Washington University faculty members have shown mixed reactions to a recently circulated letter asking for support for the Student Worker Alliance’s living wage campaign.
The letter, signed by four University professors, urged the rest of the faculty to add their names to the petition so that the Student Worker Alliance (SWA) can “present [the list] as evidence of growing sentiment [at the University] in favor of just, fair treatment of all those who work on our campus, whether directly hired or employed by a service contractor.”
History Professor Howard Brick is one faculty member who signed the letter. While Brick has no official affiliation with the SWA, he feels it is important that both he and the rest of the faculty lend them support.
“These are issues for the University community at large,” said Brick. “[The] faculty [has] a role to play and positions to take on issues such as justice and fairness. The letter is intended to make faculty aware of the issues of subcontracted work conditions. From here, the faculty can become more involved to take other measures. They can play a role in future, [doing] whatever is necessary until the administration pays attention.”
As of Wednesday afternoon, the letter had received 30 signatures of support. Garland Allen, a biology professor, was another faculty member who added his name to the SWA’s list.
“Why wouldn’t anybody support [a campaign for a living wage]?” said Allen. “The whole idea of a living wage is pretty critical. Any university that has this much money cannot…say it’s not the University’s responsibility because of outsourcing. How could we not support the people who play such an important role? It always bothers me when people making $70,000 or $80,000 are so swift to tell other people that they don’t deserve these wages.”
Allen noted that our campus would not be the first to enforce a living wage. Schools such as Saint Louis University, Wesleyan University and Harvard University have recently done so.
“We can’t hide behind the fact that there is no precedent,” said Allen. “St. Louis [University] has a living wage ordinance. Even if we are not obliged to follow it, I can’t imagine how anyone with good conscience couldn’t. We hold the trump card with these employers. We can tell a company we won’t hire them if they don’t support a living wage.”
Not all faculty members are so adamant about benefits of the proposed actions. Andrew Rehfeld, assistant professor of political science, is undecided about whether he will sign the letter or not. His main concerns stem from the public policy aspects of the situation.
“What [the SWA is] looking at as the big issue isn’t the big issue,” said Rehfeld. “We ought to live in a society where everyone has basic needs met-basic housing, basic food and basic health care. The problem stems from how you achieve that.”
Rehfeld offered the hypothetical situation of a company with a labor budget of $100 per hour that’s given the option of employing 10 workers for $10 each or 5 workers for $20 each. While the workers in the second situation would receive greater benefit for their work, five other workers would receive nothing.
“It’s not clear which situation we are dealing with,” said Rehfeld. “I don’t want to deny people work who are willing to work at the cost of paying for others.”