trojan
Volume LXXXVIII, Number 57
University of Southern California
Friday, May 2 1980
Parking attendants to decide union issue in June
By Nancy Harlow
Staff Writer
As a result of a list of grievances submitted by university parking lot attendants against the school, lot attendants and the university have agreed on June 6 as the date to hold elections deciding whether they will join the Teamsters Union.
Lee Kincaide, a spokesman for the attendants, said after the grievances had been aired at a meeting held Feb. 21, relations between the workers and their administrators were better.
"They have cooperated pretty well," Kincaide said.
Some of the complaints were: poor working conditions, low pay, no cost of living increases and poor communications between administration and workers. Carl Levredge, director of Security and Parking Operations, had admitted that the attendants were paid "considerably less" than elsewhere.
After several meetings between parking operations and the attendants Kincaide feels optimistic about the resolution
Workers complain of low pay, poor communication
of differences. "It's going to work out," he said.
On March 21, university and Teamsters Union attorneys, and representatives from the National Labor Relations Board, met to submit a date to hold union elections. April 15, a 45-minute hearing was held at
on Wilshire Boulevard and the date of June 6, was chosen for elections. Kincaide said May 30, had been proposed for the election date, but this conflicted with graduation.
Kincaide said other meetings have been held. On April 21, attendants and administrators
salary increase, and hiring a training consultant. Kincaide described it as "A very cordial meeting."
April 28, a meeting was held to discuss the problem of gate-running. Kincaide said students demand to be admitted to the campus without paying for
Labor Relations headquarters met to discuss getting an 11% parking and they often almost
Commission grants $4.6 million aid package to delay RTD fare increase
By Kathy McDonald
Staff Writer
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission voted Wednesday to authorize a $4.6 million emergency subsidy for the Southern California Rapid Transit District, to delay implementation of a much-criticized fare change that was supposed to take effect Thursday.
The commission told RTD directors they understood that inflation and a $32-million deficit required more revenue, but "you stuck it to the people who can least afford it."
The controversial fare changes included a $10 increase in regular bus pass prices, a substantial increase in fares for the elderly and handicapped
during what RTD labels "peak hours" and the elimination of college students passes and transfer sales.
Most of the protest came from elderly citizens, said Alan Komfeld, director of the Travel Service. "They are the ones really responsible for the rollback."
The subsidy is to be drawn from a federal reserve fund for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends June 30. The return to the previous prices is temporary, and an increase is likely to occur at the beginning of July, Komfeld said.
The money — 87% of $16.9 million in federal
(Continued on page 7)
run over attendants attempting to get in. He said University Security was cooperating to help curb this problem.
Administrators also urged attendants to vote in the upcoming union elections, and Olin Hall was discussed as first choice for the location of the elections, Kincaide said.
Kincaide said that although the tense situation between parking attendants and administrators had been somewhat alleviated, he hoped attendants would still vote to unionize.
"I think the union and the school can benefit from the union shop," he said.
Kincaide said he personally campaigns for unionization in his spare time. He said he feels the longer the university is able to postpone elections, the less interest there will be to unionize.
"A lot of people are not interested. If elections had been held in April, it would have been overwhelming," he said. "The longer things linger on, then a lot of people forget about it. They forget to vote.")
Mandatory bomb threat evacuation policy revised
By Galen Gruman
Staff Writer
Students in residence halls will no longer be evacuated when bomb threats are made except when there is concern that the threat is real. Students will be notified of any threats and advised to leave the residences.
Student demands that evacuation not be mandatory resulted in the change in policy Thursday.
A number of students from Marks Tower and other resi-
dence halls voiced their demands to James Appleton, vice president of student affairs, this week. Others have expressed their concern to security officers when evacuations have been made.
There have been approximately 50 threats within the past three months, possibly more than the total received in the past four years, said Steve Ward, chief of University Security.
The action was taken in conjunction with the Office of Res-
idential Life, the Housing Office and University Security. The policy of mandatory evacuations for residence hall threats was instated this school year.
Students have complained about having to leave their dorms at night because of the false threats. There is a potential for violence because of growing student resistance to the evacuations, Ward said.
Each threat will be assessed independently, Ward said. Many of the threats have been
made on Wednesdays and Thursdays, causing students to ignore any possible danger because of the pattern.
If a threat is judged to be out of the ordinary or credible, the evacuation will be mandatory. Students not evacuating the building could be carried out but this is unlikely, Ward said. The Office of Residential Life could take action against them because the housing contracts put the students' safety in the hands of the university.
Classroom buildings have fol-
lowed the optional policy because signs can be posted and people easily evacuated. In residence halls, people "are in the various states of undressing or asleep" and cannot be as easily evacuated, Ward said. Posting notices at night would not be of much use because people are in the building and would not see them, he said.
Bomb threat policy has "always been more conservative" because of these problems, he said.
(Continued on page 3)