Labor relations must be better on North Broad Street. Just ask the security guards at Temple University who kept their jobs after petitioning administrators for better wages and benefits.
At Penn, the story was unfortunately different.
A similar contingent of AlliedBarton security guards approached President Amy Gutmann about improving their working conditions. Before anyone could say "medical co-pay," the guards were shipped off to less desirable assignments.
All along, AlliedBarton Security Services has denied taking retaliatory actions against employees organizing support and petitioning for better pay. But the company's actions have already spoken louder than words, and it owes Penn and its constituents a full explanation.
What did these employees do to deserve reassignment? Why were the two groups of employees treated so differently?
More importantly, through all of this, why has the University remained silent?
Penn has a duty to maintain good relations with labor organizations that serve it as well as others in the city of Philadelphia. Silence on this issue will only make for a bigger black eye.
Whether or not the University believes the five guards who were transferred were treated fairly by AlliedBarton, it is important that Penn show confidence in the people working on its campus.
The administration can make up its own mind about whether guards should unionize. When it comes to these employees being punished for speaking their minds, though, Penn should step forward to defend them.
AlliedBarton has been a respected subcontractor in the past, and the University has been pleased with the company's service. And while College Hall has no direct control over the personnel decisions its subcontractors make, it does have the power to not renew those contracts the next time around.
Pressure from Penn could be significant -- if the University chooses to get involved.
By not demanding a full and public explanation from Allied, the University is sending a dangerous signal that workers on this campus don't matter.
