-hour workweek fail to address the needs specific to this growing workforce. -Day laborers experience high degrees of labor law violations, which further bring wages down and often threaten their health and well-being.

The Problem at Mount Holyoke Labor Ready was subcontracted during the construction of the Kendade science complex on the Mount Holyoke College campus in the Spring of 2002 through the Spring of 2003. The jobs they filled were called "general conditions," which consisted of tasks such as keeping the construction grounds clean, directing traffic, controlling the water supply, picking up trash, and tearing down drywall. Some workers were misclassified as "janitors" in order to avoid certain safety regulations that pertain to "general conditions" jobs. Day Laborers at Mount Holyoke College were forced to pay $4 for transportation to and from the job site, and as much as $1.99 to use an illegal check-cashing machine.10

Labor Ready's Law Violations Day Laborers are confronted with illegal paycheck deductions, changes in pay schedules, wage and hour violations, gender and racial discrimination, and health and safety violations. Numerous state-sponsored and class-action lawsuits filed against Labor Ready for unlawful deduction of wages and illegal fees; a few are listed below. - The Arizona Attorney General’s office won a lawsuit against Labor Ready, as its check cashing fee violated the Arizona law. In 2000, Labor Ready Inc. generated $150,300 in fees from minimum-wage workers in Arizona, and $7.7 million nationally.11

7 National Training and Information Center, Chicago IL. (http://www.ntic-us.org/index.htm). 8 National Employment Law Project 9 Statistics provided by the Western Massachusetts Carpenter’s Union. 10 Facts provided by the Anti-Displacement Project. 11 Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano vs. Labor Ready, Inc. North American Alliance for Fair Employment (http://lr.naffe.net/legal.htm)

4 The New Hampshire Department of Labor also won a lawsuit against Labor Ready for the $4 transportation fee.12 Countless other class action lawsuits have been filed against Labor Ready for illegal fee deductions, many which are currently pending. -It is against the law in Massachusetts to charge for travel if that brings wages below the state minimum of $6.75/hour. 13 This amounts to $1,040 dollars a year being illegally taken from a milimum wage worker. The check cashing machine is also illegal in Massachusetts, taking an additional $260 to $517.40 a year from each worker. -The Massachusetts Attorney General is currently compiling a case against Labor Ready in Springfield, the same office placing day laborers at Mount Holyoke College. The Anti-Displacement Project (ADP), a Springfield-based organization representing day laborers, has met with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, and has brought cases to the attention of the National Labor Relations Board. Robert Ritchie, The Assistant Attorney General, has called the situation at Labor Ready “outrageous!"14 -Women were turned away from Labor Ready jobs at the Mount Holyoke College construction site. Labor Ready told women that they could not work here because there would be “no bathrooms for women.”15 This is not the only account of sexism in Labor Ready’s hiring practices. In Los Angeles, CA, a lawsuit has been filed against Labor Ready for barring women from replacing striking workers at a window frame factory.16 -Immigrants disproportionately work for day labor agencies. Because they tend to have limited English speaking ability, scant knowledge of the law, are in a poor bargaining position, and may lack work authorization, their practical capacity to enforce their rights is limited.

What can be done? A Fair Labor Code of Conduct at Mount Holyoke College will protect workers under subcontractors by: 1. Researching a company’s history before offering them a contract. 2. Hiring only subcontractors that will agree (in writing) to wage, classification, and anti- discrimination laws, with sanctions if they are found in violation. 3. Monitoring subcontractors’ labor practices though a fair labor board comprised of staff, students, and faculty. These steps are a realistic way for Mount Holyoke to take the lead nationally against unfair labor practices at institutions of higher education.

Worker Misclassification

Definition and Clarification

12 New Hampshire Department of Labor vs. Labor Ready, Northeast, Inc. North American Alliance for Fair Employment (http://lr.naffe.net/legal.htm) 13 Massachusetts Labor Laws (http://www.lawsdictionary.com/labor-laws-MA.html) 14 Anti-Displacement Project meeting with Robert Ritchie, Assitant Attorney General of Massachusetts and office, May 5 2003. 15 Reported by Emma Caballero, day laborer. There was a letter sent to Mount Holyoke College reporting such gender discrimination, which is attached to this document. 16 The Associated Press, “Women target Labor Ready in discrimination lawsuit Business Briefs, The Seattle Times, August 1, 2002.

