Union’s Take on the Staffing Issue

So I just had an illuminating phone chat with one of the labor union stewards, Sue Silvestro, who as you might know works at Pi.

Benefits

The problem BA has with the benefits package shouldn’t be a problem at all. During the contract negotiations, the labor union presented each of the bidders with an honest evaluation of their current situation with Aramark, including hours, wages, number of people employed and their benefits package. “No matter what it costs, however,” Silvestro said, “you were given the contract upfront…we did not want to be blamed once again for their failure [to remain solvent].” Silvestro added, “We do have a good package. But we’ve bargained in good faith for over thirty years to get that package.”

In negotiations, BA promised to maintain the service, without cutting staff, wages or benefits. “They were shocked to hear that Wesleyan students cared so much about worker’s rights,” Silvestro said. “We have talked amongst ourselves and we have all agreed that they have no idea of what these students are like—and that’s meant to be seen in the best light. Students on this campus care. They care about recycling. They care about food waste feeding the poor. They care about worker’s rights. And [BA] has not experienced that at any other university.”

However, over the past two weeks, BA has made those same cuts it promised not to, and it’s having an impact on the staff. Delmar Crim, Bon Appetit’s district manager described BA’s recently discovered position that the benefits package is impractical and uncommon (however, they did not seem to have a problem with it during the bidding).

While benefits are available for workers who work 20 hours or more a week, Silvestro noted that much of the staff has seen their hours cut to 17.5 hours a week—a flagrant move, in my opinion, to shortchange them on benefits. She noted that many 40-hour staffers have seen their hours cut to 37.5 as well, in order to deny them full-time benefits. While in his emailed response, Delmar claimed that there are 69 full-time staff positions at Wesleyan, Silvestro and others in the staff note there are only two with the recent changes.

Overall, 149 hours have been trimmed from the staff’s schedules, which, as you can see, could mean a big savings to BA if they strategize which hours they’re cutting. Silvestro expressed the anxiety these changes are causing amongst the staff, describing a recent phone call with a colleague who is afraid of a family member going in for surgery not knowing whether he will have the health insurance to cover it. “People with lower hour jobs are coming to work this year fearing that any small cut could lose them their benefits…This is an unfair labor practice which compromises the standard of living of the staff” she explained.

Fresh Food? How?

One of BA’s promises was to deliver food almost entirely local and fresh. As Silvestro explains, when Aramark received their bid, for five years, Summerfields operated on a “fresh food” model, making everything from scratch. Obviously, the food was a hit with students and it was one of the more successful operations on campus. However, fresh food requires more labor than dumping frozen fried chicken into a fryer or opening a can. Silvestro believes that because fresh food is inherently labor-intensive, the quality of food will be compromised in relation to the hours that are cut. So these cuts are not promising.

Hours Cut Already

Already, Silvestro explains, Pi may see its hours cut. When asked why no workers were scheduled to work at Pi over the weekends, BA responded with ambiguity, stating they were unsure whether they’d actually be keeping it open over the weekend. There have also been talks of canceling late night with the compromise of keeping Usdan’s a la carte operation open slightly longer. As noted previously, this probably won’t sit well with students.

A la Carte + Less Cashiers =Longer Lines = Bigger Profits

Silvestro explained how Crim said that Usdan was designed to cut back on labor. Segmented into stations, there is less room for workers behind the scenes. It doesn’t need as many cashiers. However, anyone can foresee how this will pan out: if you have an a la carte operation between the hours of 8am and 3pm, and student traffic concentrates between the hours of 11:50pm and 1:10pm and you have less cashiers to service the students each grabbing only one or two things, well, gee, I think that’s going to mean long lines. But since students have to pay for the meal plan and are forced to eat there anyway, dealing with longer lines and grumbling students doesn’t bother BA because they aren’t afraid of us eating somewhere else. So this is just one example of how cuts are made which affect workers–which in turn affect students directly.

