Empty rhetoric can cause harm

Loyola Sophomore

Tue Mar 2 2010 19:24

Oh geez Ed Haggard you really messed up there didn't you! Too funny! You know what they say about people who list which specific college in the university that they graduated from 21 years ago: they're not too good at understanding what Terms of Service are!

Ed Haggard, HuNS '89

Tue Mar 2 2010 19:15

Oh man, I searched all through the Terms of Use and realized that it doesn't deal with the concept of anonymous posting! Whoops! It looks like this could get quite complicated, especially if people start using fake credentials to get other people's posts deleted. Man, I sure regret not knowing what I'm talking about.

Ed Haggard, HuNS '89

Tue Mar 2 2010 15:15

It looks like commenters are posting under other people's user names now...

While it is pretty confusing, there is an easy solution - using your real name.

Somebody posts using your name? Its against the Terms of Service and the Maroon can remove it. Quit complaining and start being accountable.

-Edward Haggard, Class of 1989

Anonymous

Tue Mar 2 2010 12:32

Obviously, the person who posted as "Loyola Sophomore" at 00:54 is not the same person who posted at 00:03. Very mature.

Anonymous

Mon Mar 1 2010 16:15

no u

Anonymous

Mon Mar 1 2010 15:19

If we're really concerned about social justice, equity, social class and the future, we need to consider the access and affordabiilty of an education at LOYNO. As a Jesuit institution, we have an obligation to serve the truly needy; not just the elites. Let's not be hypocritical, single-minded, and miss the forest for the trees.

Loyola Sophomore

Mon Mar 1 2010 00:54

disregard that, i don't comprehend sarcasm.

Loyola Sophomore

Mon Mar 1 2010 00:03

Chris, your use of language is not only poor, it is insulting to all of those who actually do work in sweatshops. Sodexo workers start off at $8 or more per hour. The minimum wage in Louisiana is $7.25 an hour. In addition, Sodexo workers are not forced to work in terrible conditions, and they certainly are not forced to work abnormally long shifts. They are also offered a comprehensive benefits package. Please think before posting such thoughtless comments.

Anonymous

Sun Feb 28 2010 16:43

to Anon on Sat Feb 27 2010 20:21

Your argument is a radical departure from the ideology spewing from the mouths of the radical free-marketers who have dominated the "con" position in these arguments. Good for you. The answer surely doesn't lie wholly within the corporations that hire workers at substandard rates, but some of the responsibility lies with those corporations. Currently, many companies (including Sodexo) feel that they can pay workers whatever they will accept. Minimum wages set below the "living wage" merely set a maximum amount of oppression that we are willing to stomach as Americans. Not effective policy.

More needs to be done and I'm open to all ideas that allow low paid workers to support themselves & their families while maintaining their human dignity.

Anonymous

Sat Feb 27 2010 20:21

Anonymous @ 19:55

I've run into many people with the same opinion, and I understand your position. But let me ask your opinion on the following scenario:

Assume 4 workers - one single with no children, one married with no children, one married with two children, one unmarried with two children. All workers are equally skilled, equally hardworking, equally tenured. All are paid exactly the same wages for the exact same skill set and the exact same workload.

Should the married worker with 2 children be paid more than the married worker with no children? Should the unmarried worker with 2 children be paid more than the unmarried worker with no children?

Should family economics be considered? In other words, should any of the workers be paid more than their counterparts simply because they are the sole source of family income? Should any of the workers be paid more than their counterparts because they have higher rent or mortgage payments?

Is it the employer's responsibility to monitor the needs of the individuals and adjust salaries accordingly? Or is it the employer's responsibility to monitor the requirements of the position and make sure that those employees performing well are compensated according to company guidelines without regard for individual circumstances?

Of course its a shame when hardworking people can't afford to provide their families with all of their needs or wants. Truly a shame.

But we can't lay the blame at the feet of employers. Can we?

Anonymous

Fri Feb 26 2010 19:55

Anonymous @ 9:15--

I'd love to live in your world in which raising a family on $8.65 an hour is considered gainfully employed. Sodexo workers are offered benefit packages that they can't afford with the wages they make, so most of them don't have benefits all. And a working environment where you feel no sense of job security is hardly the most pleasant environment you can work in.

