|
|
|
|||||
|
Dear George, In regards to all the recent publicity concerning the incident at The University Medical Center and the rally staged by the staff union (SUUVA), there are in my opinion some important issues that are not being addressed, or worse, ignored… The demonstration, which was staged in protest of the administration's response (or non-response) to complaints brought by the union in behalf of workers at the hospital, has taken the issue to the court of public opinion. Only because of this has there been any real explanation (accountability) to the incident in which a supervisor used a racial slur in a situation where subordinates were present. In fact it was only after inquiries from the press that ANY explanation was offered. As a result of this there has been a great deal of misinformation. First and foremost the union had several complaints from employees who WERE offended by the use of the "n word". According to university reports, after being hauled in and interviewed alone (for "consistency") people present were shocked, surprised, stunned even- but no one was offended…. Is it no surprise workers feel intimidated in such situations? The administration found that the term was used as an analogy relative to the color of ones skin as it relate to sports teams (such as Redskins) and therefore deemed it's context not meant to be offensive. If this were an accurate (if still inappropriate) analogy why would one not use color (black) for comparison purposes instead of a nasty racial epithet that is horribly offensive to many people? The fact of the matter is that the Union went to the administration weeks before with complaints about management in this department at the hospital. This particular issue was brought forward well over a week before the demonstration. SUUVA only learned of the details of the investigation after the subsequent publicity created by the rally itself. The Union would have been receptive to any type of meaningful dialogue with UVA prior to the mobilization effort. But there was NONE. Why? Because the administration continually refuses to discuss ANYTHING with the union, hiding behind the States prohibition on collective bargaining for public employees, acting as if addressing serious complaints from workers would constitute contractual negotiations…. Pretending that a dialogue with workers to address diversity issues and answering questions about policy might somehow compromise themselves. Questions such as- Of the 11,000 classified staff (workers), why are there none on the newly created diversity committee? Finally the Union did what unions have always done. When worker complaints fall on deaf ears and the members cry out, we take it to the streets….It is unfortunate that is the only way to create meaningful dialogue and get straight answers from management. And apparently, given the reaction, makes some folks a little uncomfortable. It is my hope that this atmosphere will change. It is the union's mission to make it happen… Respectfully, Richard C. Verlander (electronic mail, December 4, 2003) CWA Representative
|
