It's irresistible to beat up on rich, elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Stanford when they disregard the rights of low-wage workers. (I myself enjoyed beating up on Stanford just last month.) But workers who toil on lesser-known campuses deserve justice, too. At Nova Southeastern University in Broward County, Florida, janitors have been attempting to join the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The workers, mostly Haitians, have been enduring terrible wages, no benefits and no potable water. Many have lost their jobs for trying to organize, according to a National Labor Relations Board complaint filed by the workers. Often, when august institutions of higher learning find their inner Wal-Mart – as they frequently do, when their workers try to organize -- students and professors rally in support of the workers. Nearby University of Miami is a good example – there, workers were able to organize thanks to aggressive action from the campus community. Nova has taken some extreme steps to make sure this doesn't happen.

Earlier this year, it appeared that the university was not only violating workers' freedom of association, but also the free speech rights of faculty and students. For a few weeks in February, the university blocked emails with "seiu" in the address, according to Tanya Aquino, a spokeswoman for SEIU Local 11. (This way, the only updates professors and students received on the labor situation came from Nova's president.) University officials have also discouraged students – most of whom are commuters, and therefore rely on email for information about campus life -- from sending each other updates on the workers' struggle. Some students have been admonished in threatening ways, with officials implying that they might be disciplined for participating in the campaign. (Nova officials did not respond to a request for comment.) The result of all this, according to Aquino, is that few faculty and students are willing to stand up up for the rights of the Nova workers. It's a dreadful example of how, in suppressing workers' rights, a university can diminish itself as a place of higher learning. How much could one learn at a school that forbids the expression of views on such critical human rights questions?

Comments (23)

1. denied potable water? thats strange.

   let them drink gatorade!

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/28/2007 @ 7:27pm

2. "The result of all this, according to Aquino, is that few faculty and students are willing to stand up up for the rights of the Nova workers."

   Ms Featherstone, maybe...and maybe not. A classic technique is to come up with some charge that censorship or intimidation have occurred...in cases where there was little interest to begin with.

   Then the media spotlight turns on the accused, the accusers get to air their grievances and charges, and interest is stirred up.

   How about this for another theory? The students, even some or a lot of the faculty....don't care. So the SEIU has to stir up the pot a bit, claim unionizing oppression at a college campus, and maybe GUILT a few academics into joining the cause so they won't appear like "management stooges"?

   Mine's just as valid, without some OBJECTIVE proof (i.e.. evidence NOT supplied by the union).

   Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 7:58pm

3. A quick search shows that in April, the latest month's data available, Broward County (that's Ft. Lauderdale area) had an unbelievable unemployment rate of 2.9%!!!

   Given the exceptionally strong local economy, I'd say the janitors ought to abandon the mean Nova ship and look for GREENER pastures! Near-term mass attritions should be even more effective than unionizing....unless......these janitors are paid at or above market compared to those janitors cleaning commercial spaces.

   Posted by Happy at 06/28/2007 @ 8:02pm

4. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzWalmartZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...burp, fart,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

   Posted by john maasch at 06/28/2007 @ 9:59pm

5. I see Liza has inspired and fired up the blog site again with s burning article that fleshed out 5 comments and 2 are from me...wow.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/29/2007 @ 09:06am

6. Happy, you're full of it. The standard libertarian/conservative answer of "just quit and find a new job" works only so much, but why should the workers and the union give up the advantage that the low official unemployment rate gives them? The university knows that finding scabs during a strike or lockout would be hard in such a situation, so it is fighting unionization precisely because the official unemployment rate is so low.

   And Mask, sure, the vast majority of students couldn't give a fart, and the majority of faculty, too. That was the case with Vietnam up until Kent State, believe it or not. But that doesn't mean the university hasn't been pulling all the crap they've been accused of to try to limit the development of any meaningful support for the janitors. When I was on strike at NYU 19 years ago, 100 faculty members - out of several thousand - joining us for a special picket surprised the hell out of us and made the New York Times. Nova is reasonably accused of violating academic freedom and selectively censoring the university's e-mail system to squash debate and kill any chance for the union to develop student/faculty support.

   God Bless F%$#ing America!

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/29/2007 @ 10:31am

7. Posted by HAPPY 06/28/2007 @ 8:02pm | ignore this person

   LOL! This kind of market-based reasoning always stirs the pot in this joint! It's like tossing water on a witch. You'd have better luck selling Torah's in a Madrasah.

   Posted by Person at 06/29/2007 @ 10:54am

8. God Bless F%$#ing America!

   Posted by CKA2ND 06/29/2007 @ 10:31am | ignore this person

   Fisting America? What kind of sick crap are you in to, man?

