A Living Wage Victory
A look at the Coalition's path to success
Dmitriy Zakharov with Alexandra Fard
Issue date: 3/30/05 Section: News
- Page 1 of 1
| |
|
The tent seems much smaller from the inside. The sum effect of the wires, sleeping bags, tables, chairs and boxes strewn about the ground leaves the large white dome that has taken up residence in Red Square feeling less cavernous and more cozy. Cozy in terms of space, anyway: the temperature hovers around freezing, only adding to the misery of the tent's occupants. They form a circle in the structure's center and take turns introducing themselves. The focus lies on each person's list of symptoms, announced, for the most part, with a sort of quiet dispassion. Nausea, disorientation, insomnia, and difficulty concentrating all make the list multiple times. Little wonder - most of the individuals gathered here under the white tarp have not eaten in days.
Despite the recent wave of attention given to the issue, the Living Wage Campaign has been ongoing for the past three years, during which time considerable progress has been made in the conditions of Georgetown workers. This time, however, the two camps came to an impasse. "After three years of doing everything the University's way, dealing with bureaucratic committees," explains Living Wage Coalition (LWC) member Jack Mahoney (COL '08), "we decided to put a biological clock on how long this will take."
"It's a place just to say 'I'm feeling crappy,' to share your feelings," explains one of the leaders of the LWC. The nightly health meetings allow members to keep track of their compatriots' well-being and their own physical condition. Most are holding up well, or so they say. "I can do this forever," boasts LWC member Anders Fremstab (COL '06). Some turn to humor in an attempt to maintain morale. Pedro Cruz (GRAD'06), his dreadlocks swaying as he laughs, describes his condition this way: "I've never done crack, but I feel like I'm on crack." Others in the circle laugh with him, knowingly.The sharing continues. "I had my roommate drive me to campus - I live three blocks away," a hunger striker sheepishly recounts. Another round of laughter follows. The sequence of reflections moves on around the circle, proceeding to an unfamiliar face: an older man wearing a jacket from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He introduces himself as Mike and explains his presence by saying simply, "you guys inspired me and I'm with you." More effective than any joke, his declaration uplifts all present.
As the escalating tension between student activists and the administration gained the spotlight, questions arose regarding exactly what role workers themselves have played in the heated debate over wages. Julie Bataille, of the Office of Communications, maintained that the contract workers are offered sufficient opportunities both to learn about and express their opinions in the debate, not only through their participation and representation in the Advisory Committee on Business Practices (ACBP) meetings but also through monthly union meetings. An overwhelming majority of the workers, however, can find very little time to attend meetings and do not belong to a Georgetown union.
In general, interviewed workers agreed that their existing hourly wage of $11.33 (including benefits) was simply not enough to live in the Washington, DC area. One particularly strong advocate of the LWC revealed that she could not even manage to pay rent with her salary, even as a single woman living in the vicinity of a DC Metro stop (within the region whose cost of living statistics the administration claimed to use to calculate the living wage). A group of three workers, obviously perturbed by the presence of their supervisor, were unwilling even to concede forthright that they were in favor of wage increases. Many interviewees, upon being introduced to a newspaper staff writer, diluted their pro-Coalition claims and asked that their names not be shared. Others, while applauding the commitment of the hunger strikers, were skeptical that the student activism would affect any permanent change, betraying a profound distrust of the administration.
People walk by as the meeting goes on, visible through the gap in the tent's entrance. No matter what, they all look, at least a little. Those inside cannot see them for more than two or three seconds, but it is just enough for a jumble of emotions to quickly flick across their faces: interest, befuddlement, amusement. Their gaze, however brief, makes it clear who the real outsiders are, tent notwithstanding. And then they turn away and are gone with the same suddenness with which they appeared, back to their own thoughts and concerns.
With the assistance of GERMS medics, the hunger strikers measure and record their weight and blood pressure. The required daily salt dosage is listed on a board toward the back, propped up on a table surreally covered with cups of water and pinches of salt. While the strikers are being processed, a mass of preteens clad in gray sweatshirts rambles through Red Square, accompanied by a scant two or three chaperones. "Yeah Living Wage!" a few yell with mock fervor. Some feint toward the tent entrance for a closer view, only to jump back at the last minute, thinking better of the idea. The tent's occupants pay them little attention; the biometrics are taken and a strategy session begins, lasting deep into the night.
A main point of controversy in the campaign was the ambiguous definition of what factors may go into quantifying a living wage. Think tanks cited by the Coalition calculated the cost (per hour of contract work) of living self-sufficiently in Washington, D.C. at $14.93 (adjusted for inflation), but the LWC had signaled its willingness to make concessions to a policy that raises wages (including benefits) to as much as a dollar per hour below that figure. In a letter broadcast to the entire Georgetown University community, Sprios Dimolitsas, Senior Vice President, cited "various local "Living Wage" ordinances for the metropolitan area," with which the University's existing compensation packages already agreed. These figures ranged, according to the e-mail, "from a proposed $10.25 per hour in Washington, D.C. to a high of $11.36 per hour in Alexandria."
Daylight and the faint palpable beginnings of Washington's spring produce a noticeable change in the mood. The strikers appear more cheerful, almost energized. Several participants haggle over how much to allow themselves in terms of fasting: Pedro finally gives in and accepts a Propel fitness water, having drunk only water up till that point. "It tastes so good," he exclaims. His sentiment is well understood. "When you're on hunger strike, you really start to miss taste," explains Rob Hutton (COL'05), another striker. "Brushing my teeth this morning I was happy...mmm, taste!" he adds. Some LWC members start telling stories as others maintain the tent. Nothing about the conversation tips off the fact that he has not eaten anything in days.