BA’s Gamble

Bon Appetit, Silvestro believes, sees Wesleyan as their break into the world of elite colleges, including the Ivy League and other selective schools. Our contract was seen as a critical strategic move and so they made big promises. “They promised you the world,” she said. But like Aramark, which failed, in Silvestro’s opinion, largely because it failed to listen to the students, BA seems to be modeling itself on those very same failures.

Wesleyan’s Part

“Wesleyan has a role in this as well. They aren’t able to make a move without Wesleyan’s approval,” said Silvestro reminds us.

  • Related: Argus coverage of worker concerns after BA wins contract (buried quite a few paragraphs down).

63 thoughts on “Union’s Take on the Staffing Issue

  1. Anonymous

    It’s possible to be objective without compromising quality of response. However that’s not what’s going on here.

  2. Anonymous

    It’s possible to be objective without compromising quality of response. However that’s not what’s going on here.

  3. Anonymous

    yeah. other than having no capitalization and being fairly long, that comment made complete sense if you actually read it.-another not the logic-ranter

  4. Anonymous

    yeah. other than having no capitalization and being fairly long, that comment made complete sense if you actually read it.-another not the logic-ranter

  5. Anonymous

    yeah. other than having no capitalization and being fairly long, that comment made complete sense if you actually read it.
    -another not the logic-ranter

  6. Anonymous

    um, with the exception of sarcasm and some very cute turns of phrase, that was incredably straight forward. “that confused me!” cannot be your defense to everything.-not the logic-ranter

  7. Anonymous

    um, with the exception of sarcasm and some very cute turns of phrase, that was incredably straight forward. “that confused me!” cannot be your defense to everything.-not the logic-ranter

  8. Anonymous

    um, with the exception of sarcasm and some very cute turns of phrase, that was incredably straight forward. “that confused me!” cannot be your defense to everything.

    -not the logic-ranter

  9. Anonymous

    HUH?talk about rambling and confusing!!!Guess we normal folk just don’t process. We’ll leave it up to you bright ones to figure it all out. Enjoy your veggie burgers.

  10. Anonymous

    HUH?talk about rambling and confusing!!!Guess we normal folk just don’t process. We’ll leave it up to you bright ones to figure it all out. Enjoy your veggie burgers.

  11. Anonymous

    HUH?

    talk about rambling and confusing!!!

    Guess we normal folk just don’t process. We’ll leave it up to you bright ones to figure it all out. Enjoy your veggie burgers.

  12. Anonymous

    i usually don’t get into these, but i’ll make an exception b/c the anonymous poster’s (i’m going to assume there’s just one) position in the argument is incredibly disingenuous.what we’re talking about here is class struggle; not to sound too marxist or anything (no, i’m not a marxist), but it’s true. the employers are trying to get as much profit as they can out of the workers, who must struggle in order to defend their interests and in order to do so must constitute them selves as a power autonomous from and antagonistic to the employer, in other words engage in class struggle. moreover, BA’s move is also a form of class struggle: management using a stragegic opening to wrest back more profit that would otherwise be going towards a living wage for the workers who, previously, had to use their position in the structure of capital (e.g. organize a union) in order to win that wage from the employers.but why is the argument disingenuous? because anonymous responded to holly’s deeming hir fairly clear misunderstanding (anonymous did, after all, say it was “confusing”) of the original post “not processing” by saying “So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?” in other words, while holly’s strident and one-sided championing of the cause of the workers allows her to draw quick conclusions, anonymous is not taking the side of either the worker or the employer but that of objectivity, dispassionately observing the events unfold and taking the appropriate position warranted by their progressively revealed “truth” (e.g. the correct position).this is utter bullshit because it totally falsifies the nature of judgement and decision and their role in positions in political struggle (which this is). no form of society is given, rather they develop, rise, and fall through struggle and are thus contingent. every action we take, then, either contributes to maintaining the status quo or to subverting it. there’s no way to escape this dimension of our lives, though given how entrenched capitalism is, having a livable life often means supporting the status quo in a fairly complex and ingrained way.however, despite this, anonymous would like for us to believe that zee has been endowed with the truly remarkable power of extricating hirself from all pre-existing social and historical circumstances and rising to the pristine land of objective judgement, wherefrom zee may shine the light of Objective Truth down on the dark squabbles of myopic partisans such as myself or holly and show us the way to the Correct Position.BUT ALAS! it appears as though our savior is not all we took hir for! remember when anonymous said “Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.”? WHAM! BAM! There you have it folks! since anonymous is apparently human after all, zee makes it clear here that when it comes to the struggle between the imperative of the employer to make a profit and the imperative of the worker to assert their power over the situation by forcing the employer to turn the value they create into wages and benefits instead, we’ll find anonymous staunchly on the side of the employer. not because it’s garaunteed by some transcendant Objective standpoint, but rather because “it’s the economy, stupid!” in other words, because given the choice of supporting the current structure of power or supporting those whom that power marginalizes and subjects to social control, anonymous has made the SUBJECTIVE, CONTINGENT DECISION to support the latter and oppose the workers. “looking at both sides” is just a dishonest foil (though one we’re all pretty habituated to due to such questionable influences as mainstream news media)to make hir position unassailable by deeming it “objective” and thus beyond question.while i would place myself, and i’d guess holly might place herself, on the side opposite anonymous, i’m certainly not interested in arguing why. i just think that if this is going to get anywhere, anonymous and anyone else for that matter, needs to stop hiding behind the veil of a non-existent objectivity, and be up front about their position, whatever it may be.

