As an “associate” for Dartmouth Dining Services (DDS), I must attend a mandatory scheduling meeting each term. However, this January, it was not just a scheduling meeting, but a 30-minute propaganda session led by the Student Worker Collective at Dartmouth (SWCD). The union was not simply there to brag about previous contract wins. Rather, it was an opportunity for them to let us know what their future goals would be. An email sent out shortly after confirmed their priorities: (1) a “$23 Base Pay,” (2) “Expanded Benefits – more PTO and mental health hours,” (3) “Job Security – against automation,” (4) “Cops Off Campus,” and (5) “[Sourcing] Locally.”
A $23 base pay might sound great, but what supporters of the SWCD don’t tend to understand is that we are also consumers in the Dartmouth community. In this case, we provide funding for DDS via tuition and meal plans. Raising this wage will make things more expensive, and, for many of us, exponentially (with interest factored in). We also expect more money, and for what? The custodial staff at Dartmouth have a base pay of just over $23 an hour. The student union is fighting for our already great wages to be increased even further. If anyone is going to have their wages increased (which will drive up our costs in attending this institution), it should be the hard-working custodial staff – who must feed their families – not the spoiled Ivy League children who want more spending money.
I am also flattered that the union recognizes my need to take frequent mental health breaks. In such an oppressive society that requires one to have to work to enjoy prosperity, it takes a toll on one’s soul. I’m also not quite sure what they mean when they wish for DDS to “source locally.” Do they want them to continue to source locally? Because the organization is already doing an incredible job at doing so.
One thing that is particularly interesting is the union’s effort to get cops off campus. As shown in a recent Instagram post by the SWCD concerning our contract renewal this spring, they are accusing the school of “[threatening] to roll back our raise,” “[automating] our jobs,” and “[threatening to] comply with ICE and HPD in legal matters concerning UGAs and DDS workers.” They also accuse Dartmouth of working with an “infamous anti-abortion, neo-conservative law firm,” Jackson Lewis. Through some investigative journalism, I was able to find a member of the Dartmouth legal team – who asked to remain anonymous – but who was kindly willing to answer some of my questions regarding the legitimacy of these claims.
While Dartmouth is simply choosing to use a law firm that specializes in labor and employment law during a labor and employment contract negotiation, the SWCD is quick to attack the school with unfounded political insults. In fact, as I recently learned, this is about the only tactic the union has. I’m not sure where all the union dues are going, but, apparently, the SWCD does not even have an attorney. It is legitimately a bunch of spoiled Ivy League children yelling at lawyers and school officials with ridiculous demands like “cops off campus.”
While the majority of students don’t want cops off campus because they don’t wish to live in an anarchist society, the SWCD accused the college of threatening to comply with federal immigration and the Hanover Police Department to detain undocumented workers. There is no “if” to this apparent threat. Meaning, there is no explanation provided as to why this threat is supposedly being made in the first place. In reality, the people making threats are not the accomplished lawyers or civilized adults, but rather the entitled union representatives. The man I spoke with from Dartmouth legal told me that this is a complete lie.
The college will not and does not open its doors to law enforcement in this manner unless under a necessary legal obligation (of which there is none right now). And why would they? Don’t just trust me, but ponder it. Why would they want fewer workers? So that they can replace them and pay more as a result of an immediate necessity to fill positions? Not only is the union lying, but they do so poorly, accusing the college of being cheap, oppressive, etc., and then accusing them of wanting to take actions that go counter to those principles.
The SWCC is also claiming that the school is “[threatening] to roll back our raise.” When they say “raise,” do they mean to say that they are threatening not to go along with another increase in pay to $23 an hour? Or do they mean that the school is threatening to roll back the $21 an hour base pay? It is not the latter; that would be a lie. Perhaps they mean to say that the school might not agree to the proposed new pay. I hope that there is bargaining and an eventual deal that comes with this discourse. I hope that the two groups can talk through their differences and come to an agreement regarding the $21 or $23 an hour pay. It’s too bad that last time there was a meeting designed to do just this (on January 23rd), the union representatives chose not to do their jobs. Rather, they stormed out of the meeting like the snowflakes they are. They would not make good attorneys. Perhaps they should just hire one.
The last accusation the SWCC makes is that DDS wishes to automate our jobs. This is the most infuriating claim since it’s the only true one. I suppose I shouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “true.” Essentially, DDS has chosen to automate its snack bars at various locations, removing the need for workers at those establishments. The union is upset because people are losing their positions. No, they aren’t losing their jobs. Their positions at those snack bars have become obsolete. They are not, however, being fired. Innovation has come; going to a snack bar will now be easier for students, the consumers. DDS has also gone out of its way to keep these student workers as employees, providing them with various other establishments to work at.
The Student Worker Collective at Dartmouth seems less interested in the fair pay of workers and more interested in pushing their ideological agenda.
On the surface, this is shown through ridiculous demands like “Cops Off Campus” and increased “mental health” time. Yet underlying this is the fundamental principle of entitlement. In a society where food, heat, education – and even Ferraris – don’t simply fall from the sky, there is a necessity to work and be productive to enjoy these benefits.
The SWCD should not expect higher pay and fewer hours while maintaining the same productivity in the workplace and the same prices for their campus goods and services. Entitlement and wishful thinking won’t change the fundamental realities of labor and economics.
Rather than fight aggressively for frivolous interests, the union should work to develop a better relationship with the school. If automation is truly a concern, the SWCD needs to understand that dealing with its hassles could be seen as more trouble than investing in a massive automation project that would put all of us student workers out of jobs.
“Collective” in the group’s name is the giveaway. Collective rhymes with Marxist.