The administration's final pre-strike proposal on March 14 had recommended raising the wages of contract workers to $14.00 per hour (including benefits) by July 2007. The Coalition rejected this proposal, stating that it would not accept any deal that failed to guarantee annual inflation-adjusted wage raises to cover increases in living costs. Incensed by the ACBP's refusal to vote on a Living Wage proposal the same day, the LWC promptly scheduled a rally to kick off a hunger strike for the following day.
Also on the table were 'non-wage issues,' which, according to university spokesperson Julie Bataille, addressed the ability of Georgetown workers to organize, to obtain access to grievance procedures and to complete their tasks with relative ease. This last point was apparent in the recent effort to give staff GoCards that grant their owners access to the campus buildings to which they are assigned; until a few months ago, at least a few workers have complained of working several years at Georgetown without adequate access to buildings, especially after hours. Card-check neutrality, a complex issue which deals with the means by which workers can organize without external pressure, also became a sticking point. "Some of the [ACBP] board members don't even understand what card-check neutrality is," laments Mahoney.
A man on a bicycle cruises through the square, breaking rapidly as he comes to the dome. Intrigued, he peruses the banners hanging off the tent walls. Finally, he rolls down to the table at the entrance. "I want to express my support. Is there anything I can do? Do y'all need supplies?" he inquires. "I'm not a part of the Georgetown community," the cyclist admits. Another convert to the cause.
The hunger strike quickly attracted significant media attention, first drawing interest from local and freelance reporters and later resulting in national coverage. Increasing public awareness and opinion had been a main part of the hunger striker's strategy. "I sent a few links to President DeGioia and Vice President Dimolitsas," said Mahoney, who served as a media contact for the LWC during the strike. The attention also had the effect of bringing individuals from outside the Georgetown community to the cause's aid.
"We decided the people fasting needed their sleep, so we staff the tent at night," a member of the LWC reveals. After the first fewdays, the night watchers had been non-hunger-striking members of the LWC. They provide support, maintenance and a number of other functions. Nighttime, when witnesses are few and far between, happens to be when many of the more interesting occurrences take place. The night of St. Patrick's Day carries particular difficulties, with at least one individual urinating on the side of the tent and disturbances continuing into the deep hours of the night. There are a few perks to the job, though. On at least one occasion, someone ordered and paid for several pizzas delivered to the hunger strikers' tent as a practical joke. "We just took them and ate them," night staffer confides, as he was not a hunger striker.
The combination of outside interest and media spotlight came to a head with a Tuesday, March 22nd noontime rally in Red Square, which featured Eleanor Holmes-Norton, the Delegate for the District of Columbia to the U.S. House of Representatives, Joslyn Williams, President of the Metropolitan Labor Council and Richard Trumka, National Secretary Treasurer of the AFL-CIO. In an attempt to replicate a dialogue that had taken place after a past rally, LWC members led the speakers up to the administrative offices on the second floor of the Healy building. Many attendees from the rally followed, resulting in a mass of over 100 people occupying the red-carpeted foyer of Georgetown's senior administration. The crowd clapped, shouted, danced and chanted, waiting unsuccessfully in hopes of having President DeGioia meet with the speakers, as he had in the past with religious leaders. When this did not happen, Williams addressed those gathered through a megaphone, informing them that she would personally join the hunger strike if an agreement was not reached by midnight on March 23rd.
Time feels like it is running out. Tomorrow is the last day before much of the university flees campus for vacation. Rumors circle
that Dimolitsas is going on a two-week vacation. The outburst of excitement and emotion from the rally at noon has faded, leaving dull anxiety in its wake. A meeting of the ACBP has been scheduled for 2 p.m. "They've been in there," a tent staffer thinks aloud, "for almost three hours. Maybe that's a good thing..." A hint of desperation charges the air. The prospect of having to stay on campus, without food, during the Easter break now feels much more like reality, a very unpleasant reality. The few sets of eyes around stare in the direction of Healy. At last, three familiar figures materialize in the distance. They are huddled together in consolation. Angry, sporadically sob-choked bits of conversation waft through from the group. No agreement, no breakthrough.
The Tuesday meeting of the ACBP, seen by many as the last chance before Easter break for a settlement to be reached, did not go the way Living Wage supporters had hoped. Economics experts put forth arguments that LWC representatives could not match, and the meeting broke up without any sort of agreement.
Word travels quickly on the Hilltop. As much of the campus flocked to the air-, rail-, and highways, eager to escape the Beltway for a few days, a few members of the ACBP let slip that a compromise proposal has been drafted by members of the University's Executive Committee. The ball is now in the LWC's court. An internal debate over whether to accept the general terms of the proposal lasts for hours. A decision has to be reached by midnight. Someone goes into the next room and gets on the computer, looking to take a break from the heated discussion.
As first revealed in a late-night letter released by President DeGioia, the university's compromise promises a minimum wage of $14.00 per hour beginning July 1, 2007; perhaps more importantly, the policy openly commits to providing an annually indexed living wage, in addition to access to grievance procedures and university resources, to all Georgetown workers, both directly hired and subcontracted. At noon on Thursday, March 24th, the strikers broke their nine-day fast and later met with University officials in the Hall of Cardinals to formalize the proposal.
At 10:58 p.m., with barely an hour to spare, an e-mail from the Office of the President has been sent to the entire campus, detailing the administration's compromise. It isn't perfect, but it's an agreement the LWC can live with. The lack of energy, brought on by over a week of starvation, all but evaporates. The Coalition members race from their meeting place on T Street to Red Square. Some break out in dance, near-delirious. They head for the mostly abandoned buildings, looking for any worker they could find, sharing their long-awaited message: "We all won!"
Zakharov is a foreign service freshman and Fard is a culture and politics sophomore