AFTER a yearlong hiatus, the Living Wage Campaign returned in style last Friday morning, holding a half-hour long protest on the Rotunda steps. It was, shall we say, sparsely attended; there were a total of about thirty students, counting both the protesters and onlookers as well as one elderly lady. Why did so few attend? It was not due to a lack of awareness: students who were here last year know about the campaign and its agenda. Nor was it just the relative political apathy of the student body or the fact that many were still asleep Friday morning after a night of parties. The reason why so few buy into the Living Wage Campaign's agenda is because it is fundamentally incoherent.
Most students understand this instinctively, even if they are unable to articulate it. There just doesn't seem to be anything wrong with people who voluntarily work low-skilled jobs making $9.75 per hour (figure from the Living Wage Campaign's website). Most of us at some point in life have worked comparable jobs for similar or even lower wages. The market pays workers what they deserve to make.
The Living Wage Campaign disagrees with that idea. Their understanding of wages is based on Marx's maxim "to each, according to his need." One obvious problem with this idea is determining a person's need. The campaign defines this as the wage at which two workers earn enough for "food, housing, transportation, health care, child care, taxes, and other necessities" for a family of four, which they say is at over $11 per hour. Of course, quite a few University workers don't have to support two children, so this would be quite above their need. More important, though, is the fact that the University has no obligation to pay workers more than their labor is worth.
When the protesters were not just accusing the University of "dirty business practices" or complaining that the administration was trying to silence their voices (an intimidating three police officers were standing by the Rotunda doors), there were two basic messages they put forth. One could be summarized as the "respect" argument. One protester said, "These [workers] are our friends and family members. They deserve dignity and respect." Another: "It bothers me when people ignore and don't show respect to workers."
It is silly to equate pay scales with dignity and respect. There are a lot of ways the student body could show appreciation for workers, like hosting a dinner for them, or even just making an effort to talk to workers. Having the administration raise wages by a dollar or two would fatten workers' wallets, but it would not affect the way students treat them.
Another contention was that, as a sign put it, "A living wage is a human right." Only in a society as rich and privileged as 21st century America could such a statement be taken seriously. People have a right to life, to freedom of thought, to private property. People do not have a right to afford child-care and health care.
Human rights are violated all over the world. Terrorism, religious persecution and gender oppression plague the Middle East. Africa is ravaged by genocide, the HIV epidemic and brutal dictators. South Americans live with drug gangs, corrupt governments and extreme poverty. Asians experience government repression and religious violence. All over the world, women and children are exploited and forced into sexual slavery.
Those concerned about justice do not have to fly across an ocean: There is plenty of injustice in our own country, even in Charlottesville. Women and children are abused. Disadvantaged children grow up in single-parent households, without good role models, in a culture that disparages academic achievement. They are born into an environment where poverty and crime are difficult to escape. People work in unsafe conditions. Our broken immigration system opens the door for illegal workers, not knowing their rights and afraid of deportation, to be mistreated by unscrupulous employers. Injustice is all around us.
The University's pay scale, however, is not an injustice. Fair wages means paying workers for their output, not, as the living wage campaign wants, based on who they are. The Living Wage Campaign has its heart in the right place, but not its mind; it mistakes good things like child-care for basic rights that employers must provide to all workers. It is good and right to fight against injustice in our world. Even better is to fight against injustice that actually exists.
Stephen Parsley is a Cavalier Daily Associate Editor. He can be reached at sparsley@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.