  13. Anonymous

    i usually don’t get into these, but i’ll make an exception b/c the anonymous poster’s (i’m going to assume there’s just one) position in the argument is incredibly disingenuous.what we’re talking about here is class struggle; not to sound too marxist or anything (no, i’m not a marxist), but it’s true. the employers are trying to get as much profit as they can out of the workers, who must struggle in order to defend their interests and in order to do so must constitute them selves as a power autonomous from and antagonistic to the employer, in other words engage in class struggle. moreover, BA’s move is also a form of class struggle: management using a stragegic opening to wrest back more profit that would otherwise be going towards a living wage for the workers who, previously, had to use their position in the structure of capital (e.g. organize a union) in order to win that wage from the employers.but why is the argument disingenuous? because anonymous responded to holly’s deeming hir fairly clear misunderstanding (anonymous did, after all, say it was “confusing”) of the original post “not processing” by saying “So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?” in other words, while holly’s strident and one-sided championing of the cause of the workers allows her to draw quick conclusions, anonymous is not taking the side of either the worker or the employer but that of objectivity, dispassionately observing the events unfold and taking the appropriate position warranted by their progressively revealed “truth” (e.g. the correct position).this is utter bullshit because it totally falsifies the nature of judgement and decision and their role in positions in political struggle (which this is). no form of society is given, rather they develop, rise, and fall through struggle and are thus contingent. every action we take, then, either contributes to maintaining the status quo or to subverting it. there’s no way to escape this dimension of our lives, though given how entrenched capitalism is, having a livable life often means supporting the status quo in a fairly complex and ingrained way.however, despite this, anonymous would like for us to believe that zee has been endowed with the truly remarkable power of extricating hirself from all pre-existing social and historical circumstances and rising to the pristine land of objective judgement, wherefrom zee may shine the light of Objective Truth down on the dark squabbles of myopic partisans such as myself or holly and show us the way to the Correct Position.BUT ALAS! it appears as though our savior is not all we took hir for! remember when anonymous said “Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.”? WHAM! BAM! There you have it folks! since anonymous is apparently human after all, zee makes it clear here that when it comes to the struggle between the imperative of the employer to make a profit and the imperative of the worker to assert their power over the situation by forcing the employer to turn the value they create into wages and benefits instead, we’ll find anonymous staunchly on the side of the employer. not because it’s garaunteed by some transcendant Objective standpoint, but rather because “it’s the economy, stupid!” in other words, because given the choice of supporting the current structure of power or supporting those whom that power marginalizes and subjects to social control, anonymous has made the SUBJECTIVE, CONTINGENT DECISION to support the latter and oppose the workers. “looking at both sides” is just a dishonest foil (though one we’re all pretty habituated to due to such questionable influences as mainstream news media)to make hir position unassailable by deeming it “objective” and thus beyond question.while i would place myself, and i’d guess holly might place herself, on the side opposite anonymous, i’m certainly not interested in arguing why. i just think that if this is going to get anywhere, anonymous and anyone else for that matter, needs to stop hiding behind the veil of a non-existent objectivity, and be up front about their position, whatever it may be.

