Correction appended.
The atmosphere at last night's debate on collective bargaining was at times charged and tense, as audience members shared their personal experiences to challenge the debaters — and each other. The debate, which was hosted by the Janus Forum, included an unprecedented amount of audience participation, perhaps because the topic struck close to home for many of the nearly 35 students and community members in attendance.
In the shadow of the passage of a Wisconsin bill limiting collective bargaining of public unions, the debate centered around the question, "Should public unions have collective bargaining rights?" Susannah Kroeber '11, a Herald opinions columnist, argued against collective bargaining for public unions, opposite former union organizer Benjamin Eichert '13.
Kroeber's argument focused on the difference between public and private unions. She said that though private employers have the opportunity to "shut down or leave town" if they cannot meet their employees' demands, government employers have no such option.
"The state of Delaware can't pick up and move to Oregon if its employees go on strike," she said.
She added that there is an inherent conflict of interest when public employees are given the right to bargain collectively.
"I think it's preposterous that you can both choose your management and then negotiate your contract with that management," Kroeber said.
Eichert, who has organized for the Service Employees International Union and the National Union for Healthcare Workers, argued that collective bargaining is a fundamental right recognized by both international organizations and the Constitution.
"We can't take a step backward," he said. "We can't say that while unions were great in the past, we don't need them anymore … unions bring democracy to the workplace."
But audience members stole the show from the billed speakers, taking the debate into their own hands.
One attendee made a passionate argument in favor of collective bargaining based on her knowledge of the working conditions of housekeepers employed by the University of South Carolina.
"This is a high-pain job, where employees are taking painkillers just so they're able to clean the absurd amount of rooms they need to clean in a day, and they're working for extremely low wages," she said. "How can you tell me that they don't deserve the right to bargain collectively?"
"That's a tough question," Kroeber said. "Does anyone in the audience have a rebuttal?"
The debate soon broadened from a discussion of the rights of public unions to a conversation about the relative merits of unions in general.
"I work in a closed-shop supermarket, and I give up two hours of my paycheck every week for health care coverage that my union's bargained for. I'm 20 years old. I don't need health care," said a student in response to a discussion of ‘closed shop' contracts, in which every employee a company hires must be a member of the union. "Why am I paying for it? What is this union doing for me?"
"But what about your co-workers?" audience member Gideon Leaks '85 immediately rebutted.
The enthusiasm of both debaters and audience members was overshadowed by the very real union concerns in Wisconsin and closer to home.
"Mayor Taveras has made the case that the teachers union prevented him from creating a better contract. … He says he can't fire who he needs to fire without firing everyone," Kroeber said. "He can't operate within the union framework."
Leaks said he sees the Wisconsin situation as a harbinger "for the destruction of collective bargaining in general."
Eichert agreed. "Wisconsin is the reason we're here today."
A previous version of this article incorrectly attributed a quote to Steve Larrick '11. A student sitting near Larrick was the actual speaker. The Herald regrets the error.
