In a recent editorial concerning the proposed construction of a domed facility in Chicago, the Tribune called on the state legislature to “reform . . . union work rules at the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition authority (which operates) McCormick Place and, presumably, would build and operate McDome.”
This “call to action” comes on the heels of the controversy over recent false allegations that it is McCormick Place’s union workforce that has driven major trade shows away from the city in the last several years. What many have conveniently failed to remember is that there were drastic work rules changes at McCormick Place in 1991. The economic benefits of these changes were never passed on to the exhibitors at the arena. Instead, the contractors ate the profits and continue to make labor the scapegoat for McCormick Place’s woes.
A collective bargaining agreement, such as that which exists between labor and the contractors who set up and service the trade shows at McCormick Place, calls for the employer and the union to meet and bargain in good faith concerning wages, hours and other terms of employment. Workers have a right to appoint a union to represent their interests and to try to negotiate the best terms of employment possible. Companies have a right to sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate for what is in their best long-term interests. It is through this process that reasonable concessions are made on both sides to insure that workers and management share in the profits and prosper proportionately.
For the Illinois legislature to step in and ram work rule changes down the throats of the working men and women at McCormick Place (and possibly McDome) completely undermines this democratic process and weights the negotiating process in favor of the contractors. If there are problems at McCormick Place that make the venue less attractive and less profitable than it should be, labor is more than willing to roll up its sleeves and do what we can to improve the situation.
But that does not include lying down and allowing the collective bargaining rights of our members to be trampled on. There is an agreement that calls for negotiations over work rule changes. Why don’t the legislators limit the amount a contractor can “mark up” their contract? If the state legislature is so willing to limit the profits afforded to working men and women, they should be willing to limit those of the contractors in the same way.
Let’s sit down and deal with the real problems at McCormick Place–which have as much, if not more, to do with contractors’ management as they have to do with union members. In fact, a study of McCormick Place by Roosevelt University detailed 15 pages of problems associated with contractors and the building management while one paragraph was devoted to labor.
I hope that we can all move beyond the media frenzy and see the real issues involved with McCormick Place. We should follow the Tribune’s prescription for the legislature and move beyond the “habit of laying blame and taking credit.” Only then will we find solutions to our common problems.