  14. Anonymous

    i usually don’t get into these, but i’ll make an exception b/c the anonymous poster’s (i’m going to assume there’s just one) position in the argument is incredibly disingenuous.
    what we’re talking about here is class struggle; not to sound too marxist or anything (no, i’m not a marxist), but it’s true. the employers are trying to get as much profit as they can out of the workers, who must struggle in order to defend their interests and in order to do so must constitute them selves as a power autonomous from and antagonistic to the employer, in other words engage in class struggle. moreover, BA’s move is also a form of class struggle: management using a stragegic opening to wrest back more profit that would otherwise be going towards a living wage for the workers who, previously, had to use their position in the structure of capital (e.g. organize a union) in order to win that wage from the employers.
    but why is the argument disingenuous? because anonymous responded to holly’s deeming hir fairly clear misunderstanding (anonymous did, after all, say it was “confusing”) of the original post “not processing” by saying “So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?” in other words, while holly’s strident and one-sided championing of the cause of the workers allows her to draw quick conclusions, anonymous is not taking the side of either the worker or the employer but that of objectivity, dispassionately observing the events unfold and taking the appropriate position warranted by their progressively revealed “truth” (e.g. the correct position).
    this is utter bullshit because it totally falsifies the nature of judgement and decision and their role in positions in political struggle (which this is). no form of society is given, rather they develop, rise, and fall through struggle and are thus contingent. every action we take, then, either contributes to maintaining the status quo or to subverting it. there’s no way to escape this dimension of our lives, though given how entrenched capitalism is, having a livable life often means supporting the status quo in a fairly complex and ingrained way.
    however, despite this, anonymous would like for us to believe that zee has been endowed with the truly remarkable power of extricating hirself from all pre-existing social and historical circumstances and rising to the pristine land of objective judgement, wherefrom zee may shine the light of Objective Truth down on the dark squabbles of myopic partisans such as myself or holly and show us the way to the Correct Position.
    BUT ALAS! it appears as though our savior is not all we took hir for! remember when anonymous said “Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.”? WHAM! BAM! There you have it folks! since anonymous is apparently human after all, zee makes it clear here that when it comes to the struggle between the imperative of the employer to make a profit and the imperative of the worker to assert their power over the situation by forcing the employer to turn the value they create into wages and benefits instead, we’ll find anonymous staunchly on the side of the employer. not because it’s garaunteed by some transcendant Objective standpoint, but rather because “it’s the economy, stupid!” in other words, because given the choice of supporting the current structure of power or supporting those whom that power marginalizes and subjects to social control, anonymous has made the SUBJECTIVE, CONTINGENT DECISION to support the latter and oppose the workers. “looking at both sides” is just a dishonest foil (though one we’re all pretty habituated to due to such questionable influences as mainstream news media)to make hir position unassailable by deeming it “objective” and thus beyond question.
    while i would place myself, and i’d guess holly might place herself, on the side opposite anonymous, i’m certainly not interested in arguing why. i just think that if this is going to get anywhere, anonymous and anyone else for that matter, needs to stop hiding behind the veil of a non-existent objectivity, and be up front about their position, whatever it may be.

  15. Holly

    Right, and the labor side is saying, no actually, under 40 hours, they don’t qualify for full-time benefits. They qualify for some, but not all. We don’t see where he’s getting this from. So there’s disagreement.Another thing you might consider is the nature of benefits. If I am a part-time employee, I am eligible to pay at considerable out of pocket cost to buy into my employer’s health insurance. While I’m not given health insurance as part of my benefits package, I am still technically eligible to receive them. There’s a difference in that respect, as well.However, if I work less than 20 hours a week, I don’t even have that option.

