Today,  Timothy Rub told some of my sources that he is in talks with AlliedBarton to sign a deal through 2014.

The signing of a contract would be a contradictory move in light of his claim of “neutrality,” and his demanding that we jump through every frivolous hoop that AlliedBarton is having the union jump through (AlliedBarton’s $15,000 per year donation should purchase some loyalty, i guess).  The questions is, “How can he possible sign a business deal with a company that WILL have a collective bargaining agreement before he knows what that agreement will cost?”

If Mr. Rub is actually neutral (despite multiple reports of him heckling security guards, senior citizens and college students, what a bully!), how can he possibly award AlliedBarton a long term contract before the NRLB finds against the union or, when the NRLB upholds their own findings, the company and the union have settled their contract agreement?  Where are his lawyers telling him that this would be a dumb move?

A collective bargaining agreement will ultimate determine the full price of his security.  Since there is no agreement in place and he cannot predict the costs associated with these outcomes (especially since the museum is now in legal limbo with our city’s minimum wage law that is being championed by Councilman Wilson Goode, as reported on WHYY ) Mr. Rub should not sign anything more than the month-to-month arrangement currently in effect.

On February 11, Mr. Rub said that he was willing to pay what ever money was needed for security (fast forward to -26:00 minutes) .  However, if Mr. Rub is so willing and so neutral, then, he must know that when the union prevails, it will change his budget line item for security.

If Mr. Rub thinks that, as he said during this interview, that he is fine with the security that is provided by AlliedBarton, despite the fact that a majority of the guards report that they feel unprepared to do their job and that half of them haven’t been through a basic fire drill in over a year, then I guess we will leave that potential disaster to him.

However, if he is neutral and waiting for the NRLB, then how can he reward this company by locking them into a four year contract before either the NRLB overturns THEIR OWN RULING or before we have settled a collective bargaining agreement?

He can leave his most basic job of insuring patron and collection safety to the union, but he should be concerned that the museum is not realistically planning for present problems with their budget. Mr. Rub  has not planned for the predictable outcome that the PSOU will have a contract.

That contract will effect their bottom line.  Right now, it is impossible to say how much that will cost or how long it will take.  Ironically, finding himself in the same boat as us; unable to make plans for the future due to AlliedBarton’s stalling tactics.

In further news, I meet with two local entrepreneurs today who are excited about the idea of acquiring a $4.6 million dollar contract and working with the union to set a higher standard of training and worker management harmony in our city.

AlliedBarton employs 80% of our city’s core security market (core market = high profile, big dollar contracts).

AlliedBarton’s arrogance may cost them market dominance.

Every empire will some day crumble.

It was confirmed to me today that Mr. Rub never sent a letter about the union to AlliedBarton.  When directly asked whether he had sent a letter like the one presented to Councilman Greenlee, Mr. Rub said that he brought it up during a phone call.  It infuriates me that Timothy Rub would try to pull the wool over the eyes of our city leaders, the union and Philadelphia tax payers.

I feel bad that we proudly showed that letter to people who really care about the security guards.  I am embarrassed that we even wasted the paper to print it out.

Just a quick post on the Museum’s budget request hearing today.  I have a big foundation deadline tomorrow and it’s gonna be tight, but I wanted to be sure to give you the highlights.

Councilman Goode was the real show stopper today.  He asked a lot of tough questions.

His line of questioning began by a reference to the Philadelphia Minimum Wage ordinance, a bill that he crafted and passed.  The legislation states (roughly) that city related agencies, or institutions that get money from the city and that have 35 employees or more, have to pay 150% of state or federal minimum wage, depending on what is higher ($10.87/hour vs AlliedBartons $9.54 and $10.03).  The ordinance also mandates the employer to provide the same benefits package to employees as that of the lowest paid full time employee.  This provision applies to sub-contracted labor as well.

Museum CEO, Gail Harrity responded that the museums council has advised that the museum does not meet the designation that would require them to pay the Philadelphia Minimum Wage.

Councilman Goode also asked about the museum’s diversity program as it applies to sub-contracts.  Gail Harrity replied that the museum exceeds the levels required by the city with up to 40% of their sub-contracts in the hands of minority owned businesses.  However, if you excluded the construction companies, then they only have 20% of their sub-contracts in the hands of minorities.

Mrs. Harrity also made clear that the museum set the standard of 20% of non-construction sub-contracts to be given to minority or women owned firms, to be more inclusive.

The fact that the museum can set their own standards for the Requests for Proposals (RFP), is what Councilman Goode really latched onto.  He asked them, if they can set the standards for their sub-contractors, why will they not set a standard that makes sure that workers are treated fairly and at leasts meets the spirit of the Philadelphia Minimum Wage Ordinance?