5 When workers are classified as employees, they receive a W-2 form at the end of the year showing what taxes have been withheld on their behalf, while independent contractors receive a 1099 form. The IRS, in their publication 1779 entitled “Independent Contractor or Employee?” states that the 20-question test (see appendix) which determines worker status is based on three categories: behavioral control, financial control, and relationship of parties. Thus, if workers are labeled as “independent contractors” but do not control what they do, how they do it, or when they start or finish, then they are employees and are entitled to basic employee benefits. When Stuart Rossman was head of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Business Labor Protection Bureau, he was quoted as saying: “Whenever an employer misclassifies someone as an independent contractor, it results in employment fraud, insurance fraud, federal withholding or social security fraud, and it can result in nonpayment of prevailing wages on public projects.”17

Genuine independent contractors constitute a small proportion of the American workforce, hiring out their special skills to various companies. Construction work is often complicated and dangerous, thus individuals usually work as members of teams. This means that the vast majority of construction workers are supervised on how, when and where to accomplish the majority of their work. The very nature of the work precludes the majority of workers on the site from being independent contractors.

Implications Because competitive bidding drives the construction industry, owners of construction companies must find an edge to offer the lowest possible bid. Unfortunately, this competition has encouraged many owners to break the law at the expense of their employees in an attempt to cut costs. Owners who persuade or coerce their employees to sign a contract defining them independent contractors, avoid paying unemployment insurance, workers compensation insurance, social security or health insurance, and are not required to extract any taxes.18

Problems with Worker Misclassification - This practice is illegal. - Misclassification cuts the company’s labor costs by approximately one-third, thereby undermining the labor market.19 - Workers, especially those who are qualified but non-English-speaking, often are not informed of the full implication of the status change.20 They assume their taxes continue to be automatically withdrawn from their paycheck, acquiring back taxes as they work since they do not pay. As their unpaid taxes accumulate, their work is not legally recognized and they are not entitled to social security. Furthermore, once workers owe back taxes it is much more difficult for them to become legally employed in the future.21 - Misclassification undermines the unemployment insurance system; when misclassified workers apply for unemployment insurance after a layoff, they are denied benefits because there is no record of them having worked. - In 1997, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lost an estimated $68.3 million in revenue due to the misclassification of 32,000 workers in the construction industry.22

17 “New Labor Battle Front: Job Classification,” Boston Globe, 20 December 1998. 18 “An Ounce in Prevention can Save Thousands in Cures,” Business New Hampshire Magazine. 1 December 2003. 19 Independent Contractor Misclassification FAQ, Carpenter’s Union, p. 5 20 “An Ounce in Prevention can Save Thousands in Cures,” Business New Hampshire Magazine. 1 December 2003. 21 “Area subcontractor fights labor officials,” The Union Leader, Manchester, NH, 10 April 2003. 22 Independent Contractor Misclassification FAQ, p. 7

6 - A DOL commissioned report in 2000 found misclassification costs the Unemployment Insurance system over $200 million per year in lost taxes and causes 80,000 workers per year to lose benefits.23 - When misclassified workers are injured on the job site, their employer is not required to pay their medical bills.24 - Misclassification allows certain irresponsible companies to undercut companies who properly classify their workers, making it difficult for the legally operating companies to win contracts. The competitive climate thus forces workers themselves either to accept the 1099 status, losing benefits and taking a cut in pay, or to exit the market. - By contracting with a company that illegally misclassifies its workers, albeit unknowingly, Mount Holyoke risks financial, legal, and moral liabilities.

The Problem at Mount Holyoke College Optimum Building Systems and Management performed substantial drywall work on the Kendade Science Center for Cutler Associates. Prior to working for Cutler, Optimum performed work at the Manchester Civic Center in Manchester, New Hampshire. On this project, Optimum was investigated by the New Hampshire Department of Labor. The DOL found that workers were being misclassified as independent contractors and issued a citation, demanding that employees be: issued with W-2 forms, covered by workers compensation and have taxes taken out of their pay.

In July of the same year (2001) Optimum sued the Department of Labor in Superior Court, which the DOL moved to dismiss. A dismissal was granted.