  16. Holly

    Right, and the labor side is saying, no actually, under 40 hours, they don’t qualify for full-time benefits. They qualify for some, but not all. We don’t see where he’s getting this from. So there’s disagreement.Another thing you might consider is the nature of benefits. If I am a part-time employee, I am eligible to pay at considerable out of pocket cost to buy into my employer’s health insurance. While I’m not given health insurance as part of my benefits package, I am still technically eligible to receive them. There’s a difference in that respect, as well.However, if I work less than 20 hours a week, I don’t even have that option.

  17. Holly

    Right, and the labor side is saying, no actually, under 40 hours, they don’t qualify for full-time benefits. They qualify for some, but not all. We don’t see where he’s getting this from. So there’s disagreement.

    Another thing you might consider is the nature of benefits. If I am a part-time employee, I am eligible to pay at considerable out of pocket cost to buy into my employer’s health insurance. While I’m not given health insurance as part of my benefits package, I am still technically eligible to receive them. There’s a difference in that respect, as well.

    However, if I work less than 20 hours a week, I don’t even have that option.

  18. Anonymous

    So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?”Everyone over twenty hours per week is eligible for full time benefits. Some of the jobs because of business needs have been reduced in hours or increased. Traditionally full time benefits kick in somewhere around thirty hours worked per week usually thirty two. Here they kick in at twenty hours per week.”

  19. Anonymous

    So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?”Everyone over twenty hours per week is eligible for full time benefits. Some of the jobs because of business needs have been reduced in hours or increased. Traditionally full time benefits kick in somewhere around thirty hours worked per week usually thirty two. Here they kick in at twenty hours per week.”

  20. Anonymous

    So you consider trying to listen to both sides of the argument “not processing?” This is what I read – did you?

    “Everyone over twenty hours per week is eligible for full time benefits. Some of the jobs because of business needs have been reduced in hours or increased. Traditionally full time benefits kick in somewhere around thirty hours worked per week usually thirty two. Here they kick in at twenty hours per week.”

  21. Holly

    Ok, then you’re not processing it. There is a difference between full-time benefits and partial benefits. For full-time benefits, you’re right, you need to work 40 or more hours, so by what Silvestro said, only 2 workers as of right now are qualifying for full-time benefits. For partial benefits, you must work 20 or more hours. So implicitly, by scheduling workers who previously worked 40 hours a week to work 37.5 hours a week, they are, in effect losing benefits, but not losing all of their benefits. Workers who previously worked 20 hours a week who now work 17.5 will lose all benefits. That is the distinction.And as for BA’s reply, that’s pretty much the same thing I got out of that, too. “We’re cutting down benefits because they’re too expensive.” He was pretty straightforward about it. The big disagreement between the two parties, of course, is who is getting full-time and what their definition of full-time is. Silvestro and Wendy are aware that they can’t get full-time benefits when working under BA’s new “but 37.5 hours is almost like working 40” model. So I’m going to go ahead and say full-time is supposed to mean 40 and not 37.5 because that’s where BA’s still pegging the full-time benefits.

  22. Holly

    Ok, then you’re not processing it. There is a difference between full-time benefits and partial benefits. For full-time benefits, you’re right, you need to work 40 or more hours, so by what Silvestro said, only 2 workers as of right now are qualifying for full-time benefits. For partial benefits, you must work 20 or more hours. So implicitly, by scheduling workers who previously worked 40 hours a week to work 37.5 hours a week, they are, in effect losing benefits, but not losing all of their benefits. Workers who previously worked 20 hours a week who now work 17.5 will lose all benefits. That is the distinction.And as for BA’s reply, that’s pretty much the same thing I got out of that, too. “We’re cutting down benefits because they’re too expensive.” He was pretty straightforward about it. The big disagreement between the two parties, of course, is who is getting full-time and what their definition of full-time is. Silvestro and Wendy are aware that they can’t get full-time benefits when working under BA’s new “but 37.5 hours is almost like working 40” model. So I’m going to go ahead and say full-time is supposed to mean 40 and not 37.5 because that’s where BA’s still pegging the full-time benefits.

