WE ARE all well aware of Dining Services on Grounds and complain at least weekly about many aspects of its mediocrity. ?Often there is an overwhelming and awkward sense that students are bothering the person whose job it is to serve them food by interrupting their conversation or by simply existing.
? And yet, good service is defined by attentiveness, eye contact, celerity, and the maintenance of a friendly environment to which customers want to return. Very few of my many dining experiences have met this standard, and though I am sure dissatisfaction is a shared experience, a few examples are in order.
On two different occasions at Alderman Café I, the only person in line, waited awkwardly while two employees chatted on a personal cell phone and gossiped about the contents of the conversation until minutes later when they realized I might want some coffee. In another instance, two employees leaned on their side of the food station and had a loud conversation with each other that included vivid detail and expletives not to be published here. A student cannot walk into the food station area at Newcomb Dining Hall without tasteless music blasted into their ears. Even if these were the only instances of sub-par service, and they are not, we would necessarily have to question the professionalism of University Dining Services.
Think of it this way: If any one of us received the kind of service mentioned previously on the Corner or at a restaurant in Barrack's we would likely tell all our friends never to go there and quit going ourselves. Eventually the establishment would close and be replaced by a business willing to provide sufficient services. As any free marketeer could tell you, this is the effectiveness of competition. But because competitive forces minimally govern the economic activities of the University dining services, employees need not be respectful, courteous or terribly efficient. After all, guaranteed clientele does not exactly motivate high standards because the business will profit regardless of service.
Many students who are willing to go to bat for workers' rights and fair compensation might find this line of argument a bit elitist. And I might too, if I didn't pay more than $1,000 per semester for my food. Perhaps if we were more pleasant to serve, servers would be more pleasant toward us. Maybe that is true in the broadest sense, but whenever I eat on Grounds I always say please and thank you and am cheerful despite the lackluster service provided -- and I am certainly not the only one. And at the same time, students should not have to apologize for their station in life.
The solution is not found in firing current employees and rehiring new ones. We would likely see the same problems since the lack of professionalism is fueled by institutional expectations that are girded by an noncompetitive market. At the University, dining facilities are locally managed, but owned by a corporation called Aramark.
After inquiring with the University Aramark representative about competitive wages and monitoring the quality of service, I was directed to the media relations office. Upon calling the national corporate office to get in contact with media relations, I was told that the media relations office didn't exist and was directed to someone in human resources. The human resources representative admitted that the company has over 240,000 employees and while answering questions about how Aramark employees are paid and how performance is monitored should be a simple task, she preferred to punt my questions to someone else with more expertise, who just so happened to be out of the office. No wonder with such utter bureaucratic inefficiency that service standards are poorly managed.
Students living on Grounds have little leeway picking their dining plans, and in many cases cannot even opt out of a meal plan. Dining Services' management, however, should call their employees to account with competitive wages. Employees should get raises the way most service providers get paid: according to performance. That is, management must incentivize good service by taking closer note of the way employees treat customers and emphasize polite, courteous interaction.
This is not to say that all the employees at Newcomb, The Pav, West Range, O-Hill, the Alderman Library Café, or the other dining areas on Grounds provide terrible service. There certainly are many friendly and professional service providers, but this appears to be more an accident of their personality rather than an institutional expectation. Good service is an important part of a dining experience and it should not be neglected at this university. In most aspects of life we expect to get what we pay for. Our on-Grounds dining experience should be no different.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Dailyassociate editor. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 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 | 5 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.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