Over a three-year period, on six Optimum job sites including Mount Holyoke, organizers from the New England Regional Council of Carpenters conducted one-on-one conversations with employees of Optimum Building and Management Systems and found that Optimum was continuing its illegal practice of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors.

In a report filed by Jon Avery, organizer for the Carpenter’s Union Local 108, to his superiors he writes:

A lot of people have recently started for Optimum, job is manning up, Mexicans are new, John (Deerfield) is new and several others. John is working as a 1099, Guy is working as a 1099. He has a foreman that tells him what to do and a start time. Some employees, some subcontractors, no apparent distinction in what their roles are.25

National Trend of Misclassification Misclassification is steadily becoming an even greater trend in labor markets. A quote from the study “From Orchards to the Internet: Confronting Contingent Work Abuse” best details some of the current high-profile examples:

23 Press Release from the National Employment Law Project: “New Report Finds that Workers are Wrongly Denied Over 1$ Billion a Year in Unemployment Benefits.” 24 Independent Contractor Misclassification FAQ, p. 4 25 Jobsite report 3/05/02, Jon Avery to New England Regional Council of Carpenters

7 - The strike by the United Parcel Service (UPS) workers in 1997 centered on their status as “permanent” temporary employees. - A landmark lawsuit against Microsoft under federal pension law won the right to retirement program participation for misclassified “independent contractors” and “temporary” computer programmers in 1999. - Labor Ready, one of the largest day labor firms in the country, was fined $734,000 by Washington State for consistently misclassifying workers in order to reduce its workers’ compensation contributions. - Grocery delivery workers in New York City, who were told they were independent contractors and made less that $2 an hour, have sued their worksite employers as well as the contracting companies who recruited them, for minimum wage and overtime violations, settling with one employer for $3 million dollars. - Three class-action lawsuits have been brought on behalf of migrant tree-planters against major timber companies, who claim that they cannot be held responsible as “employers” for failure of their tree-planting contractors to pay legally required wages.

In 2000, the percentage of employers that misclassified some of their workforce ranged from a low of 9.15% in New Jersey to a high of 42% in Connecticut. However, recent US DOL audits have identified a large increase in employer misclassification. In the fourth quarter of 2002 DOL’s quarterly audits found 30,135 workers misclassified. This number represented an increase of 42% from the prior year. DOL also identified, in that quarter, $436 million in wages under- reported into the state unemployment insurance systems.26

The Solution The burden of responsibility for misclassifying workers is increasingly shifting towards the company or institution that hires the subcontractor misclassifying its workers.27 As well as potential legal responsibility, the College is also morally liable for the conditions of all types of workers on its campus. The Employer Code of Conduct requires that all contractors operating on campus sign an affidavit saying they will not misclassify workers, and a Mount Holyoke committee will monitor the enforcement.

26 “The Whole Truth: Employer Fraud and Error in the Unemployment Insurance System,” A Special Report by the National Employment Law Project, December 2003. 27 “The Risks of Guilty Knowledge,” The National Law Journal, 12 January 2004.

8 Neutrality Clause

Definition and Clarification Neutrality is one the most ambiguously understood proposals in the Employer Fair Labor Code of Conduct. It is a term many believe relates to unions and unions’ supposed “entitlement” to organize workers. However, this is not what neutrality means or offers; rather, neutrality is the right of workers to organize or refrain from organizing without intimidation or coercion from administration or paid union organizers.

Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively safeguards commerce from injury, impairment, or interruption, and promotes the flow of commerce by removing certain recognized sources of industrial strife and unrest, by encouraging practices fundamental to friendly adjustment of industrial disputes arising out of differences as to wages, hours, or other working conditions, and by restoring equality of bargaining power between employers and employees.

These words, found in the preamble to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 151-169, demonstrate why we believe neutrality is important in an Employer Fair Labor Code of Conduct.

Neutrality as a Value of Mount Holyoke College The employee handbook of Mount Holyoke College states:

Mount Holyoke College believes in the right, indeed the necessity, of free inquiry and free expression for every member of the college community. The College aims to provide an environment hospitable to open interchanges of knowledge and opinion in the terms of reasoned discourse. The citizen's rights to free speech, free movement, free association, peaceful assembly, and orderly protest extend to every member of the College. So do the citizen's responsibility to uphold the law and the civilized person's obligation to respect the rights and feelings of others.