  23. Holly

    Ok, then you’re not processing it. There is a difference between full-time benefits and partial benefits. For full-time benefits, you’re right, you need to work 40 or more hours, so by what Silvestro said, only 2 workers as of right now are qualifying for full-time benefits. For partial benefits, you must work 20 or more hours. So implicitly, by scheduling workers who previously worked 40 hours a week to work 37.5 hours a week, they are, in effect losing benefits, but not losing all of their benefits. Workers who previously worked 20 hours a week who now work 17.5 will lose all benefits. That is the distinction.

    And as for BA’s reply, that’s pretty much the same thing I got out of that, too. “We’re cutting down benefits because they’re too expensive.” He was pretty straightforward about it.

    The big disagreement between the two parties, of course, is who is getting full-time and what their definition of full-time is. Silvestro and Wendy are aware that they can’t get full-time benefits when working under BA’s new “but 37.5 hours is almost like working 40” model. So I’m going to go ahead and say full-time is supposed to mean 40 and not 37.5 because that’s where BA’s still pegging the full-time benefits.

  24. Anonymous

    I did read carefully. I read it over a couple of times, in fact. You said:”She noted that many 40-hour staffers have seen their hours cut to 37.5 as well, in order to deny them full-time benefits. While in his emailed response, Delmar claimed that there are 69 full-time staff positions at Wesleyan, Silvestro and others in the staff note there are only two with the recent changes.”The whole thing is a confusing rant, to be honest. The way you spin it, it sounds like anyone who works under 40 hrs doesn’t get FT benefits. Doesn’t sound like you even read BA’s response – you were too excited about relaying the details of your exclusive phone interview.

  25. Anonymous

    I did read carefully. I read it over a couple of times, in fact. You said:”She noted that many 40-hour staffers have seen their hours cut to 37.5 as well, in order to deny them full-time benefits. While in his emailed response, Delmar claimed that there are 69 full-time staff positions at Wesleyan, Silvestro and others in the staff note there are only two with the recent changes.”The whole thing is a confusing rant, to be honest. The way you spin it, it sounds like anyone who works under 40 hrs doesn’t get FT benefits. Doesn’t sound like you even read BA’s response – you were too excited about relaying the details of your exclusive phone interview.

  26. Anonymous

    I did read carefully. I read it over a couple of times, in fact. You said:

    “She noted that many 40-hour staffers have seen their hours cut to 37.5 as well, in order to deny them full-time benefits. While in his emailed response, Delmar claimed that there are 69 full-time staff positions at Wesleyan, Silvestro and others in the staff note there are only two with the recent changes.”

    The whole thing is a confusing rant, to be honest. The way you spin it, it sounds like anyone who works under 40 hrs doesn’t get FT benefits. Doesn’t sound like you even read BA’s response – you were too excited about relaying the details of your exclusive phone interview.

  27. Holly

    “I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.”Did I say only two people getting benefits? Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. I said only two people getting full-time hours. If you’re going to criticize someone for “being used” you should read more carefully.Secondly, to the comment about not needing that many workers–even if your point is that the facilities are overstaffed and workers are not needed, then why are they cutting the hours to 17.5 and 37.5 rather than having people work different places at different times in order to make 40 and 20 hours respectively? Or expand the hours, god forbid, because it’s not like any student wants more hours. That’s really hardly a problem.Guys, you do not need to kowtow to BA. They are a SERVICE industry. They’re supposed to be kowtowing to us–the customer. The problem with dining contract services in general, however, is they got us by the balls because we’re forced to buy the meal plan. We can’t buy from other competitors. But that just means we have to address our concerns to Wesleyan because no matter what, like Silvestro said, BA can’t make a move without Wesleyan’s approval. And from what I understand the new contract gives Wesleyan a lot more control than the previous contract.Seriously, I hate this attitude of “This is how the economy works.” It doesn’t have to be that way and given that I come from their social background with health insurance always being a variable, I don’t think you guys really understand what it’s like to not have benefits. To have to force your kid to quit sports because you can’t afford him getting a soccer injury. To have to worry about an ear infection because you can’t afford to go to the doctor to get your antibiotics prescribed. I mean, Michael Moore made a movie about it, obviously, so it’s not something we’re not aware of, but we certainly don’t have to condone this so BA can make some profit “because that’s just how it is.” Christ, that’s defeatist.