   Posted by Person at 06/29/2007 @ 10:55am

9. Maasch-She doesn't need to fire up this board.She got my wife,myself,and others I know to stop shopping at Wal Mart.That's far more important than just making a comment.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2007 @ 11:13am

10. "Market-based reasoning?" More like market-based rhetoric. If the unemployment rate is low, then how is the under-employment rate? Do workers with jobs, some with several jobs, make a living wage? These are the questions that matter.

    Of course, it is the privilege of plutocratic economists who make several times the wage of custodians and foodservice workers not to care about the latter. But I am under no obligation to buy their self-serving hype.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/29/2007 @ 11:15am

11. .....finding scabs during a strike or lockout would be hard in such a situation, so it is fighting unionization precisely because the official unemployment rate is so low.

    God Bless F%$#ing America!

    Posted by CKA2ND 06/29/2007 @ 10:31a

    Your mis-understanding or flat-out dumbness is astounding! Take a moment and RE-READ what you wrote!

    Now testing time: TRUE or FALSE

    Employees for employers that know finding replacement workers would be hard, have LESS bargaining power.

    Employers that know finding replacement workers would be hard (and expensive), would do everything they can to PISS OFF their existing workers.

    BTW, you already passed w/flying color by demonstrating "TRUE" a question I did not need to list above: "Do Liberals hate America!"

    Posted by Happy at 06/29/2007 @ 11:18am

12. ...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...burp, fart,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/28/2007 @ 9:59pm

    ....5 comments and 2 are from me...wow.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/29/2007 @ 09:06am

    You mean #1 = "burp"

    and #2 = "fart"

    With such comical start, it's going to be a great day and end of (financial) month.....we may even end up almo$t back to where we were on May 31$t! LOL!

    Posted by Happy at 06/29/2007 @ 11:25am

13. Happy-No liberals,as a group, don't hate America.This liberal voluntarily served this country in the military because I love it.How about you?Have you served or are you a taker and talker?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/29/2007 @ 11:29am

14. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 06/29/2007 @ 11:15am | ignore this person

    What exactly is a living wage, anyway? How do you calculate it? Is the "living wage" the same in San Francisco as in Tulsa?

    Posted by Person at 06/29/2007 @ 12:24pm

15. "And Mask, sure, the vast majority of students couldn't give a fart, and the majority of faculty, too."

    "Nova is reasonably accused of violating academic freedom and selectively censoring the university's e-mail system to squash debate and kill any chance for the union to develop student/faculty support. ----Posted by CKA2ND 06/29/2007 @ 10:31am

    If the students and faculty don't care....why waste effort trying to block a piddling unionization movemeent?

    On the other hand, if there IS no support....what BETTER way to try to gain some publicity and GUILT a few of them to get involved....than a "reasonable accusation" (not PROOF, mind you, but an accusation!)?

    Posted by Mask at 06/29/2007 @ 12:50pm

16. Thanks for bringing attention to this. If anyone is inclined, they can support the workers at Nova by signing this petition [gopetition.com].

    Posted by sevnine at 06/29/2007 @ 1:11pm

17. .....finding scabs during a strike or lockout would be hard in such a situation, so it is fighting unionization precisely because the official unemployment rate is so low.

    God Bless F%$#ing America!

    Posted by CKA2ND 06/29/2007 @ 10:31a

    Your mis-understanding or flat-out dumbness is astounding! Take a moment and RE-READ what you wrote!

    Now testing time: TRUE or FALSE

    Employees for employers that know finding replacement workers would be hard, have LESS bargaining power.

    Employers that know finding replacement workers would be hard (and expensive), would do everything they can to PISS OFF their existing workers.

    BTW, you already passed w/flying color by demonstrating "TRUE" a question I did not need to list above: "Do Liberals hate America!"

    Posted by HAPPY 06/29/2007 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

    1. FALSE. Employees have MORE bargaining power if they know their employers will have a hard time finding scabs.

    2. It depends. If they already have a union, possibly FALSE. If they do not already have a union and the current legal and regulatory environment favors them, as it does by any objective standard today, then the answer is probably TRUE, low unemployment rate or not. Only in some realm of fantasy, neo-classical economics textbook would the answer to this question always (or tend towards) FALSE.

    And Happy, you obviously haven't been here long enough to know that I am no liberal. I'm a Marxist, one of the few who actually bothers posting here.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/29/2007 @ 4:09pm

18. ...I am no liberal. I'm a Marxist, one of the few who actually bothers posting here.

    Posted by CKA2ND 06/29/2007 @ 4:09pm

    Refreshing! We are diametrically on opposite ends, economically speaking......as I am a HAPPY CAPITALIST! Morally, we are a whole lot closer, but our approaches are from entirely different directions!

    Posted by Happy at 06/29/2007 @ 4:34pm

19. If the students and faculty don't care....why waste effort trying to block a piddling unionization movemeent?

    On the other hand, if there IS no support....what BETTER way to try to gain some publicity and GUILT a few of them to get involved....than a "reasonable accusation" (not PROOF, mind you, but an accusation!)?

