ST. LOUIS — Marvin King sat back in his couch with his arm leaning against a cane.
He was speaking via Zoom to a committee of the ºüÀêÊÓƵ Board of Aldermen in support of by Alderman Shameem Clark-Hubbard. The resolution supports the janitorial workers in the courthouses downtown that are part of the 22nd Circuit Court.
King, who is disabled, used to be one of those workers. He got fired, he believes, for union organizing.
“Every time I turned around, my supervisors would tell me I couldn’t be talking about the union,†he told the aldermen.
I wrote about King last year after he got fired. The state of Missouri wouldn’t pay him unemployment. That’s because the company that provides janitorial services to the courts, Alton, Ill.-based Challenge Unlimited Inc., treats its disabled employees differently than its non-disabled employees. The company, which is organized as a nonprofit, calls workers like King “clients,†under a Missouri law that is designed to encourage companies to hire disabled workers.
People are also reading…
The law is mostly applied to the sheltered workshops in the state. It allows companies to not pay into the unemployment system, as long as they are also providing training and rehabilitation services to disabled employees.
King told me last year, and repeated to the aldermen on Wednesday, that Challenge Unlimited provided no such services. That means the disabled workers were doing the same work as other janitors, without any rehabilitation services, and being treated differently because they didn’t qualify for unemployment benefits. The disabled “clients†even had their own handbook, with a different set of rules.
Several organizations — the Service Employees International Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund — have been trying to pressure the courts and city leaders to cancel the contract with Challenge Unlimited or force the company to stop discriminating against disabled employees.
“The disabled workers are doing exactly the same job but they are not getting the same compensation,†Claudia Center, the legal director for the disability rights organization told the committee. “Because this form of disability discrimination is so overt, it definitely is appropriate for you all to direct to the court that its expenditures on contracts should comply with these basic laws.â€
The question for city officials is who has the power to do something about the problem? Challenge Unlimited has denied it is doing anything inappropriate. The court has said it doesn’t have the power to investigate the complaints about its contract. The office of Mayor Tishaura O. Jones has said the city doesn’t have the ability to do anything about a contract with the courts.
So the various advocates found themselves in front of the committee of the Board of Aldermen, telling King’s story and asking for help. They found sympathetic ears.
“There’s definitely something fishy going on here,†said Alderman Annie Rice.
“It’s getting me mad, just listening to it,†said Alderman Michael Gras.
“Why do we still have this contract?†asked Alderman Bill Stephens.
“It’s a really shameful practice,†said Alderman Cara Spencer, the committee chairman.
King is still unemployed, but perhaps the pressure applied will help him and fellow disabled workers. The committee passed the resolution 6-0. It is on the agenda for the full Board of Aldermen on Friday.
If passed, it will at least send a message. Challenge Unlimited’s contract runs out June 30. The court is in the process of sending out bids for the next contract.
In a statement, Jones spokesman Nick Desideri said the mayor supports the workers’ efforts to unionize. “Any contractor the court selects to clean its facilities must respect the fundamental rights of its workers,†Desideri said.
King may not be able to return to work at the courthouse, depending on what happens with the contract. The 62-year-old Army veteran has had a variety of health issues in the past few years. But he hopes his former co-workers end up getting a contract that treats them fairly. The organizations fighting for him want more than that. They want back pay for the unemployment benefits that King didn’t receive. They want Challenge Unlimited to stop treating disabled workers differently.
And they want somebody at the courts to take responsibility for a contract that follows state law. “I’m ashamed that our tax dollars are paying for a contract that fails to protect workers equally,†Spencer says.
She’s not alone. But will anybody do anything about it?
King awaits an answer.