Mr. Rub stammered a bit and didn’t answer the question directly.

Councilwoman Janie Blackwell weighed in saying that the museum should reach for a higher standard and should get rid of AlliedBarton.

Councilman Greenlee, who got the museum to sign a public statement stating that the company should “negotiate in good faith,” said that no one in our city should do business with AlliedBarton.

Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez was nice enough to ask Mr. Rub (who was originally heckling our activists) and Mrs. Harrity to look at the activists in the gallery.  Councilwoman Quionones-Sanchez pointed out a sign that stated that we, the activists, “Love The Museum.”  She said like us, she wanted the museum to do the right thing.

I wanted to point out a couple critical bits of information that we acquired during the hearing.

Mr. Rub testified that the AlliedBarton contract is now on a month to month basis.  That means that the museum can change the RFP to meet any standard that they choose.  Also, the contract is open to any other worker-friendly companies who are interested in taking on a $4.6 million contract.

Secondly, and this is important, Mr. Rub confirmed two of our main concerns.

When the museum issued their statement last week, we were worried that it is nothing more than an empty statement to appease Councilman William Greenlee.

There are two ways for us to assess the veracity of the museum statement concerning the union.  The very bottom end of the legitimacy scale has to be, “did the museum even actually tell AlliedBarton to negotiate?”

After the hearing, Ben Sears a reporter from the People’s World, asked Mr. Rub, to tel him what had he said to  AlliedBarton.  Mr. Rub said that the only statement that had been issued was that issued to Councilman Greenlee.  So, the museum did not even send the request to AlliedBarton.  They only sent their statement to Councilman Greenlee.

I have two more indications that this is what actually took place.

Eduardo and Duffy went and spread a hand bill at the museum. Herb Latier, a site boss of the museum, asked to see one.  When he read that the museum had asked AlliedBarton to negotiate with us, he was dumbstruck.  AlliedBarton bosses began screeching into the parking lot from all directions for an emergency meeting.

You would think that if Mr. Rub had actually told his sub-contractor to change their behavior, then AlliedBarton bosses probably would have known about it before we even did.  That clearly was not the case.

Another good measure of bullshit, is if you expect something to be carried out and the company in your employee defies that order, then, if you meant it, you would be ready to punish that employee.

When asked today if Mr. Rub was ready to demand that AlliedBarton withdraw their “request for review” a necessary step before negotiating, Mr. Rub said, “We are going to let the NRLB process carry out, however long it takes.”

I am surprised that Mr. Rub is wiling to be so disrespectful of Councilman Greenlee’s request.  Mr. Rub’s previous statement was meaningless.  He is not willing to back it up with real consequences or to even directly tell his sub-contractor to follow his decree.

These are tough days for all of Philadelphia.  Our city is forced to cut back in many different areas.

Working people will bear the brunt of these cutbacks, which may include paying for their trash collection, extra taxes on sugared beverages, and staffing shortages at libraries and public pools.

Philadelphia is a generous city.  Even during this decline, our city leaders continue to support the Philadelphia Museum of Art abundantly.  Although our city revenues have shrunk from the year before, the mayors proposed contribution to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 2010 did not waver from that of 2009.

Of the mayor’s proposed budget matches our support in all areas related to the museum from our support in 2008, we will contribute to the museum five buildings and land worth $171 million, $3.4 million for the museum’s electricity, and a further $2.3 million of our tax money as a direct contribution.

The museum is, by far, our city’s most supported non-profit institution garnering a staggering $176.5 million in tax payer resources.

Philadelphia loves our museum.

However, we are a working city and we love our workers too.  Sadly, the museum has forced us to choose between the museum we love and the well being of our own neighbors, the struggling workers of our city.

The 130 members Philadelphia Security Officers Union feel that, while the museum aids AlliedBarton in their blatant effort to forestall justice (and the correction of a historic wrong done to the people who guard the museum), the citizens of Philadelphia should not give the museum their expected direct cash contribution $2.3 million unless the museum recognizes the collective voice and rights of the workers that at this facility.

The security officers that protect the museum are proud to work there, but there jobs are not without risk.  According to the Department of Labor, private security is one of the most dangerous jobs in our nation.

Unfortunately, if ones paycheck is a sign of respect, the guards have been loosing ground for years.

Before the last recession in the early 1990’s, these guards were paid respectable wages.  Then, with the economic climate as a scapegoat, their jobs were privatized by the city government, transforming good jobs to jobs that paid poverty wages over night.