The goal for the new century must be to build a community of students, faculty, and staff devoted to intellectual and creative freedom, critical inquiry, personal honor, ethical discernment, and responsibility. We must encourage openness and candor, dialogue and debate, and the creative engagement of all constituencies in building a genuine community.

A College does not become a community by so naming itself. Community is a dynamic condition, difficult and necessary to achieve, reached by active synthesis, by the consensus of free wills and free intelligences agreeing to pursue objectives in common, in an atmosphere of general sympathy, forbearance, respect, and trust. When such conditions prevail, there should be little occasion for coercion or violence, or for punitive response, and the very occurrence of such action will suggest that the community has failed, at least for the time, to achieve its common purposes. Ultimately the quality of life in the College is the property of the conscience of all its members.28

This statement from the handbook would lead one to believe that Mount Holyoke College respects “neutrality” in the workplace; however, recent history has indicated that neutrality has not truly been implemented, and Mount Holyoke’s administration has and will use intimidation tactics in efforts to prevent unions.

The Problem at Mount Holyoke College

28 Staff Handbook, Mount Holyoke Community, http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/hr/hbk/restricted/section1/community.shtml

9 During the 2001-2002 academic school year, housekeepers at Mount Holyoke College decided it was necessary to find a venue for demanding respect and dignity as workers on this campus. The vehicle they decided to use to gain this respect was a union. United Auto Workers organizer Leslie Edwards was the local 2322 UAW representative during the second year of the housekeepers’ union and has recounted much of the history of the housekeepers’ movement to organize. Edwards says that when Housekeepers first attempted to unionize, management at Mount Holyoke College vigorously fought their democratic effort with one-on-one meetings between workers and their direct supervisors, captive audience meetings, and letters to homes of housekeepers with a message to “vote no” against the union.

The leadership at Mount Holyoke College has repeatedly stated its position as to “workers full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing.”29 However, the vigor with which some upper and middle management staff attempt to maintain the status quo in work relations disrespects the values of Mount Holyoke College, and the law.

The Solution In order to prevent the recurrence of intimidation tactics and to reaffirm the college’s commitment to the well-being of all members of the community, the College must restate and clarify its support of neutrality by enacting this provision in the Employer Code of Conduct.

29 National Labor Relations Act of 1935 – 29 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 151-169

10 Enforcing the Code

The Fair Labor Practices Committee will monitor the implementation of policies stated in the Fair Labor Code of Conduct. A committee consisting of two students, one unionized and one non-unionized staff persons, one permanent and one temporary faculty members, chaired by the Ombudsperson will have the right of investigating fair labor practice violations, especially with regard to workers who have no other grievance procedure available to them. Based on their investigation, they will make recommendations to the relevant supervisor or the Vice President of Administration and Finance.

Signing of an Affidavit Each contracted company would sign an affidavit stating that they agree to properly classify workers and to pay at least a minimum of twelve dollars (see appendix).

The Fair Labor Practice Committee would serve as a means of monitoring this part of a proposal and is meant to be a non-partisan group acting under the instruction of the code. This group would receive a brief training by informed members of the surrounding community regarding the indications of worker misclassification. The committee would then do random spot checks to be sure that the contract was being followed.

Fact Sheet for Workers In addition to the school’s own monitoring, every worker on the site would be handed a fact sheet about rights guaranteed to those who work at Mount Holyoke, including the contact information for the Fair Labor Practice Committee point person so that non- employee workers have a mechanism through which to make grievances and report unfair practices (see appendix).

Prevention An important aspect of this process is refusing to engage with companies that have a track record of questionable and unfair labor practices. This can be seen as one of the best modes of prevention, and a means to securing a positive future to the Western Massachusetts construction industry. We must continue our standard research into company backgrounds, including evaluation of the company’s adherence to labor laws, while additionally welcoming community input and feedback.

This mechanism for monitoring our contracted labor practices at Mount Holyoke shows our desire to extend our moral and ethical values to those workers who help to build and beautify our campus though they are not considered “employees” of Mount Holyoke.

11 12 A Brief History of the Fair Labor Code of Conduct Campaign

September  The need for a code was spurred by the housekeepers’ struggle to unionize and their request 2001 for support from the student body.

 The housekeepers decide to work with UAW 2322.