  28. Holly

    “I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.”Did I say only two people getting benefits? Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. I said only two people getting full-time hours. If you’re going to criticize someone for “being used” you should read more carefully.Secondly, to the comment about not needing that many workers–even if your point is that the facilities are overstaffed and workers are not needed, then why are they cutting the hours to 17.5 and 37.5 rather than having people work different places at different times in order to make 40 and 20 hours respectively? Or expand the hours, god forbid, because it’s not like any student wants more hours. That’s really hardly a problem.Guys, you do not need to kowtow to BA. They are a SERVICE industry. They’re supposed to be kowtowing to us–the customer. The problem with dining contract services in general, however, is they got us by the balls because we’re forced to buy the meal plan. We can’t buy from other competitors. But that just means we have to address our concerns to Wesleyan because no matter what, like Silvestro said, BA can’t make a move without Wesleyan’s approval. And from what I understand the new contract gives Wesleyan a lot more control than the previous contract.Seriously, I hate this attitude of “This is how the economy works.” It doesn’t have to be that way and given that I come from their social background with health insurance always being a variable, I don’t think you guys really understand what it’s like to not have benefits. To have to force your kid to quit sports because you can’t afford him getting a soccer injury. To have to worry about an ear infection because you can’t afford to go to the doctor to get your antibiotics prescribed. I mean, Michael Moore made a movie about it, obviously, so it’s not something we’re not aware of, but we certainly don’t have to condone this so BA can make some profit “because that’s just how it is.” Christ, that’s defeatist.

  29. Holly

    “I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.”

    Did I say only two people getting benefits? Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. I said only two people getting full-time hours. If you’re going to criticize someone for “being used” you should read more carefully.

    Secondly, to the comment about not needing that many workers–even if your point is that the facilities are overstaffed and workers are not needed, then why are they cutting the hours to 17.5 and 37.5 rather than having people work different places at different times in order to make 40 and 20 hours respectively? Or expand the hours, god forbid, because it’s not like any student wants more hours. That’s really hardly a problem.

    Guys, you do not need to kowtow to BA. They are a SERVICE industry. They’re supposed to be kowtowing to us–the customer.

    The problem with dining contract services in general, however, is they got us by the balls because we’re forced to buy the meal plan. We can’t buy from other competitors.

    But that just means we have to address our concerns to Wesleyan because no matter what, like Silvestro said, BA can’t make a move without Wesleyan’s approval. And from what I understand the new contract gives Wesleyan a lot more control than the previous contract.

    Seriously, I hate this attitude of “This is how the economy works.” It doesn’t have to be that way and given that I come from their social background with health insurance always being a variable, I don’t think you guys really understand what it’s like to not have benefits. To have to force your kid to quit sports because you can’t afford him getting a soccer injury. To have to worry about an ear infection because you can’t afford to go to the doctor to get your antibiotics prescribed. I mean, Michael Moore made a movie about it, obviously, so it’s not something we’re not aware of, but we certainly don’t have to condone this so BA can make some profit “because that’s just how it is.” Christ, that’s defeatist.

  30. Anonymous

    I’m not saying we should “bow down” to the will of Bon Appetit. I’m saying, just maybe, that they may be right.

  31. Anonymous

    I’m not saying we should “bow down” to the will of Bon Appetit. I’m saying, just maybe, that they may be right.

  32. Anonymous

    I’m not saying we should “bow down” to the will of Bon Appetit. I’m saying, just maybe, that they may be right.

  33. Anonymous

    Yes. There is no possibility of any change. We are stuck with BA so we might as well bow down to their will.Or, maybe we could try to change things. Just maybe.

  34. Anonymous

    Yes. There is no possibility of any change. We are stuck with BA so we might as well bow down to their will.Or, maybe we could try to change things. Just maybe.

