Chicago’s human service providers may soon be required to sign “labor peace agreements” that allow their employees to join unions, in order to qualify for millions of dollars in city grants — even if the mandate jeopardizes the level of service.
Two City Council committees — Workforce Development and Health and Human Relations — voted 24-to-5 Tuesday to impose that requirement on social services providers with 20 or more employees. That sets the stage for a full Council vote on Wednesday.
The lopsided vote came after a spirited two-hour debate featuring dire warnings of vital services that could be diminished or eliminated if unionization ultimately results in higher wages for a workforce dominated by women of color.
A labor peace agreement does not trigger unionization. It simply gives employees the opportunity to organize and join unions if they choose, without fear of retaliation. In exchange, labor organizations generally agree not to engage in work stoppages, boycotts or other job actions.
Even so, the mere threat of higher costs was enough to scare human services providers and their champions.
Jack Lavin, president of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, went so far as to warn that human services taxed to the limit during the pandemic would be “devastated” and “crippled” by the requirement. Some organizations that “support our most vulnerable populations” will be forced to “eliminate jobs or close their doors entirely,” he said.
“For those non-profits with large enough budgets, they will simply elect not to offer these services in the city rather than cave to outside demands of these labor organizations,” Lavin said, echoing a warning last month from Cardinal Blasé Cupich, archbishop of Chicago.
“And for those smaller non-profits that depend on city funding, they will simply fold up altogether as a result of forced operational costs they simply can’t sustain. … The pandemic brought our city’s care and social services to the breaking point. Inflation has only exacerbated the under-funding of these organizations. Labor and workforce shortages are rampant. This ordinance would be the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
For Lavin, the argument is personal. He has a child with “intellectual disabilities.”
“I can say first-hand that this would be a devastating blow to families like mine all across the city,” he said.
Chicago Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady said she, too, is “worried about disruption in essential health and human services” because of the “unintended consequences” of a “well-intentioned” ordinance.
“We partner with a lot of organizations that help provide essential services to the most vulnerable Chicagoans. We do a whole lot of work — whether that’s housing and support services, whether that’s drug overdose prevention and street outreach,” Arwady said.
“I am concerned that disruption in these services — either because organizations decide they can’t contract with us … or just delays while organizations are working to understand this process — could de-stabilize those efforts. We want to make sure people can get services that are affordable and near their homes. … This may be a worthy administrative burden that it adds. But it nevertheless increases the burden.”
Workforce Development Chair Susan Sadlowski Garza (10th) noted the labor peace ordinance was the product of a “three-year process” with no fewer than “five listening sessions.”
When Arwady asked that the ordinance be held in committee with no vote taken, Garza shut the commissioner down cold.
“If you haven’t seen this ordinance in three years, then shame on this [Lightfoot] administration for not bringing it to you and talking to you,” the retiring Garza said.
“You can’t figure out a budget for this because a labor peace agreement has no budget. … We don’t even know if every organization is gonna choose to organize. So this whole premise that this is gonna put people out of business and cut programs and all that stuff — we have no idea who’s even gonna take advantage of a labor peace agreement.”
Chicago Federation of Labor President Bob Reiter accused social service providers of attempting to “run out the clock.”
Delaying the vote “isn’t gonna change anything,” he said. “The world is not gonna come to an end when we pass this ordinance. What’s gonna happen is that workers are gonna have a fair shot at having representation at these agencies without being subject to anti-union attacks funded by public monies.”