I suggest that the workers earn wages that will be enough to support themselves in a realistic way because anything less than that is unjust.

Anonymous

Fri Feb 26 2010 09:15

Anonymous @ 2 27

The Sodexo workers aren't experiencing anything that millions of hard working people are feeling right now. Go talk to the 62 year old that lost her job and is willing to take anything that make a buck. Stand in the food line with the laid off construction worker that can't give his skills away. Take a ride-along with Meals-On-Wheels when they deliver food to needy families.

But you would suggest chatting up the workers during business hours. Sound wisdom. They're gainfully employed, have benefits, and couldn't work in a more pleasant environment. You would further suggest that they be paid more for no ther reason than that they (1) need more money, and (2) are pleasant conversationalists.

I'm not blind to the issue. My eyes are wide open.

Go beyond your safety zone and take a real look.

Anonymous

Fri Feb 26 2010 02:27

DarlaK--

All of my comments that you quoted are descriptions of the employees' working conditions made by the workers themselves. I don't know what is more concrete than the reality of feeling intimidation on the job and a constant burden of zero job security. This is the reality that the workers face every day. If you feel that these concepts are too abstract, I suggest engaging the workers in conversation and hearing their experiences directly from them.

Anonymous

Fri Feb 26 2010 01:01

I wouldn't try supporting a family with a minimum wage food service job

Fun fact: One reason Loyola contracts out its janitorial and food service staff is to keep from having to give their kids free educations. Sounds like the hallmark of a social justice university to me.

Christopher Sauer

Fri Feb 26 2010 00:51

Listen to the cries of the Sodexo sweatshop as they toil for poor wages...would you not like to support your families, kids?

Student at Loyno

Thu Feb 25 2010 23:15

FTA: "It’s important to stay engaged, but also informed. Don’t just go with what everyone is telling you."

It is this exact attitude that lead students to begin struggling alongside Loyola's Sodexo workers. University administrators, Sodexo management, and Loyola's economics department all maintained and CONTINUE to maintain that all is right with Loyola's contracted workers.

By asking questions, doing research, and not taking Loyola's rhetoric at face value, students have come to get involved in the issue of the Sodexo workers union. It hasn't been through jumping on the bandwagon. Its come from the exact opposite attitude.

The real critique should be toward those who jump on the bandwagon of apathy and inaction.

Anonymous

Thu Feb 25 2010 19:57

option 1: our community is hurt.
option 2: our community is not.
choose.

DarlaK

Thu Feb 25 2010 18:07

Jamie

I saw no "empty rhetoric" in the editorial. You just disagree. Fine. But, frankly, I read nothing more than empty rhetoric and abstract language in your response.

"With respect an dignity so nonexistent in the job...." Abstract

"...they believe that ANYTHING could be better than waht they are experiencing..." Abstract

"These workers whom we love so dearly feel as if they could come into work and be fired for any reason without warning..." Abstract

I swear I'm hunting for the "concrete examples" here - just don't see any.

Jamie Broussard

Thu Feb 25 2010 16:25

It is unfortunate that this article in itself is filled with empty rhetoric. There are blanket statements about "emotion and scare tactics" flying from both side of the debate, but you provide no concrete examples. I worry that this will prevent any constructive discussion of the issue.

You are right that people's livelihoods are at stake in this issue. Talk to the Sodexo employees, and they will tell you that they feel this way when they come on the job every day. These workers whom we love so dearly feel as if they could come into work and be fired for any reason without warning, with or without current talk of a union. With respect and dignity so nonexistent on the job, they believe that ANYTHING could be better than what they are experiencing, and unionizing is a risk they are willing to take. And this is not another example of empty rhetoric; I have heard this directly from the workers themselves.

I encourage students to deepen their relationship with workers beyond a casual "hello" every once in a while and really listen to what they have to say. Language is floating around that workers don't know what is best for them, as if they are subhuman and cannot make their own decisions. This is blatant condescension and elitism that has no place at our university. These workers are just as intelligent as we are, and I encourage everyone to speak directly with the workers instead of just talking in abstractions about the issue.