Home
A Publication of the SUITE union
Vol. 2, No. 1 July 4, 1995
SUITE gladly reports the union and administration came to terms, making a new contract for the Community College teachers. We give heartfelt thanks to all who helped fight the good fight-we could not have done it without you: Sophia professors, teachers and employees The Community College students and teachers The many SUITE friends The SUITE attorney, Mr. Yoshida The members of the supporting unions The men and women of the parent union NUGW
The school also seems pleased with the compromise and by the negotiation process by which it came about. Fr. Yamamoto officially credits "collective bargaining" with the SUITE union for the resolution of the crisis. [as reported by the Chancellor in his article in the Jochi Daigaku Tsushin (Vol. 220, May 19,1995)]
Unfortunately, at the most recent negotiation meeting the school's official representatives directly denied the Chancellor's remarks. Before discussing the details and implications of that shocking event, please allow us to provide an update to the continued negotiations.
Representation : The College teachers had a liaison on the Committee on the Community College until last December when Br. Milward resigned. Nobody was named as a replacement, so the teachers now rely completely on the negotiation meetings and the occasional memo from the College office for official communications; in like manner, the teachers present their ideas and concerns through this union newsletter.
SUITE demanded that the teachers again be represented on the controlling Committee. The official reply (5/31/95): "You already have a representative Prof. Bruce Hird." If this is so, then we wonder why, when we asked him if the teachers are represented on the Committee, the professor himself said (6/16/95): "There has been no liaison or representative for the teachers since Br. Milward resigned." Did the negotiators not even deign to cover their own tracks?
SUITE Union: At the May 31st negotiation SUITE requested use of a campus bulletin board such as the one provided the other union. Refused! "You think you are a union, but we do not recognize you as such." When asked then why Fr. Yamamoto's recent article referred to "the union" and to "collective bargaining," the administrative team responded with collective grins. "Those are only words!" they declaimed. "You cannot use those words to claim recognition as a union." They continued: "We are only having informal discussions with you; we have never 'negotiated' or had 'collective bargaining' with you for we have never recognized you as a 'union.'"
Gentlemen! Let's be serious, please! The documents and arguments you presented at the Tokyo Labor Commission were full of your own words that attempted to prove you had "bargained in good faith with the SUITE union." Do you wish the chance to make those arguments again?
Certainly we realize that the Chancellor is not a judge and was not making a final, legal determination. Still, official pronouncements and announcements must be taken seriously. Official remarks of the head of the school are meaningful. The words are important: their appearance has gravity; their substance is worthy of consideration.
So we are perplexed: How can the school's official representatives so easily dismiss the public statements of the Chancellor (as well as their own)? If their words contradict the Chancellor, what of their actions? To whom do they answer? In whose name and for whose interests are they negotiating? Whose words can we trust, and when? We ask these questions because it seems a real danger that "rogue" negotiators have been foisted on us.
Thankfully, the contract crisis has been resolved. Still, many other issues remain on the negotiation table. Of these, though, recognition of the union should not even be an issue: it is abundantly clear the administration has acknowledged, in words and in deed, the union's existence, purpose and power. It is ironic that today, when there is more of a need than ever for representation, communication and consultation, the teachers are denied the voice they always had on the Committee. It is more than ironic that the administrative negotiators dismiss the Chancellor's words and ignore, "forget" or revise the history of their own dealings with the union. Verily, by their words and actions you know SUITE is a true and effective union!
Still, despite the prevarications of negotiations, despite the clumsy attempts to push us aside, despite the incredible "negotiating" stance we are confronted with, we remain hopeful. Why? Because we have found so much support on campus for the College and its tradition of service. We truly appreciate the innumerable acts of helpfulness and kindness shown to the SUITE union by all of its friends.
Thank you again for your kind support.
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 1 July 4, 1994
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 2 October 1, 1994
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 3 October 25, 1994
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 4 November 10, 1994
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 5 November 25, 1994
SUITE Newsletter
Volume 1, Number 6 December 13, 1994
SUITE Newsletter Volume 2, Number 1 July 4, 1995
The overview: Tokyo Observer article May 1995