 The housekeepers inform the Student Coalition for Action (SCA) that the College has been holding mandatory captive audience meetings weekly with housekeepers. Some housekeeping staff feel that their benefits were threatened at one of these meetings, and that the staff handbook’s claim to free association was being violated.

 SCA's official position on unionization is neutral, allowing the housekeepers to make the decision to unionize on their own. However, students educate the community regarding the need for neutrality on the part of the College.

 To show administrators that students and faculty expect the process to be fair, a petition is circulated asking the College to act in a neutral manner. Over 1000 students and faculty sign.

 At the vote on a majority of housekeepers decided that they would organize.

 The Carpenters Union Local 108 makes their first contact with SCA, after seeing the proposed code on the SCA website. They share their concerns about worker misclassification on the construction of the science complex (Kendade). November 30  The leadership of SCA investigates these claims with faculty support and found the concerns to be substantial.

 In an effort to educate and engage the campus, billboard like signs are set up around campus that state: You Don’t Have to Be a Scientist to Know That Workers Are Getting Screwed at Mount October 23 Holyoke College Science Building.

 Two student-carpenter teams enter the science complex site and talk to many of the workers. One group spoke to about eight people and found a number of Mexicans and French Canadians February working on the job, flagging that illegal misclassification was occurring. Furthermore, they 25, discovered that Cutler was using Labor Ready, a global day labor agency paying workers under 2002 minimum wage.

 At a scheduled Student Government meeting John Bryant (Facilities Management), Lauren March 5 Turner (Human Resources), and Beverly Tatum (Acting President) state they were in favor of a Code of Conduct all along, but are discontented with the Student Coalition for Action’s version of the Employer Code of Conduct.

 While the Trustees convene at Mount Holyoke, they meet with SCA but offer no response or resolution.

 Two students meet with Lauren Turner and John Bryant. The administration expresses 13 March 8  While the Trustees convene at Mount Holyoke, they meet with SCA but offer no response or resolution.

March 26  Two students meet with Lauren Turner and John Bryant. The administration expresses throughout the meeting that they feel they can't take action unless a regulatory agency makes a decision on the legality of Optimum's practices in this state.

 More large signs are displayed around campus and on route 116 “Law Breaking Construction Company on Campus / Will College Take Action?” and “Support Fair Labor at Mount Holyoke College.”

April 3  Faculty unanimously vote to support the Fair Labor Code of Conduct in spirit, and move to further refine it using Mount Holyoke specific language.

 At that faculty meeting a process was put in place to develop such a code for the Mount Holyoke community, using the Multicultural Community and College Life (MCCL) Committee as the conduit for soliciting campus-wide input into its development.

April 4  The MHC News publishes three stories and one letter to the editor about the campaign. April 4 and 5  SCA and Coalition members interact with the “Conference on Wisdom to Consider the Role of Liberal Arts” evaluated the ability of the nation’s liberal arts colleges to prepare students to become agents for positive change in a complex and troubled world. April 22  Rally at Mount Holyoke is held by Fair Labor Code Coalition. About 50-55 people participate although it is raining. The group marches to the administrative offices and hands over the petition to Beverly Tatum’s assistant. The event is covered in the press by WFCR, the local May 5 National Public Radio station.  A “tent city” is erected on Skinner Green to encourage administration to take action. It lasts through exams. May 9  SCA discusses the issue on Radio WFCR.

May 14  Two SCA students meet with the multicultural committee as well as with Mary Jo Maydew. They report them to be uneventful, but Mary Jo looks for a packet on subcontracting language at other schools.

May 2002-  The Code is with MCCL, and the SCA works on various other projects. 2003  The Anti-Displacement Project protested inside of Shattuck with the demand to have a October 29, meeting with Fred Mulligan, Vice President of Cutler, in reference to violations against day 2002 laborers. They won the meeting and Cutler agreed to pay day laborers ten dollars per hour.

14  The Fair Labor Code Coalition has a meeting with President Joanne Creighton. She states that she can give no responses because the decision is in the hands of the MCCL. President April 25, Creighton also adds the a Fair Labor Code of Conduct was her idea. 2003  An article entitled “Concerns Raised over day laborers” published on the front page of the MHC news. May 1  The MCCL sends out a mailing to all students, faculty and staff with their report and proposed recommendations. They announce a community vote will eventually be held. October 9  The MCCL holds two open forums. SCA is present at both of them. Some staff voice their concerns regarding forced unionization. SCA attempts to clarify the purpose and effects of the code: a movement towards a living wage for all employees, the proper classification of outsourced October 21 workers, and fairness in a worker’s prerogative to organize themselves or refrain from organizing and 22 as they see fit. SCA and coalition partners also are troubled that the proposed code is not clear enough and therefore ineffective.