Since then, they have known poverty, homelessness, lack of access to quality health care, lack of respect on the job,inadequate training and few opportunities to professional advancement.

In 2007, a group of security guards at the museum, the Philadelphia Security Officers Union (PSOU), decided that a mediocre existence was no longer acceptable.  They blew the whistle on the poor treatment, training and working conditions.

By speaking out about public health issues, the PSOU forced the museum and their employer, AlliedBarton Security Services, to implement an modest paid sick leave policy, granting workers up to one day of paid sick leave per year, up to a total of three days.

Last year, the PSOU won an election to form a union, through the National Labor Relations Board process, on a platform of improving museum safety, security and enhancing wages and benefits.

The changes that the PSOU has proposed address real security, safety, and training shortfalls at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, short falls that present an imminent safety hazard at the museum.

During a press conference in February 2010, and in a letter to museum Director, Timothy Rub and city council, the PSOU revealed a study showing that

• 60% of the security guards feel inadequately trained to preform their job properly.
• There are no regular fire drills or annual refresher courses.
• There is 90% turnover rate of guards at the museum
• most of the museum guards lack the invaluable experience of  a long-serving security professional.

Despite this, the employer, AlliedBarton refuses to recognize the union and the PSOU’s safety enhancement  proposal.

The PSOU Program To Improve Safety At The Museum

• Improve public safety by making every newly hired employee have 3 days of mandatory training
• regularly scheduled fire drills for all shift
• bi-annual refresher courses
• offering enhanced training to include fire emergency, terrorism and violent incident response, health emergency and first responder training
• increase worker retention
• improve public health with adequate paid sick leave for guards

The PSOU’s concerns have resulted in other Pennsylvania institutions such as Swarthmore University and Northumberland County to question if AlliedBarton adheres to adequate training and workers rights standards.  In response to the study published by the Philadelphia Security Officers Union earlier this year (which the museum has chosen to ignore), the Northumberland County Commissioners put an expected $200,000 per year AlliedBarton contract on hold. Click here to see that the Northumblerland County Commissioners site our safety study to hold up the contract.

Museum of Art is a wealthy institution.  According to their 2007-2008 IRS 990, the museum had $147 million in revenue.

If our city did nothing more than donate the buildings, land, and utilities the museum would still be far and away our cities most generously supported entity receiving $174.4 million in waived rent and utility payments.  Our city’s direct cash contribution, which should be withheld this year unless the museum recognizes the voice and rights of the workers at the museum, accounts for approximately 2% of the museums total revenue.

Other City Services That Could Use $2.3 Million

• Our city has reduced the number of adult probation officers by 60 and adolescent probation officers by 50 since 2008
• The city has zeroed out the Housing Trust Fund by removing the expected $3 million dollar commitment
• Our library system lost $8 million dollars that has not been restored in the 2010 budget

Poor Men and Women In The Rich Man’s House

There are approximately 150 security guards at the museum.  The median wage for a full time security guard at the museum is only $17,500 per year.  This falls well below the federal poverty guidelines.

Full time security guards regularly face the hardships of poverty.

While the museum is housed free of charge in five city buildings, full time security guards suffer homelessness.

While the museum has its utilities paid by the city, the guards have their lights and heat turned off for their in ability to pay their bills.

While Museum leaders have great health care plans, the guards live with chronic health and dental problems and rely on emergency rooms for health care.

While the museum receives $2.3 million in tax money and their leaders earn three figure salaries, the guards receive poverty wages and supplement their incomes at times by borrowing money from family and friends.

Museum Director Claims “No Accountability and Neutrality”

The security guards have been advocating for positive changes at the museum since 2007.  Since that time, museum leaders have stated that they could play no part in making the improvements happen.

This claim that has been proven false time and time again.

In 2008, hundreds of Philadelphian’s spoke up with the security guards and demanded that the Philadelphia Museum of Art make their sub-contractor, AlliedBarton, give the guards up to three days of paid sick leave.  On Labor Day, the museum finally relented and made AlliedBarton give the workers sick leave, thus lowering the health risk to the viewing public by letting some take time off instead of forcing them to show up to work ill and contagious.

The museum proved (like Upenn, Temple and Drexel University had before them when their guards began organizing for sick days) that they can impose positive progress on their sub-contractor, AlliedBarton, with a simple phone call.  As the old saying goes, “the customer is always right.”

The guards were excited by this progress, however, they knew that they faced many more problems with training, safety standards, low wages, opportunities, benefits and working conditions.  They decided to continue to try to reform the Philadelphia Museum of Art for the benefit of the viewing public, the safety of the collections and the workers.

