This week the University decided to allow a sub-contracted worker to participate on the Advisory Committee for Business Practices. Unfortunately, this move in the right direction is marred by what was required to achieve it: Another conflict between the Georgetown Solidarity Committee and the administration.
The chartered objective of the committee is to “advise on practical ways to ensure concordance between Georgetown University business policy and practice and Georgetown’s commitment to social justice.”
Having a worker from University contractor P&R Enterprises on the committee will make it easier for the University to achieve this goal and move towards a living wage for its workers.
The Committee charter says that the committee should include at least one sub-contracted worker “to the extent legally and practically feasible.” When the membership list was released last week, no subcontracted workers were on it. The GSC confronted Dimolsitas, who allegedly made a rash comment indicating that sub-contracted workers were not members of the University community. The GSC reacted by protesting the lack of workers on the committee.
The University has noted that Dimolsitas’ comment was taken out of context and issued a de facto retraction.
Despite this battle over semantics, it is important for the Georgetown community to focus on the real issue at hand and the real reason for the GSC’s protest: the contract worker not included on the committee.
Although the University refused to explain what made the worker’s presence unfeasible, Dimolsitas brought up concerns about discussing confidential matters with the P&R employee at a meeting with representatives from GSC last Thursday. Ultimately, the two groups agreed to amend the charter and ensure the presence of a voting P&R subcontractor.
“I can’t imagine we’ll need to use any more direct action,” Ginny Leavell (CAS ‘05), a GSC member involved with the committee, said. “They’ve said yes to a worker, and they should follow through with their promise.”
However, it is important that the University follows through with the spirit of their promise and not just the letter. The GSC hopes to have a night-worker on the committee, someone who physically cleans buildings and can speak about his job and his needs. The University, however, has the latitude to choose a management official within P&R whose interests might not be the same as those of a worker.
Georgetown took a large leap forward with its recent decision to raise the wages of its workers to $8.50 an hour, and seems to be moving cautiously in the direction of further reform. Nonetheless, the administration is in danger of stumbling now by denying this committee it’s most important voice: the very workers affected by its decisions.