 SCA and the Labor Coalition question the process employed by the MCCL. While the recommendations were made in good spirit, no one from dinning services was spoken to and no outsourced workers were met with. While Beverly Tatum told the community in the spring of 2003 that “those members of the community most directly affected by the labor code of conduct are its staff,” we hold that one of the greatest contingents of people affected are not staff, but subcontracted workers. These individuals are not on payroll, and are not considered staff nor part of the community. We deeply respect the concerns of staff, and agree they should be clearly heard, but our deepest fair labor concerns relate to subcontracted workers, not MHC staff.

 The Coalition decides that the best way to keep our concerns alive on campus is to hold a counter vote on an Employer Code of Conduct that refines and captures the most pressing issues.

 SCA holds teach-ins for students with guest Day Laborers and Carpenters to examine the situation and develop our ability to articulate the issues. Late October  The MCCL vote is officially called off due to a vocal minority of the staff who felt their voice would not carry sufficient weight in a community-wide vote. The MCCL process ends without meaningful community dialogue. starting  Prepared with a full revised proposal for a Code, ballots, and two informational Novemb pamphlets, the SCA begins a community outreach campaign that attempts to redirect and er 7 invigorate the community dialogue. In the past, SCA connections with some areas of staff have been inadequate. SCA attempts to counter the idea that the Coalition wishes to force a Code of Conduct on the community by directly explaining to as many staff, faculty, and students as possible what the proposed code is meant to do and why they are proposing it.

 In meeting with staff, SCA finds that many are reluctant to engage in the conversation as they believe the issue is under the jurisdiction of the MCCL. The office visits are a positive

15 December 8 endeavor in that SCA is able to represent itself and directly confront misconceptions regarding the code and its goals.

 SCA member speaks with John Bryant on the phone and is told that facilities management will not meet with students unless the President’s office and Human Resources department suggests the meeting. He also states that all claims regarding the misclassification and day laborers were false, and if they had been true those contractors would not be working here. January 2004  MCCL calls and facilitates a meeting between the Student Coalition for Action and Staff Council. The non-student Coalition partners are denied participation as they are not viewed as part of the MHC “community.” The SCA students again attempt to clarify the goals and purpose of the Code.

January-  SCA members meet with Mary Jo Maydew to solicit her response on the “Employer Code February of Conduct,” as was suggested by concerned staff. SCA attempts to clarify some misinterpretations of the code, stating that code does not mean to suggest that all “independent contractors” are prohibited from employment. Rather, the Coalition insists that all workers be properly classified and paid a fair wage.

February 10  Ahmet Tonak, Professor of Economics at Simons Rock College, speaks to a crowd of roughly 30 people. He connects labor injustices at MHC with those at Simon’s Rock, and points to the trend of the “Wal-martization” of college employers, highlighting the conflict of liberal arts ideology versus practice.

February 16  The Coalition meets with Senator Melconian ’70. She is deeply concerned about the issues we raise, and decides to write a letter to the Trustees, urging them to remedy the situation.

 Three articles printed in MHC news regarding the Fair Labor Code of Conduct: “Fight over fair labor continues,” an editorial piece by alumna, and “Fair labor standards not up to par.”

February 17  We have collected over 930 ballots from staff, students, faculty, and outsourced workers.

February 18  The Coalition meets with Senator Melconian ’70. She is deeply concerned about the issues we raise, and decides to write a letter to the Trustees, urging them to remedy the situation.

February 19  Three articles printed in MHC news regarding the Fair Labor Code of Conduct: “Fight over fair labor continues,” an editorial piece by alumna, and “Fair labor standards not up to par.”

February 25  We have collected over 930 ballots from staff, students, faculty, and outsourced workers.

