Spring Break
Avoiding a showdown
With upcoming wage negotiations, both the Miami University administration and the nation are working to steer clear of a battle
Steve Markley
Issue date: 11/29/05 Section: Features
"A strike is not something you're ever pleased with," he said. "We thought we had an agreement. It seemed like the union leadership got a hold of the deal and convinced their members to go on strike when it wasn't really in their best interests."
Little maintained that Miami has always paid a fair wage, despite that before the strike a state fact-finder's report recommended a 25 percent starting wage increase. He also expressed concerns with the legitimacy of the report.
However, an advisory committee sponsored by Miami found that the school was paying between 5-15 percent below the market standard for the lowest paid jobs. In March 2004, just five months after the dispute with the union, Miami implemented a wage adjustment of 8-20 percent.
Director of Latin American Studies, Dan La Botz, who supported the strike in 2003, questioned the logic of this.
"If what Miami was offering during the strike was so fair then that wage raise doesn't make much sense," La Botz said. "Was the situation so significantly different five months later or did the administration simply not want to be seen as losing to the union?" According to Little, the raise was a standard market adjustment.
Negotiations for a new union contract, which expires July 1, 2006, could begin as early as February, and Marcum believes that the union stands on firmer ground than in 2003. "The strike was a success in opening people's eyes," he said. "As far as support from the students and faculty, I couldn't have been more amazed. One of our goals was to educate the community and the students on how things work, and I think we'll see that support again."
That support is tangible in Miami students Justin Katko and Dylan Daney, two members of Students for Staff, an organization that advocates a blanket living wage policy similar to the type implemented by Harvard and Yale universities.
For Katko, the most frustrating part of his involvement with the strike of 2003 was the atmosphere of antagonism the conflict fostered.
Little maintained that Miami has always paid a fair wage, despite that before the strike a state fact-finder's report recommended a 25 percent starting wage increase. He also expressed concerns with the legitimacy of the report.
However, an advisory committee sponsored by Miami found that the school was paying between 5-15 percent below the market standard for the lowest paid jobs. In March 2004, just five months after the dispute with the union, Miami implemented a wage adjustment of 8-20 percent.
Director of Latin American Studies, Dan La Botz, who supported the strike in 2003, questioned the logic of this.
"If what Miami was offering during the strike was so fair then that wage raise doesn't make much sense," La Botz said. "Was the situation so significantly different five months later or did the administration simply not want to be seen as losing to the union?" According to Little, the raise was a standard market adjustment.
Negotiations for a new union contract, which expires July 1, 2006, could begin as early as February, and Marcum believes that the union stands on firmer ground than in 2003. "The strike was a success in opening people's eyes," he said. "As far as support from the students and faculty, I couldn't have been more amazed. One of our goals was to educate the community and the students on how things work, and I think we'll see that support again."
That support is tangible in Miami students Justin Katko and Dylan Daney, two members of Students for Staff, an organization that advocates a blanket living wage policy similar to the type implemented by Harvard and Yale universities.
For Katko, the most frustrating part of his involvement with the strike of 2003 was the atmosphere of antagonism the conflict fostered.