  35. Anonymous

    Yes. There is no possibility of any change. We are stuck with BA so we might as well bow down to their will.

    Or, maybe we could try to change things. Just maybe.

  36. Anonymous

    If management thinks the operation can be run effectively with fewer hours, doesn’t that mean Dining Services is overstaffed? Maybe some of these people just aren’t needed anymore, what with consolidation of the dining facilties and improved efficiency.No one likes to have their job cut, but if all the work can get done so that some people aren’t even coming into work for 20 hours a week, it seems to me like it’s time to clear some people off the payroll.Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.

  37. Anonymous

    If management thinks the operation can be run effectively with fewer hours, doesn’t that mean Dining Services is overstaffed? Maybe some of these people just aren’t needed anymore, what with consolidation of the dining facilties and improved efficiency.No one likes to have their job cut, but if all the work can get done so that some people aren’t even coming into work for 20 hours a week, it seems to me like it’s time to clear some people off the payroll.Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.

  38. Anonymous

    If management thinks the operation can be run effectively with fewer hours, doesn’t that mean Dining Services is overstaffed? Maybe some of these people just aren’t needed anymore, what with consolidation of the dining facilties and improved efficiency.

    No one likes to have their job cut, but if all the work can get done so that some people aren’t even coming into work for 20 hours a week, it seems to me like it’s time to clear some people off the payroll.

    Welcome to the economy, folks. Not everyone can get $20/hour and full, employer-paid benefits for sitting at a cash register or flipping a burger.

  39. Anonymous

    I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.“We have talked amongst ourselves and we have all agreed that they have no idea of what these students are like—and that’s meant to be seen in the best light. Students on this campus care. They care about recycling. They care about food waste feeding the poor. They care about worker’s rights. And [BA] has not experienced that at any other university.”That’s right – we are soooo different, soooo special. Do you really think that is what they are saying about us when they talk amongst themselves?

  40. Anonymous

    I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.“We have talked amongst ourselves and we have all agreed that they have no idea of what these students are like—and that’s meant to be seen in the best light. Students on this campus care. They care about recycling. They care about food waste feeding the poor. They care about worker’s rights. And [BA] has not experienced that at any other university.”That’s right – we are soooo different, soooo special. Do you really think that is what they are saying about us when they talk amongst themselves?

  41. Anonymous

    I find it very hard to believe that only two the food service workers are going to get benefits. Get a grip, Holly, you are being used.

    “We have talked amongst ourselves and we have all agreed that they have no idea of what these students are like—and that’s meant to be seen in the best light. Students on this campus care. They care about recycling. They care about food waste feeding the poor. They care about worker’s rights. And [BA] has not experienced that at any other university.”

    That’s right – we are soooo different, soooo special. Do you really think that is what they are saying about us when they talk amongst themselves?

  42. Anonymous

    The correct spelling of her name is Sue Silvestro. You got it right throughout the article, but wrong in the beginning where it is in bold red text.BA is getting a head start on making students angry.

  43. Anonymous

    The correct spelling of her name is Sue Silvestro. You got it right throughout the article, but wrong in the beginning where it is in bold red text.BA is getting a head start on making students angry.

  44. Anonymous

    The correct spelling of her name is Sue Silvestro. You got it right throughout the article, but wrong in the beginning where it is in bold red text.

    BA is getting a head start on making students angry.

  45. Holly

    Sorry, that deleted comment was me.You want to contact Dean Rick at rculliton@wes.If that doesn’t work (and he hasn’t responded back to me as of yet) I’m working with members from USLAC to figure out who to contact next.

  46. Holly

    Sorry, that deleted comment was me.You want to contact Dean Rick at rculliton@wes.If that doesn’t work (and he hasn’t responded back to me as of yet) I’m working with members from USLAC to figure out who to contact next.

  47. Holly

    Sorry, that deleted comment was me.

    You want to contact Dean Rick at rculliton@wes.

    If that doesn’t work (and he hasn’t responded back to me as of yet) I’m working with members from USLAC to figure out who to contact next.

Comments are closed.