16 Appendix

Internal Revenue Service Ruling (Twenty Questions to Determine Employment Status)

Compliance Statement

Sample Sub-Contracted Worker Right Pamphlet

17 Revenue Ruling

EMPLOYMENT STATUS UNDER SECTION 530(D) OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1978 [excerpt from] Published: 1987

As an aid to determining whether an individual is an employee under the common law rules, twenty factors or elements have been identified as indicating whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship. The twenty factors have been developed based on an examination of cases and rulings considering whether an individual is an employee. The degree of importance of each factor varies depending on the occupation and the factual context in which the services are performed. The twenty factors are designed only as guides for determining whether an individual is an employee; special scrutiny is required in applying the twenty factors to assure that formalistic aspects of an arrangement designed to achieve a particular status do not obscure the substance of the arrangement (that is, whether the person or persons for whom the services are performed exercise sufficient control over the individual for the individual to be classified as an employee). The twenty factors are described below:

1. INSTRUCTIONS. A worker who is required to comply with other persons' instructions about when, where, and how he or she is to work is ordinarily an employee. This control factor is present if the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the RIGHT to require compliance with instructions. See, for example, Rev. Rul. 68-598, 1968-2 C.B. 464, and Rev. Rul. 66-381, 1966-2 C.B. 449. 2. TRAINING. Training a worker by requiring an experienced employee to work with the worker, by corresponding with the worker, by requiring the worker to attend meetings, or by using other methods, indicates that the person or persons for whom the services are performed want the services performed in a particular method or manner. See Rev. Rul. 70-630, 1970-2 C.B. 229. 3. INTEGRATION. Integration of the worker's services into the business operations generally shows that the worker is subject to direction and control. When the success or continuation of a business depends to an appreciable degree upon the performance of certain services, the workers who perform those services must necessarily be subject to a certain amount of control by the owner of the business. See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), 1947-2 C.B. 167. 4. SERVICES RENDERED PERSONALLY. If the Services must be rendered personally, presumably the person or persons for whom the services are performed are interested in the methods used to accomplish the work as well as in the results. See Rev. Rul. 55-695, 1955-2 C.B. 410. 5. HIRING, SUPERVISING, AND PAYING ASSISTANTS. If the person or persons for whom the services are performed hire, supervise, and pay assistants, that factor generally shows control over the workers on the job. However, if one worker hires, supervises, and pays the other assistants pursuant to a contract under which the worker agrees to provide materials and labor and under which the worker is responsible only for the attainment of a result, this factor indicates an independent contractor status. Compare

18 Rev. Rul. 63-115, 1963-1 C.B. 178, with Rev. Rul. 55-593 1955-2 C.B. 610. 6. CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP. A continuing relationship between the worker and the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates that an employer-employee relationship exists. A continuing relationship may exist where work is performed at frequently recurring although irregular intervals. See United States v. Silk. 7. SET HOURS OF WORK. The establishment of set hours of work by the person or persons for whom the services are performed is a factor indicating control. See Rev. Rul. 73-591, 1973-2 C.B. 337. 8. FULL TIME REQUIRED. If the worker must devote substantially full time to the business of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, such person or persons have control over the amount of time the worker spends working and impliedly restrict the worker from doing other gainful work. An independent contractor on the other hand, is free to work when and for whom he or she chooses. See Rev. Rul. 56-694, 1956- 2 C.B. 694. 9. DOING WORK ON EMPLOYER'S PREMISES. If the work is performed on the premises of the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor suggests control over the worker, especially if the work could be done elsewhere. Rev. Rul. 56-660, 1956-2 C.B. 693. Work done off the premises of the person or persons receiving the services, such as at the office of the worker, indicates some freedom from control. However, this fact by itself does not mean that the worker is not an employee. The importance of this factor depends on the nature of the service involved and the extent to which an employer generally would require that employees perform such services on the employer's premises. Control over the place of work is indicated when the person or persons for whom the services are performed have the right to compel the worker to travel a designated route, to canvass a territory within a certain time, or to work at specific places as required. See Rev. Rul. 56-694. 10. ORDER OR SEQUENCE SET. If a worker must perform services in the order or sequence set by the person or persons for whom the services are performed, that factor shows that the worker is not free to follow the worker's own pattern of work but must follow the established routines and schedules of the person or persons for whom the services are performed. Often, because of the nature of an occupation, the person or persons for whom the services are performed do not set the order of the services or set the order infrequently. It is sufficient to show control, however, if such person or persons retain the right to do so. See Rev. Rul. 56-694. 11. ORAL OR WRITTEN REPORTS. A requirement that the worker submit regular or written reports to the person or persons for whom the services are performed indicates a degree of control. See Rev. Rul. 70-309, 1970-1 C.B. 199, and Rev. Rul. 68-248, 1968-1 C.B. 431. 12. PAYMENT BY HOUR, WEEK, MONTH. Payment by the hour, week, or month generally points to an employer-employee relationship, provided that this method of payment is not just a convenient way of paying a lump sum agreed upon as the cost of a job. Payment made by the job or on § straight commission generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. See Rev. Rul. 74-389, 1974-2 C.B. 330. 13. PAYMENT OF BUSINESS AND/OR TRAVELING EXPENSES. If the person or persons for whom the services are performed ordinarily pay the worker's business and/or