    Posted by MASK 06/29/2007 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, Mask, but did that first sentence come out the way you intended it to? The university administration's main concern is to prevent the unionization of its janitors. The effort to prevent faculty and student support for said union is secondary.

    Mask, neither you nor I know if there is proof or not, unless you have followed up on Ms. Featherstone's story and seen if the union press releases, etc., include any evidence. However, having been on the receiving end of employer harrassment for union activities myself back in the day, and with the wealth of information out there on the union suppression industry, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks who are usually on the receiving end of such conduct. And I say that as someone who is fully aware of corrupt unions, sell-out labor leaders and weak-willed reformers (not to mention some idiot revolutionaries), so please don't accuse me of having Marxist illusions in the brotherhood of the working class.

    While I can always respect a reasonable skeptic, your knee-jerk, unfairly evenhanded "everyone is a crook unless proven otherwise" attitude is just another way to fit everything into a convenient box. It is your "ideology." It is cynicism pretending to be realism.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/29/2007 @ 4:35pm

20. "Mine's just as valid, without some OBJECTIVE proof (i.e.. evidence NOT supplied by the union)."

    Posted by MASK 06/28/2007 @ 7:58pm

    Perhaps.

    But only if you don't bother to read the entire article, in your haste to be the first poster.

    I seen to recal stuff like "the university blocked emails with "seiu" in the address",

    ...and "University officials have also discouraged students – most of whom are commuters, and therefore rely on email for information about campus life -- from sending each other updates on the workers' struggle."

    ...and "Some students have been admonished in threatening ways, with officials implying that they might be disciplined for participating in the campaign."

    Then you might think that, perhaps Ms. Featherstone has a point.

    Ok, maybe not you, but the rest of us, who actually read it, might think that.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/29/2007 @ 9:03pm

21. Liza Featherstone: It's irresistible to beat up on rich, elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Stanford when they disregard the rights of low-wage workers. (I myself enjoyed beating up on Stanford just last month.)

    Earlier this year, it appeared that the university.....according to Tanya Aquino, a spokeswoman for SEIU Local 11......(Nova officials did not respond to a request for comment.).....

    ----------------------------------------------------

    Eric,

    Simply having read an article, do NOT mean in anyway, that ones' brain has processed the information in a `fair and balanced' way. You certainly did NOT!

    Look at Ms. Featherstone's first few words! What is her goal in this piece? Contains a 4-letter word...Hint: "beat up"!

    Next, what does the word "appeared" means in a `hit' piece?

    Third, what is Liza's source? No, I don't care for the person's name but I do care that it came from "a spokeswoman for SEIU Local 11".

    Lastly, Nova officials had no input, though Liza did try to solicit comment. I can only speculate that, with the barest of research, any Nova official would have concluded that The Nation is far from `Fair and Balanced' and decided to skip it.....Nothing against The Nation for what it is, but I've NEVER read a balanced piece of journalism here! If it did, it would LOSE moonbats....er...I mean, customers/readers.

    Amazing isn't it? How ones' root principals can affect how one interpret the `news'! Now that we have sparred twice in a short period, I would say, you are still drinking too much Kool-Aid.....but maybe all you need is more fermenting time!

    Posted by Happy at 06/29/2007 @ 9:44pm

22. Posted by HAPPY 06/29/2007 @ 9:44pm

    Who's drinking who's koolaid?

    I never said her claims were substanciated. Merely pointed out that the article claimed the university had tried, what I would hope we could agree, could be called underhanded tactics.

    Then they refused to comment. That says almost as much as the original allegations to me. Certainly more than a comment of denial would have. And that is all that would be needed for rational people to wonder who's telling the truth.

    And no, contrary to your assertion, the political bias of a publication is irrelevant to a properly crafted "statement" (Which if truthful should be appropriate for release to all publications). A statement is not an interview.

    Thus the text from you comment; "Nova officials had no input, though Liza did try to solicit comment.", should read; " Nova officials had no input, though Liza did try to solicit comment."

    You've been drinking the neo-con koolaid for way to long. Your thought processes have deteriorated.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/29/2007 @ 10:13pm

23. Probably been posted before. (And off topic too!)

    Thought I'd post this and hightlight any words I thought were positive and leave the rest alone.

    Liberal

    Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced Antonyms: conservative

    Conservative

    Synonyms: bourgeois, cautious, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish*, fuddy-duddy*, guarded, hard hat*, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, inflexible, middle-of-the-road*, not extreme, obstinate, old guard*, old-line, orthodox, quiet, red-neck, right, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable, unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread*

    Antonyms: liberal

    (I considered just deleting "loose" and "firm", as they both seem to be relatavistic terms. And traditional seems to be a matter of opinion).

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 06/29/2007 @ 10:33pm