Kansas City News Blog

​In June 2008, the Section 8 workers at the Housing Authority of Kansas City voted overwhelmingly to join the Service Employees International Union.

More than a year later, they still don't have a contract.

Yesterday, Section 8 workers and supporters gathered outside the HAKC office, accusing the housing authority of bargaining in bad faith and using federal tax dollars to bust their union. 

​

Three years ago, Andy Hynds (far left) became a Section 8 employee, working with Kansas City landlords and residents to administer the federal voucher program that subsidizes rent for low-income families. But, he says, the 50-person staff was struggling with constant structural changes, rising health-care insurance premiums and low wages.

"One individual, her monthly prescriptions went from $15 to $120," Hynds says. "When you work for a program and make so little you qualify for that program, you can't afford that."

In February 2008, Hynds reached out to SEIU Local 2000 to help organize the workers and last summer, the employees voted 44-2 in favor of the union. But they're still fighting for a contract with HAKC. "For 44 people, an entire shop, to say this is what we want and be stonewalled for a year is amazing," Hynds says.

Sterling Brown, an organizer with SEIU, says the union presented a 56-page proposal to HAKC director Edwin Lowndes, addressing everything from wages to health care, in March. But HAKC officials refused to come up with a counter-proposal, Brown says, instead coming to the table only to "meet and confer" with the union reps. In July, the two sides met with a federal mediator, but still didn't make any progress.

"If that's not bargaining in bad faith, I don't know what is," Brown says of the HAKC.

Lowndes has a different version of events. "We've met with their representative at least four or five times, including once with a mediator, and with the federal mediator, the employees' representative actually walked out of meeting before we started," Lowndes says. "But we've been coming to the table in good faith."

"What we've discussed is, by law, we're not require to enter into a contract," he adds. "We can talk about conditions of employment and we have countered back and discussed a number of provisions. But we've pointed out in their very contract, there are a number of problems. One of them is reducing some of the benefits currently provided to employees. We've pointed out a number of errors in their piece that they have yet to correct. But we continue to be available to negotiate."

But, at this point, no future meetings have been scheduled.