DO SIGNS AT UTD AMOUNT TO UNION BUSTING?
by Brian Oliver Sheppard

Students and faculty who have walked across the UTD campus lately have probably noticed the work being done by Centex Construction. The fences surrounding the work areas rightly ensure that students will not wander into dangerous work zones. However, many passing by these fences have probably not been struck by the meaning behind some of the larger signs being hung there.

Centex has taken liberty to post warnings against distributing literature to their workers. "NO DISTRIBUTION," one of the larger signs begins, in bold lettering. "Distribution of handbills, advertising material or other literature in working areas of this project is prohibited at any time."

One can understand a prohibition of advertising material in general. Don't many of us wish such a notice could be posted above our mailboxes, or
televisions? But what about the prohibition of distribution of "handbills ... or other literature"? The term "handbills" connotes messages with political intent. As for "other literature" - well, it's doubtful that Centex management has concerns that the Literature Dept. might descend upon them wishing to distribute Dante's _Divine Comedia_.

The meaning behind these Orwellian signs is obvious to anyone with an understanding of labor history. The signs - which admittedly conjure up images of cold, fascist control zones where "distribution of literature" is outlawed by decree of the State - are a form of pre-emptive union busting. The warning against distributing handbills to construction workers recalls the elite fear of "labor agitators" - those wily working class folks
always ready to foment discontent by passing out pamphlets amongst workers and immigrants, immigrants who nowadays tend to fall into under-the-table construction jobs.

"It is ridiculous that in a public school you are prohibited to talk to workers or pass reading materials to them," says a member of the UTD Student-Labor Coalition. "How can a contractor on the university premises - a public place - prohibit anything? Can the school cafeteria, which is
also being contracted, discriminate against people speaking Spanish in there?"

Members of the Student-Labor Coalition claim they were chased away from work sites while trying to pass out fliers about public forums they were
organizing. The forums had a labor and human rights theme. The Student-Labor Coalition regularly hosts speakers and events that focus on global human rights concerns.

A sign at another Centex fence reads: "NO SOLICITATION. Solicitation by an employee of another employee is prohibited, while either the person doing the soliciting or the person being solicited is on working time." This wording, because it echoes language encountered in labor law, almost
certainly indicates a fear of pro-union activity.

The ACLU reports that labor law does give an employer the power to prohibit solicitation between employees during work hours and in work areas. However, by the same token, courts have generally found that "work areas" do not include break areas, lounges, parking lots, and the like. Likewise, breaks and lunches do not constitute "work hours." Legally, workers can proceed with unionization drives at these times and places. But this does not
stop workers from being illegally fired for such activity.

This issue should be a concern to UTD students who may one day be - or who are currently - in the workforce. It should also concern them as
tuition-payers. How is their money being spent? What sorts of rights do they, as indirect patrons of Centex, think are worthy of the workers
there? And ultimately, do corporations go too far in their control of their employees' activity, or in their thinking? Should UTD, as an institution
that derives its funding, in part, from the public, be contracting out to non-union companies who employ tactics such as these?

The US Supreme Court decided, in the 1943 case of Martin vs. City of Struthers, that "[f]reedom to distribute literature to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved." It likewise noted that "Many of our most widely established religious organizations have used this method of disseminating their doctrines, and laboring groups have used it in recruiting their members."

So, while an "open marketplace of ideas" might depend upon the free distribution of information , this does not prevent the powerful from often
seeing it as a threat to their own interests. The US Constitution claims that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble," but it appears that in the meantime the corporation can.

Aug-1-2001