Raia Small

n Nov. 15, laundry workers, union organizers, and Yale students protested the working conditions at New England Linen’s New Haven factory. UNITE HERE—a union that represents about 500,000 workers in laundry, food service, hotels, and the garment industry—organized a demonstration of over 100 people. UNITE HERE is trying to organize workers at New England Linen who have faced intimidation from management in their attempts to organize. New England Linen workers have managed to raise support from the Board of Aldermen and the public. Yale students have rallied around this cause not only because of its proximity to the university, but also, critically, because Yale has contracted out linen production and cleaning to the company.

Yale is not alone in its dealings with New England Linen; Columbia University is another known customer and relies on New England Linen for the tablecloths, napkins, and aprons used in the Faculty House, among other campus locations. In the past three weeks, Columbia students from different activist groups—including but not limited to Students Promoting Empowerment and Knowledge, Students for Environmental and Economic Justice, and Student-Labor Action Project—have alerted the administration to the conditions at New England Linen. They have not called for a boycott per se, but rather for the University to state its opposition forcefully to the company’s practices. A small group of students have repeatedly met with the director of Faculty House in an effort to do just that.

The labor conditions, both at the New Haven factory and another that the company recently took over in New Jersey, classify it as a sweatshop. Workers who have been with the company for decades are still making under $8 an hour, putting them below the poverty line in the New Haven area. And in addition to poverty wages, family health insurance costs workers $80 per week, so many with children opt for Medicaid if they can qualify. What’s worse, managers have been notoriously harsh, forcing workers to keep up the pace under uncomfortable conditions. A pregnant worker complained of being forced to remain at work even while sick, and another employee with high blood pressure was forced to work through illness. Workers at the plant have complained repeatedly of rat and roach infestation that management neglects to address. Most dangerously, the plant provides neither adequate training nor essential safety mechanisms for their machines.

Last year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found 23 health and safety violations at New England Linen, 20 of which were classified as serious—meaning that serious physical harm or death would likely result. New England Linen accepted these violations and paid some $14,000 in fines. Still, lack of concern for the health and safety of their workers seems to predominate, and there is perhaps no better illustration of the company’s callous neglect than its emergency evacuation plan. In the event of a fire, the plan suggests, some employees will evacuate but others are designated to stay behind to fight the fire themselves.

This lack of regard for employee safety is reminiscent of early twentieth-century industrial conditions. The work has been conspicuously low-end, and workers have been virtually disposable. As long as the cost of a high turnover rate is preferable to meeting union standards for compensation and safety, New England Linen will continue this trend in service work. “Nonunion factories undercut the market. This impedes the ability of unions to improve wages, health care, and conditions,” said Katie Unger, a researcher at UNITE HERE.

While OSHA fines are an incentive to improve working conditions, the only way to ensure fair treatment is for workers to monitor conditions themselves and exercise their collective bargaining power to improve them. New England Linen only employs roughly 100 workers. However, the existence of such a factory is threatening and limiting to workers in the industry as a whole, and in the New York metropolitan area in particular. Since New England Linen’s workers began to organize with UNITE HERE this summer, the plant has held captive audience meetings at which the management explains the futility of unionizing and urges workers to report union organizers to the police. Since these laundry workers have little income and few job prospects, fear of losing their jobs coupled with threats of the plant shutting down are effectively preventing a union from forming.

The logic of Columbia activists, who are attempting to convince the administration to take a stand against these conditions, rests on the effectiveness of consumer activism. As a large university, Columbia holds more power than any individual student consumer. However, by contracting to New England Linen instead of a unionized company, Columbia is tacitly allowing these conditions to continue while the company continues to profit. Through the exertion of pressure on the University, Columbia students are attempting to change the labor policies at New England Linen and allow workers to unionize. The success of this effort depends on the student body’s ability to overcome its characteristic apathy. The administrators in charge of labor relations have been responsive to student demands so far and have even considered terminating their relations with New England Linen. And yet a major question remains: if Faculty House goes elsewhere to order uniforms and tablecloths, what will change? Columbia’s willingness to consider alternate suppliers is simply not a success for student activists, or more crucially, for New England Linen workers. As it currently stands, Columbia does not even have a contract with New England Linen: they place orders on a job-by-job basis. Terminating this arrangement and going elsewhere for linen supplies is not a monumental sacrifice for Columbia to make.

The conditions at New England Linen, from poverty wages to virulent repression of the union, warrant Columbia’s disapproval. Even if student activists win this battle, it remains uncertain whether the change represents a political statement or merely a symbolic sacrifice. This is reminiscent of the campaign to divest from Darfur; Columbia did not divest from its current holdings, but rather pledged not to invest in certain companies in the future. The nature of this sacrifice seems more politically correct than ideologically sincere. At the same time, it is part of a broad campaign of universities, and Columbia’s influence could encourage others who are directly invested in those companies to sign on. The action against New England Linen could serve the same function as a catalyst for other institutions, or as a statement of support for workers.

“It’s important for workers to know that they have community backing and that the community sets a higher standard than the federal standard,” Unger said. By taking a firm stand against inhumane labor practices and repression, Columbia could draw greater attention to the plight of linen workers beyond the New Haven vicinity. In order for Columbia’s solidarity to have tangible influence, it may need to take further actions. Instead of sending out jobs on a case-by-case basis, Columbia should use a formal, long-term contract for its linen supply. If the University holds a greater stake in the businesses it patronizes, student demands to use consumer power for labor solidarity could have real political ramifications.