Dining service workers have expressed frustration with the new dining service company’s systems and communication (Elle Su | Student Life).

Washington University’s dining services underwent a number of changes over winter break that many dining workers have said were not communicated well and made their work more difficult. The changes included an unexpected shift rebidding process and alterations to workers’ job descriptions.

WashU transitioned its dining service provider to Sodexo at the start of the 2023-2024 school year. Andrew Watling, Director of Dining Services, said Sodexo did not finish setting everything up before the school year began. Sodexo then took advantage of the time off over break to make changes to its operations.

Watling also explained that once Dining Services readjusted the times of the shifts and changed some of the position descriptions, the dining employees had to rebid for their shifts during the second semester. 

During bidding, dining workers rank their top three preferred shifts and also indicate which job they want. The bidding is done in order of seniority, so the workers who have been with dining services the longest submit for their preferred shifts the earliest.      

In past years, the workers bid once in August and then kept the same shift for the entirety of the school year. According to Sodexo, employees received a written notification that there would be another rebidding process on Dec. 4, and the rebidding began on Dec. 11.

When the rebidding process happened over winter break, the workers were familiar with the process itself but were confused about why they needed to rebid. 

David Cook is the President of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 — the union that has represented WashU’s dining workers — for a number of years. He experienced the confusion from the dining employees about the rebidding process. 

“There was not an aspect of the bidding that was good,” Cook said. “From any standpoint, in our view, it was a nightmare. From the rollout, the explanation, the implementation, every aspect of the rebidding we deem as flawed. There wasn’t any clarity.” 

Cook went on to say that many employees have come to the union to express frustrations with the jobs they were placed into after the break.  

“The reason that the staff are so frustrated is because they didn’t know what they were supposed to be bidding on,” he said. “And then you end up with a whole lot of people in jobs that the company is saying they bid on, but they didn’t have the understanding of what the jobs they bid on entailed.”

A longtime dining employee at the DUC, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of professional consequences, described their confusion and frustration with how unexpected and unclear the rebidding process was for the workers, especially with how the position descriptions were different.  

“They did not explain any of it,” they said. “When we were looking at the positions, we didn’t know what to pick. I’m a cashier, but there were no cashier positions. So I was like, ‘We either got to take something or not have a job.’” 

Another employee at Bear’s Den (BD), who also asked to remain anonymous for fear of professional consequences, said a fellow worker left WashU because they did not have enough seniority to bid on their shift early. This led to them getting a shift when they are supposed to be taking their children to and from school. 

Watling said the rebidding process was necessary since dining services had a lot of people working during less busy hours. He said they changed the hours of the employee’s shifts so  fewer employees were working during the slow times.  

Watling also said that communication throughout the rebidding process was his paramount concern. 

“I think we always hear feedback anytime somebody doesn’t get exactly what they were hoping for,” Watling said. “Our biggest concern was just to make sure that the process was communicated and that everybody understood what was happening.” 

Cook, in addition to numerous dining employees in BD and the DUC, said there was a communication failure between lower-level management, the people directly overseeing dining workers, and the dining staff during the rebidding process.

He said that the union has good communication with higher-level Sodexo management but struggles in communicating with lower-level management. 

“I don’t think that the communication today between Sodexo’s lower-level management and its employees is at a good level,” Cook said. “What we have seen with Sodexo is that there’s just not always good quality training of those lower-level management people and those are the ones that have the most day-to-day interaction with the dining workers.”  

One employee at the DUC said they asked their manager about the reasons behind the rebidding process and the manager could not provide an answer.

“I asked her, ‘Why aren’t we in the same positions?’ but they don’t know what to say, they don’t know how to explain it,” the employee said. “It makes us feel like they don’t even care since they can’t give us a valid answer.”

Another worker, who also wished to remain anonymous, said they think the workers are blamed for issues that stem from high turnover and a lack of knowledge on management’s behalf. 

“If you look at the management of Sodexo you will see that it changes so fast,” they said. “That’s because they don’t really listen to what’s going on with the staff. Like management will over-order or under-order certain foods, and workers will try to give feedback [about how much food should be ordered] that they don’t listen to. The real problem is at the top.”

One notable controversy between management and employees occurred when dining services stopped letting cashiers use their chairs in BD at the end of January to “meet service needs.” When WashU students heard that the cashiers would no longer be able to sit down, they petitioned the University which resulted in all of the chairs being returned by Feb 1.

A few days later, WashU Dining Services released a letter addressed to the WashU community responding to the chair controversy and explaining why the rebidding process was necessary. An anonymous dining worker said that the dining staff did not receive the letter. 

The letter said that “over the winter break, WashU Dining Services and Sodexo underwent changes with a focus on maximizing efficiency and utilizing staff resources effectively. As such, we reimagined current positions to align them to operational goals and service needs.”

Cook said that the language in the letter came across as devaluing the dining service workers.

“Those are very concerning terms,” Cook said. “When a person in my position hears language like that, I hear ‘we are looking at the bottom line more than services or people.’” 

He also addressed students’ advocacy on behalf of the dining staff. 

“Throughout our entire time working with the workers, the WashU students have been some of the best advocates for workers’ rights, and we appreciate that,” Cook said.

Additional reporting by Zachary Trabitz, Investigative News Editor