C OMPLEX ISSUES don't have 30-min ute solutions. Unfortunately, the Labor Action Group at the University has yet to learn this lesson.
When you're discussing "fair" wages and benefits and "fair" labor practices, it pays to be intellectually honest, to offer facts grounded in serious research, and moreover to be truthful.
LAG has been dishonest in two key areas -- their claim that the University uses sweatshop labor and their stake in the living wage debate.
On Labor Day, a member of the student Labor Action Group, Roger Clarke, wrote and distributed a small flyer that claims that the University -- the University bookstore specifically -- uses sweatshop labor.
|
Clarke couldn't be reached for comment, but the president of LAG, Curtis Cooper, says in an e-mail response, "The University contracts with Reebok, which I am sure produces much of its clothing throughout the 'third world.' Sorry, but I haven't tracked down where in the third world U.Va.'s clothing is manufactured."
The lack of research in this statement notwithstanding, maybe Cooper should go find a nudist colony to live in because until then he and all of us will be wearing clothes. And clothes frequently are made in the third world, and the third world, Cooper seems to think, is just one big sweatshop.
Upon probing Cooper further to offer details about the University's use of sweatshop labor, Cooper offered an unsatisfying response. He said that no company has ever established a formal policy of not using sweatshop labor. Therefore they use sweatshop labor. Huh? Are 98 percent of University students guilty of murder because we haven't formally, indeed doctrinally, stated in public that we haven't killed anyone? Of course not, so to make such a damaging claim about the University, on such scant evidence and on such flawed logic, is clearly disingenuous. For this reason, we should meet the Labor Action Group's exhortations for action with skepticism.
This is only the backdrop. LAG has been taking intellectual shortcuts with respect to the living wage also. LAG's mantra seems to be $8. What's wrong with the University? Workers don't get $8, they say. Eight dollars is the magic number, probably because it's bigger than the current number.
LAG would have the University community believe that it can have a free lunch. They say that raising the wage to $8 can be financed by using some of the Capital Campaign money, by not investing in projects like the stadium expansion, and by cutting back on workers' overtime hours without any negative repercussions. There are problems with all of these proposals that LAG simply refused to think about.
The Capital Campaign is largely money that is pledged to the University by alumni and supporters. These contributors don't just hand the money over and tell the University to do what it likes carte blanche. They pledge their money to specific schools and to specific programs. To deceive our alumni by using the money they pledged to, say, the Law School, for wages could jeopardize our ability to raise money in the future when our school may need it badly.
Lamenting the stadium construction is silly. We all know that the athletic program pretty much pays for itself. Therefore, in the long haul, the stadium is a gain, not a drain. Investment in the stadium is thus not the equivalent of a denial to workers of extra wages.
Finally, LAG would tell us that raising the wage would not result in more unemployment. There is no consensus among economists. Raising unskilled laborers' wages will increase unemployment, cause underemployment or most likely will result in a combination of the two. So raising some workers' wages to $8 will have the effect of lowering some workers wages to $0 and cutting back on overtime hours that some workers want. An honest treatment of the issue would recognize this and state why some people deserve a higher wage while others should have theirs lowered.
A final way to finance an increase in wages, that LAG didn't mention: Take money away from the academic departments. Since most students accept debt to come to school - although they do come with the expectation of higher future earnings - the average student could be further below the poverty line than the average worker. So taking from the students to pay unskilled laborers is likely to hurt those that are financially worse off than the laborers LAG is interested in protecting.
The point is that LAG is vocal in its demands for a higher wage, but they are much less vocal about the tradeoffs and the costs of doing this. Only presenting half the information is dishonest and disreputable.
Intellectual dishonesty cannot be accepted in our University community. Ignore LAG until they start treating issues truthfully.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 17 hours agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