19 traveling expenses, the worker is ordinarily an employee. An employer, to be able to control expenses, generally retains the right to regulate and direct the worker's business activities. See Rev. Rul. 55-144, 1955-1 C.B. 483. 14. FURNISHING OF TOOLS AND MATERIALS. The fact that the person or persons for whom the services are performed furnish significant tools, materials, and other equipment tends to show the existence of an employer-employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 71-524, 1971-2 C.B. 346. 15. SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. If the worker invests in facilities that are used by the worker in performing services and are not typically maintained by employees (such as the maintenance of an office rented at fair value from an unrelated party), that factor tends to indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. On the other hand, lack of investment in facilities indicates dependence on the person or persons for whom the services are performed for such facilities and, accordingly, the existence of an employer- employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 71-524. Special scrutiny is required with respect to certain types of facilities, such as home offices. 16. REALIZATION OF PROFIT OR LOSS. A worker who can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the worker's services (in addition to the profit or loss ordinarily realized by employees) is generally an independent contractor, but the worker who cannot is an employee. See Rev. Rul. 70-309. For example, if the worker is subject to a real risk of economic loss due to significant investments or a bona fide liability for expenses, such as salary payments to unrelated employees, that factor indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. The risk that a worker will not receive payment for his or her services, however, is common to both independent contractors and employees and thus does not constitute a sufficient economic risK to support treatment as an independent contractor. 17. WORKING FOR MORE THAN ONE FIRM AT A TIME. If a worker performs more than de minimis services for a multiple of unrelated persons or firms at the same time, that factor generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. See Rev. Rul. 70-572, 1970-2 C.B. 221. However, a worker who performs services for more than one person may be an employee of each of the persons, especially where such persons are part of the same service arrangement. 18. MAKING SERVICE AVAILABLE TO GENERAL PUBLIC. The fact that a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis indicates an independent contractor relationship. See Rev. Rul. 56-660. 19. RIGHT TO DISCHARGE. The right to discharge a worker is a factor indicating that the worker is an employee and the person possessing the right is an employer. An employer exercises control through the threat of dismissal, which causes the worker to obey the employer's instructions. An independent contractor, on the other hand, cannot be fired so long as the independent contractor produces a result that meets the contract specifications. Rev. Rul. 75-41, 1975-1 C.B. 323. 20. RIGHT TO TERMINATE. If the worker has the right to end his or her relationship with the person for whom the services are performed at any time he or she wishes without incurring liability, that factor indicates an employer- employee relationship. See Rev. Rul. 70-309.

20 MHC letter head

Initial statement of compliance with Mt Holyoke Fair Labor Code of Conduct

Project: ______20____

Contractor______

Trade(s): ______

The undersigned contractor certifies that he/she is familiar with the provisions of the Mt Holyoke College - Fair Labor Code of Conduct and will comply with the provisions therein as follows.

1. That a minimum of $12.00/hr will be paid to all employees working on campus and that a statement of compliance with a list of employee names, addresses, and phone numbers be submitted to the (committee) 2. That he/she shall properly classify individuals employed on campus as employees rather than independent contractors and comply with all laws concerning worker’ compensation insurance coverage, unemployment taxes, social security taxes and income taxes as respects all such employees and; 3. That he/she will respect the campus policy of employer neutrality as stated in the Code of Conduct. If a majority of your campus employees determine it is in their best interest to form a union for the purpose of collective bargaining, then you will bargain in good faith.

______Signature Date

______Print name

Complete and submit this form as part of your bid

21 22