Over the next year, the PSOU and Jobs with Justice continued to agitate for improvements.  When their reasonable requests fell on deaf ears, they decided that they had only one option left: form a union and make the improvements happen at the museum through a legally-binding, collective bargaining agreement.

After the officers made their intention to form a union known, the museum’s public relations director, Norman Keyes, stated that the museum’s official position on the question of whether the guards should have a union was that the museum, “is neutral,” and that, “…we encourage all of our employees to take advantage of this opportunity to vote.” (emphasis added)

Every day that museum director, Timothy Rub, walks through the halls of the museum he walks past people who are not neutral about his well being and his safety.  The guards are responsible for him and the collections.  Their labor makes his success possible.  To claim that he is neutral to their suffering and not responsible for the people that make him prosperous is morally reprehensible.

“Then the LORD said Cain, “Where is your brother Able?” “I do not know.” Cain replied, “Am I my brothers keeper?” Genesis 4:9

Though, Mr. Keyes makes an attempt to position the museum as a neutral, even pro-democratic force, their actions actually show that the museum is playing an active, anti-worker role in countering the security guards effort to win reform.

Union activists are banished and spied on

After declaring their intent to form a union, AlliedBarton began holding employee-mandatory, anti-union meetings inside the museum auditorium.  The union activists requested the same access to the workers from the museum.  That request was denied.

During the election, the museum’s security camera’s were used to illegally spy on the security guard activists and there supporters.  Under sworn testimony, AlliedBarton officials stated that the video tapes were volunteered to them by the museum (the tapes were museum property).

AlliedBarton used this footage as their main “evidence” that community supporters of the union had tainted the election, with the hope that the labor board would over turn the election.  The National Labor Relations Board overruled the company’s claims.  In a clearly worded, 14 page finding the labor board declared the US Governments recognition of the PSOU and encouraged AlliedBarton to do the same.

At this point, you might expect the pro-democratic officials at the Philadelphia Museum of Art to line up with the union and begin planning needed changes.  Instead, museum officials are now supporting AlliedBarton’s second round of objections (on the exact same grounds as the first) by hiding behind “neutrality.”

The museum’s inaction is enabling AlliedBarton’s frivolous, legal, foot-dragging, a process that may take years to complete.

The museum wasn’t “neutral” when it let AlliedBarton carry out it’s union busting campaign inside the building.  The museum wasn’t “neutral” when they volunteered their security tapes to AlliedBarton.    The museum wasn’t “neutral” toward AlliedBarton when they accepted the company’s $15,000 per year donation.  The museum wasn’t “neutral” when they encouraged workers to vote.  The museum is not being “neutral” when they don’t make AlliedBarton accept the results of that vote.  The museum isn’t “neutral”  about working with the union to enhance museum security.

The museum is not neutral.

The museum is helping AlliedBarton in their effort to destroy the Philadelphia Security Officers Union and they are using your tax money to do it.

To Whom Much Is Given, Much Shall Be Expected

The security officers at the Philadelphia Museum of Art love the museum and their jobs.  They have struggled over the last 4 years to improve the museum and museum safety by enhancing training standards, lowering worker turn over and improving wages and benefits.

The PSOU has documented real health and safety issues at the museum, safety issues that have other customers to decline business with the company.

Despite the mounting evidence against AlliedBarton’s safety, training and labor standards, the museum leaders continue to claim that they are “not-responsible” and “neutral.”

We give so much to the museum in donated land, buildings, utilities and in money; money that at this time could be used to help so many in need, should we not anticipate better for our money?

Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke 12:48, “But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.”

The guards at the museum have been entrusted with much and they are trying to do every thing they can to make the museum a better, safer place.  The museum leaders, on the other hand, are given much, yet they fail to do make the smallest effort to help these workers.  In fact, their “neutrality” inhibits progress and enables AlliedBarton to mistreat the workers.

The museum leaders have failed to do what is required.

Philadelphia tax payers should now be prepared to do what is required of us.

We should not allow our tax dollars to go to support the museum while they pay poverty level wages to their security guards or any of their workers.

In 2010, the people of Philadelphia should demand that city council not give the museum the $2.3 million dollars outlined in the mayors proposed budget while the voice of the workers is being ignored.

This contribution of $2.3 million only represents about 2% of the museum’s budget but it will send a clear message, “institutions that are generously supported by tax payers are expected to treat workers fairly.”

Take action by calling your city council representative today (find there phone numbers here http://www.phila.gov/cityCouncil/CouncilMembers.html ) and tell them to vote for “No Money For The Museum Unless They Recognize The Voice Of Their Workers.”

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Dante