In the wake of an announcement that the housekeeping staff will be merged with the facilities department, a coalition of concerned students brought three members of the residence hall staff together to learn what’s at stake.
An audience of more than 50 people gathered in Harper last night for the event, hosted by several house and RSO representatives under the banner of the Worker-Student Coalition.
Although the facilities department outsources its employees through subcontracting firms, it is not yet confirmed to which company housekeeping jobs will be sent. Their union is in talks with the University to maintain workers’ union rights through the transition.
The housekeeping staff members emphasized that their University jobs provide more than a paycheck. “It feels like family here, for me,” South Campus Residence Hall housekeeper Mazurie Wright said. “That’s the most devastating part.”
Kimberly Brand, who has been at the University for 14 years, expressed anxiety over the fact that University administrators wouldn’t guarantee her a job. “The same thing they keep saying: ‘They’ll get back with us, they’ll get back with us,” she said. “Housing is not helping us at all.”
Tony Hoover, a 13-year member of housekeeping, said that his uncertain employment status was especially troubling in light of the nation’s recent economic instability. “It’s not easy right now for us to just jump into another field,” he said.
Students Organizing United with Labor (SOUL) member and third-year Larissa Pittenger echoed the housekeepers’ worries and voiced her concern for the possibility of having unknown housekeepers in the residence halls.
“Having the same people in stable, dependable jobs where they’re interacting with the same students on a day-to-day basis just introduces a level of security that’s not there if you have disorganized [subcontracted] labor,” Pittenger said.
Pittenger said that while students don’t have a direct say in administrative decisions, their opinions may be worthwhile.
“That’s why we’re just trying to keep it pretty simple,” she said. “We just want [administration] to keep the same people with the same quality of a job.”
Why should the university be beholden to to the current set of housekeepers when there is potentially a better set out there (better at jobs, more enthusiastic, not as rude, …). With such a swap, presumably the (employed housekeepers) / (all housekeepers) ratio would be invariant, so why is SOUL up in arms?
Because the kinds of people who are going to be hired are NOT going to be your enthusiastic, loving bunch. They will be paid like 9 dollars an hour. Tell me, what kinds of people will want to work at that rate??
So because they make low wages they are going to be angry and steal? Current housing staff doesnt make much more. That is awful logic and just disrespectful.
Just to clarify, it is not SOUL’s position that “because they make low wages they are going to be angry and steal”, which is definitely awful logic and certainly disrespectful. I don’t think that was what H was implying either, though.
A housekeeper at the teach-in brought up the point that the people who are here now have been and can be trusted to keep an eye on students’ stuff and contribute to improved security in the dorms, which (she said) could not be said of someone who was a temp worker, working part-time in multiple buildings for low wages and little job security. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on this (the security) issue, but I was asked to explain/summarize her statement and my remark was taken out of context a bit. I hope it did not give the impression that I or anyone from SOUL would connect working for low wages with a tendency to steal. The comment was more in reference to how management will organize housekeeping tasks in the dorms, and what this will mean for accountability.
This article makes me want to gag.
Who are the house keepers that we want to keep? Family? Friends? Colleagues? No, they are none of the above. Simply people hired to perform menial labor which could easily be done by just about anyone, so if the university, or whatever organization the workers are being “outsourced” to could hire workers who were more efficient and/or work for lower wages, we could use the scarce funding saved from hiring other housekeepers for other important projects (finishing the Mansueto on time, anyone?)
Even if these housekeepers were our friends or family, “protecting” their jobs would simply be a case of nepotism, which has no business at such a highly-esteemed university.
The union is a source of inefficiency. Though in theory it is a good thing, practically speaking workers in a union have less incentive to work hard or to do their job optimally because the repercussions for subpar performance is lessened.
The comment by Tony Hoover is what irritates me most. Two things: First, housekeeping is not a “field.” Teaching is a field. Psychology research is a field. Economics is a field. Hell, even construction is a field. But housekeeping? All that requires are the skills of a stay-at-home mom, which pretty much anyone is capable of.
Second, in this capitalist society, while we empathize for those who lose jobs, ultimately this move could lead to a more efficient use of the university’s resources. Additionally, not to sound harsh, but it is now increasingly more important to become educated. Not necessarily going to liberal arts colleges, though that is indeed a viable option, but vocational training programs, community colleges, etc. Why should our tuition money and endowment be directed toward people who have limited their own options by perhaps not finishing high school amongst a host of other reasons? (I know I will receive criticism for this comment, and my response is no, I do not know for a fact whether or not housekeepers are educated, this is just my assumption, but I believe it is a reasonable one.)
Phew, sorry for the long-winded comment, but just my $0.02.
Oh, and I apologize about my opening line. When I said this article makes me want to gag, it was not a personal attack against the author, whom I know personally and hold a great deal of respect for, nor was it against the quality of the article, which was written professionally and impartially as good journalism should be.
Rather, it was the concept presented in it. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Just wanted to make sure you receive the criticism you called for! (though I’ll admit I can’t quite tell if your comments are meant to be a parody of what a horrible person would say or if you actually mean it–I mean really, the housewife comment???). I hereby criticize you … yada yada yada … and you’re a horrible person. There.
What, incidentally, do you say about all the university professors who make 150K+, cannot be fired, and do a horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, half-assed, do-not-care-about-you-in-the-least-because-they-think-they’re-too-good-for-you job teaching you. Forget your precious Mansueto Library. Solidarity with the (wo)Man-Sweat laborers of the world!
I welcome your criticism, you’re entitled to your own opinions.
It’s not a parody.
Housewife comment- please tell me what sort of special training housekeepers went through to become housekeepers?
So if it doesn’t require any special skills, why do we need to protect them when there are other people who can do the same jobs for less?
If you think I’m a horrible person, that’s fine. But I’m just being practical.
Two things on the professors. One, the university wants to hire top scholars in each field (who admittedly may not always be able to teach effectively) and the university has to compete with other top universities to get them. So if another top university, say Columbia, Stanford, MIT is willing to pay $149, 000 for one, we better be willing to pay at least $150, 000 for each one.
Two, the ones who do an atrociously poor job teaching and/or researching and can’t be fired, well there’s really nothing I can say to that. That is just what I would say is the same problem with protecting the housekeepers.
ok lester you are an idiot. its because of people like you who live in some fantasy world that the economy is backwards.
you want to pick favorites? well then you have a choice between feeling goody two shoes about yourself and suffering the unforeseen consequences of your foolish decision, or being realistic and realizing that this favoritism will only cause harm.
chicago undergraduate is correct. i think YOU i.e. lester are the horrible person. for each person we have to pay extra for menial labor, there are two people who are starving and unemployed with the same job skills who would also love to have a job at the university. dont you feel guilty at all for that? or are you just so blind to reality that you are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of two others for one person?