The Clergy Should Stay Out of USC’s Labor Dispute

A few weeks ago, Time magazine and the Princeton Review issued their 2000 edition of “The Best College for You,” selecting USC as the college of the year. The designation was based on an examination of universities working to make a difference in their neighboring communities.

This great distinction accorded to USC should be an occasion for celebration. Instead, there is a pall over the campus due to a long-standing labor dispute between USC and Local 11 of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, which represents cafeteria and dormitory employees.

My concern with the current impasse is twofold. First, important information has been omitted in the public discourse, particularly in the area of what defines job security. Second, the position of a number of church leaders represents a misuse of religious authority and threatens their credibility.

I am not an apologist for the university. However, I think that in any contractual dispute, it is essential to know both sides before making up one’s mind and casting aspersions. What many people do not know is that USC has taken important steps to secure present and future employment for its food services employees, including:

* While in the past, USC has been forced to lay off employees during the summer months when most classes are not in session, this year USC negotiated a contract with Universal Studios--whose peak months are during the summer--to hire these employees. USC has even continued to pay for these employees’ benefits during the summer. As a result, USC now provides year-round employment for these workers.

* USC provides educational opportunities to employees, including English as a second language, computer training, business, management, etc.

The union has accused USC of trying to subcontract food services jobs to other vendors. USC has said it has no intention of subcontracting the jobs in question but would not accede to union demands for a written pledge of that commitment.

If the university wanted to subcontract, doesn’t it stand to reason that it would have done so during the last four years when there was no contract and hence no legal obstacle?

Regarding job security, can there be any real security for entry-level jobs? Far better would be for an employer to help employees develop the skills needed to climb to a higher rung. It would be wrong for USC to play a role in developing a permanent underclass of low-level employees who are forever denied greater access to the economy and the achievement of their dreams.

As a priest, I also am concerned about the misuse of religious authority. I ask religious leaders involved in this dispute to consider the following: Eventually the hostility will subside, and if there is to be a victor, it will be the truth. When that happens, where will their credibility have gone? Who will listen the next time they claim to speak in the name of religion and justice?

From Pope Leo XIII’s seminal encyclical “The Condition of Labor,” issued in 1891, to Pope John Paul II’s “One Hundred Years,” issued in 1991, there has been a continuous evolution of Catholic social teaching. Many other denominations and faiths have developed similar teachings. The role of religion in the advancement of justice cannot be overstated.

Fundamental to a just social structure is the right of workers to form unions and engage in collective bargaining. So profound is this right that when workers are prevented from organizing, the church places itself on the line in the pursuit of justice, and many religious leaders from a variety of faith traditions have been jailed for this cause.

But while workers have a right to organize, they do not have a right to a specific contract. Workers are entitled to use a variety of means to try to accomplish their goals, even, if they choose, to demonize the company or institution. But when they fail in their negotiations, it is not appropriate to enlist religious leaders to do their fighting for them or to join with them in demonizing the other side.

Put simply, it is not the work of religious leaders to negotiate specific contracts. To suggest that the current impasse between USC and the union is some kind of basic issue of justice overstates the case in the extreme.

The current dispute does, however, play into the hands of some religious leaders who seem to have lost their bearings. An organization known as the Coalition for a Responsible USC has continually used manipulative and inflammatory language to polarize all parties. Their motivation remains a puzzlement.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, I must conclude that there are sincere and dedicated clergy who just do not know the facts and who have become pawns of selective rhetoric. But if the coalition is truly concerned about the welfare of the community and the relationship of USC to that community, should it not choose less divisive means? If the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that unnecessary polarization hampers and ultimately defeats dialogue.