By SHANNON O. WELLS and SUSAN JONES

Soon after being informed about the Recreation and Wellness Center fee schedule posted on the Human Resources website, Patrick Hughes said while he’s “not surprised” by the membership model for facility access, he’s also “disappointed and increasingly indignant about the whole thing.”

Since the Bellefield Hall pool closed and access to the Trees Hall pool was eliminated for faculty and staff last summer, Hughes, interim director of the National Consortium for Teaching About Asia Pittsburgh National Coordinating Site in the University Center for International Studies, has gone from swimming several days a week at Bellefield Hall to not swimming at all for months now. 

“Pitt has now narrowed down the ‘alternatives’ for the sake of revenue generation,” he said on Oct. 23. 

Hughes was among several employees and campus entities who reacted with mixed feelings to the announcement HR posted quietly — and not widely distributed to employees —the week of Oct. 13. 

Staff Council, after learning about the HR fee schedule, said in a statement it was glad “to hear of the long-awaited announcement” about access for employees — which will cost $35 monthly for those making less than $50,000 and $45 for everyone else.

“We appreciate the tiered cost structure in an attempt to make access more affordable for those on the lower end of the pay scale,” the statement said, although leadership said they remain disappointed there are now no free gym or pool options.

“Staff Council have been advocating for affordable rec center access since 2022,” the group said. “Our hope is that the announcement will be more broadly communicated from the University directly to all employees, as we have received many questions regarding access over the past several years.”

The staff advocacy group also said it hopes additional access models — such as summer memberships or day passes — might be considered in addition to the monthly membership, particularly given the “strong focus on wellness across campus and embedded into the Plan for Pitt. … While we recognize that students are the primary users of the new center, perhaps there are additional opportunities that could be explored.”

A group of six Pitt employees who emailed the the University Times before the announcement said they’re aware some other schools charge staff a fee for gym access, but “it’s disappointing that a fee has been proposed for what was once a free, longstanding benefit of working for the University of Pittsburgh.”

Even if the statistic that “fewer than 3% of eligible faculty and staff used these facilities in the past year” is correct, they said, that’s still more than 450 people “who were using the available facilities and have felt the loss of this accommodation as all of the Pitt gyms closed.”

The letter went on to say: “It’s also topical to note the circumstances from which this statistic arose: Trees and Bellefield Halls, the smallest of Pitt’s recreation centers and the only ones staff could use, often had broken equipment and restricted access to facilities. The state of these gyms, especially compared to the expansive Baierl Recreation Center and the new (rec center), disincentivized and prohibited staff from utilizing these facilities.

Competitive price?

Hughes took issue with the HR statement that the membership fee is “competitive with private fitness and recreation facilities.”

“Perhaps they actually mean ‘comparable to’? The most ‘competitive’ pricing would be no cost,” he observed, adding that the issue at stake is “not how much should we be charged,” but rather a “matter of principle that what was once one of the major perks of working for the University is being stripped away.”

Staff Council noted that for those enrolled in the UPMC Health Plan and who are looking for options that are more cost-effective or closer to home, the Active and Fit memberships, which can be used at a variety of gyms, are only $28 per month.

Hughes said he considers the new membership fee to be a “pay cut,” as he will now be charged more than $500 per year for something — specifically a lap swimming pool — that he used previously at Trees and Bellefield at no cost. He also took issue with a statement on the HR site that says the Rec and Wellness Center “adds a new alternative to the existing on-campus facilities.”

Prior to this past summer, the University offered three options for indoor swimming on campus: purchasing a membership at the University Club, and free access to Trees and Bellefield.

“Now all the ‘alternatives’ come at a cost,” he said, referring to a membership at the Rec and Wellness Center or University Club, or joining — at cost — the Pittsburgh Elite Aquatics swimming program at Trees Hall.

Noting that the aquatics program is not affiliated with Pitt, but is rather a 501(c)(3) corporation governed by a parents-run board of directors, Hughes said to use the Trees pool for what he called “very limited hours” — 5:30 to 7 p.m. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and 5:30 to 7 a.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays — would require joining a separate organization “that is for coaches and swim teams for non-Pitt groups.”

“Pitt is monetizing Trees pool for non-Pitt people at the expense of those of us who are actually a part of the Pitt community,” he said of faculty and staff. 

Also, as a daily bike commuter, Hughes said he’s also concerned about access to on-campus showering facilities. 

“Pitt talks a good game about encouraging alternative modes of transportation to campus and about valuing the health and wellness of its faculty and staff,” he noted. “This is undercut by now having facilities that one must pay for, if for nothing more than just getting a shower when arriving to work.” 

Hughes said he also would like some clarity from HR about whether family members will be included as part of a faculty/staff Rec and Wellness Center membership, noting that “generations of children of faculty and staff — myself included — learned to swim at Trees pool.”

While praising the positive investment the Rec and Wellness Center represents to Pitt, Tomas Matza — associate professor in the Department of Anthropology, who calls himself a “longtime user” of the Trees Hall pool — also expressed disappointment in the recent, quietly unveiled fee structure.

“Pitt has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on the Recreation and Wellness Center. The investment in our students is wonderful,” he said. “However, the new fee structure for faculty/staff that has followed amounts to a lost wellness benefit for us. Why?”

Noting that the rates “seem competitive” with other fitness centers in Pittsburgh, he also asked, “Is the University running a private fitness center, or a resource for its community?”

Matza said he’s “not sure” whether he’ll become a Rec and Wellness Center member or look for other fitness alternatives around the city.

“I’m not eager to pay for something that used to be provided to those many of us dedicated to Pitt students. On the other hand, the alternative of cutting my on-campus exercise from twice a week to zero is a concern for my wellness.”

Union group excluded

The membership model currently also leaves out thousands of staff who are in the USW bargaining unit until a fee structure is agreed upon during collective bargaining.

Hughes said he believes the final line of the HR site statement on facility fees, which “explicitly states that staff represented by the union will not be able to purchase a (Rec and Wellness Center) membership until an agreement with the union has been reached,” shows that the membership fee is “part of a larger strategy by the administration to disincentivize union membership.”

“This would never have become an issue if the University had not monetized its recreation facilities by eliminating all free-access alternatives,” he noted. 

In August, Jennifer Goeckeler-Fried, chair of the staff union bargaining committee and a lab manager and research specialist in the Department of Biological Sciences, said, “It’s disappointing that Pitt has decommissioned all the exercise facilities that staff could use for free on campus and is now expecting us to pay fees that in some cases have a higher cost per month than a lot of local gyms do. That’s not much of a commitment to wellness.”

Negotiations continue with the union on this and other issues.

Shannon O. Wells is a writer for the University Times. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu. Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.

 

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Twitter and Facebook.