FOR ALL its noise last spring, the Living Wage Campaign has since maintained a low profile. Though a living wage for all employees is a common conversation topic, the disruptive demonstrations have all but ceased. In light of this new persona, the campaign has turned to subtler tactics.
Walking around Grounds last week, I discovered fliers advertising the "Living Wage Giving Fund." Instead of contributing to the University's Capital Campaign, the Living Wagers ask that students, alumni and community members contribute money to the Living Wage fund instead of the Capital Campaign or pledge to withhold money from the Capital Campaign until all University workers are paid a living wage. The flier states, "As long as the University refuses to pay its lowest-paid employees a living wage, we refuse to donate."
I do not intend to delve into the economic arguments about setting a wage floor. Rather, there is a different issue at stake: In a shortsighted attempt to achieve their goals, the Living Wage Campaign has created a false choice between contributing to the progress of the Capital Campaign and supporting a living wage. Granted, I doubt that the Living Wage Giving Fund will have even a minimal impact in the $3 billion needed to complete the Capital Campaign, but this public act of defiance demands some reconsideration.
For the record, at present the minimum wage for employees directly hired by the University is $9.75. With campuses in Northern Virginia, only George Mason University pays employees a higher rate ($10.40 per hour) in the Commonwealth. According to Benjamin Van Dyne of the Living Wage Campaign, "The University has hundreds of contracted workers who make less [than $9.75]." I am not indifferent to the hardship of supporting children on a relatively low salary or to people who work two jobs to make ends meet. And yet, the University is a decent and humane place to work. It is no wonder that in a clean, competitive, and fair environment, people continue to work for companies that contract with the University and to staff the many departments at the University.
Because working for the University isn't as dire as has been frequently portrayed, the Living Wage Campaign should reduce its outright hostility to the Capital Campaign. Ironically, by refusing to support the Capital Campaign, the Living Wage Campaign undermines opportunity for the very people they claim to support.
Money from the $3 billion Capital Campaign will fund several important projects. From a renovated education school building to an improved outpatient center at the children's hospital, every single one of the projects that draw from the Capital Campaign will improve the University and, in many cases, the wider community.
And if that isn't enough motivation, just think of all the jobs that these projects create. From construction crews to material companies to landscapers, the building efforts alone will employ the region's unskilled labor force for many years to come. Once built, the University will need a larger staff to properly maintain the buildings. From the lowest to the highest paid employees, all this development spells job opportunity for community members and internal staff. Some jobs that contribute to the building effort may not pay $11.68, the current figure demanded by the Living Wage Campaign. But we cannot in good conscience impede the effort that will spell opportunity for so many. As Van Dyne notes, "I honestly don't know how many living-wage-paying jobs the [Capital Campaign] projects will provide."
In light of this admission, it seems a little spoiled, to say nothing of counterproductive, to impede (or try to impede) the University's fundraising campaign. The Living Wage Campaign needs to rearrange its priorities and realize that though desired progress may not come instantaneously, this University will have a positive impact on employment opportunity in Charlottesville and the surrounding area. Even if you happen to be sympathetic to the goals of the Living Wage Campaign, participating in the Giving Fund is counterproductive.
Truth is, the Living Wage Campaign is a dead and dying movement, grabbing at straws and attempting to undermine opportunity for the very people they claim to help. Though perhaps born out of good intent, the Living Wage Campaign must subdue its zeal and realize that the practical reality of the Capital Campaign will benefit all.
Christa Byker's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
