UNC resolutions and the outcome of the (first) food workers' strike
Pollitt describes divisions within the UNC faculty, contrasting supporters of the strike to the "law and order" opponents. Despite the persistence of some opposition, the faculty ultimately chose to adopt a number of resolutions proposed by Pollitt and the American Association of University Workers (AAUP), including the establishment of a grievance process. In addition, the food workers were given a raise and awarded backpay. Nevertheless, Pollitt explains that in the immediate aftermath of the strike, the university sold control of the cafeteria an outside food provider and tensions quickly re-escalated, leading to a second strike.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Daniel H. Pollitt, March 21-22, 1991. Interview L-0064-6. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
So we decided we ought to have
some faculty meetings.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
Now this was all eight hundred faculty?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
Yes. So we did call one and it was scheduled. At that time all the
resolutions were adopted and I have them here in my file. There were
fifteen or twenty resolutions. There was the Henry Brandis, Dean Brandis
of the law school, law and order resolution.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
And that was that people shouldn't strike?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
That they fire anybody who strikes and then there was the impeding of the
buildings. Some of the graduates were sitting down on the steps to block
the entrance. Anybody who impedes others should be thrown out. Then the
Trustees met and the Trustees issued a reminder that this was a place
that valued academic freedom, but if you engaged in immoral conduct or
dereliction of duty or something, you could be ousted. So there was the
resolution from the law school, the law and order one, which
didn't pass. There were resolutions that the head of the food
service be fired and they were tabled. And there were a number of
resolutions, but the important ones were the Pollitt resolutions on
behalf of the AAUP and extended committee; and we had three of them
which were all adopted and none other were adopted.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
What were these resolutions?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
Well one was that we appoint a standing faculty committee on nonacademic
employees and we had adopted a grievance process
which we urged that it be adopted so that they would have some place to
take their concerns instead of going to their boss, you know. They could
go beyond the boss and so on.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
At this point we didn't have a grievance procedure?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
We didn't have grievance procedures. The grievance procedures
grew out of the cafeteria strike and it was drafted in my committee by
me. It was a good one. It wasn't finally accepted as it was
proposed, but we agreed…. The general faculty agreed that
there should be one. Mine was submitted as a model. They
didn't adopt mine. That would have been too much. Then I
recommended that there be a standing committee on the problems of the
staff. Ann Queen was the head of the Y and was appointed the head of it
and she then pushed the grievance process and all that sort of thing.
But we didn't have a faculty committee dealing with
nonacademic personal until that time.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
So if they wanted at some point a resolution passed on their behalf, this
was their avenue? They had now a committee that they could go to of
faculty who would represent them?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
They could go to them if the administration was not responsible. This was
because things were happening in the hospital and things were happening
to the janitors and the printing department and all around. So this was
not just cafeteria workers. This was everybody. And as far as the
cafeteria workers were concerned, the resolution on that was that we
appoint a mediation committee that will mediate the dispute and come up
with recommendations or a settlement. That was adopted and their
committee was appointed which did mediate, that
came up with recommendations which were pretty much agreed upon. And you
know, I forget what they were, but there was a lot of upgrading and they
brought in people by the bus load from Raleigh to do personnel work; to
interview every worker, to see if he was at the right level and what he
was doing. Everybody got written job descriptions. There was a good
committee appointed to mediate and it was headed by Paul Guthrie who
taught labor management relations at the School of Business and he was a
very notable arbitrator in the railway labor industry. Whenever there
would be a big major railroad strike he would be appointed by the
president to be one of the three on the committee, the blue ribbon
committee, to make recommendations and stuff. So he had national repute
and he agreed to take time off to settle our little cafeteria strike. He
did a great job. Well, then what happened, everybody went back to work.
They got the pay raises; they got the $1.80. Everybody got the
lump sum under the Federal minimum wage. Everybody was called,
"Mrs." Brown. They agreed to open up skill courses and
to promote from within. And at the hospital Dan Young, who was on this
committee as I mentioned earlier, he was the ombudsman. He started a
gigantic program over there to upgrade skills and to promote from
within. They did a good job. So everything was happy except unbeknownst
to us, the University had decided to abandon the food service. They were
now operating at a loss because the wages were up and that meant they
had to increase prices. No more twenty-five cent suppers. So coffee went
up to a dime. Boy, was there furor over that one.
[laughter] Double all at once. But they started to
lose money and at the same time, restaurants
started to open on Franklin Street, so Lenoir was no longer the only
place to eat. There had been two restaurants when we came here,
"The Rat" and one that has been closed. But people
started to eat and then they started to get refrigerators for their
dormitory rooms and people started to eat in their dormitories and
people had cars now so they could drive. So the number of people at
Lenoir declined and the labor costs were up and the price went up and
that caused a further decline. So the University decided to get rid of
it. So they got SAGA, which is one of the national chains that operates
institutional dining halls. So SAGA came in in late September. They said
they weren't hiring anybody. Nobody had a job. They were
going to start from scratch and they didn't want any older
people who couldn't run so fast. So they fired or they failed
to rehire seventy people and they included all the strike leaders.
- ANN MCCOLL:
-
Do you think that was what really what they were intending to do is get
rid of potential trouble makers?
- DANIEL POLLITT:
-
Well, nobody knew it. Nobody had any idea. I didn't. I had no
idea that the University intended to close down Lenoir, but they did.
SAGA came in and SAGA failed to rehire seventy people which did include
all the strikers. Then the question was, "Was the agreement
with the University binding on SAGA?" SAGA had the grievance.
So I don't know. Adam Stein wasn't around. A
couple of the strikers, very nice women, they were sisters,
didn't go within ten days. So when they protested people
rallied around that. That became an issue. They said,
"They didn't file their grievance in
time. It's their fault." So things kind of went from
bad to worse. Then there was a second strike.