Seventeen student living wage activists are in their second day of staging a sit-in at Madison Hall, Stephanie Fees and Sarah Peeden report in the Cavalier Daily. It was just a month ago that UVa agreed to raise their minimum wage from $8.88 to $9.37/hour, but the newly reestablished living wage campaign at UVa is demanding $10.72 for the 809 UVa workers below that threshold. The students claim to be prepared to stay for the next couple of weeks. A rally was held at the rotunda, featuring NAACP chairman Julian Bond, and Professor Wende Marshall was arrested for trespassing yesterday evening when she attempted to enter Madison, the building that houses the office of President John Casteen.
News and meta-news about Charlottesville, VA, since 2001.
Sideblog
Police announced this afternoon that their investigation into what was initially believed to be a fatal fire on Rugby Avenue is now a homicide investigation. #
The Virginia Supreme Court has denied George Huguely’s appeal. His second-degree murder conviction will stand, WRIC reports. #
In a carefully worded story, and not citing specific sources, WTVR reports that forensic evidence belonging to Jesse Matthew Jr., the main suspect in the disappearance of Hannah Graham, matches forensic evidence collected during the investigation of Morgan Harrington’s 2009 murder. #
In the wake of Hannah Graham’s disappearance, and the evidence that came from private security footage, city officials are revisiting the question of installing security cameras on the downtown mall. #
Both Charlottesville Registrar Sheri Iachetta and former Electoral Board member Stephanie Commander have turned themselves in to the police on
foursix and four felony counts of embezzlement, respectively. #Ten years ago, the National Institutes of Health budget doubled and schools like the University of Virginia built massive new research facilities. A decade later, those buildings remain largely underutilized. NPR visits UVA in this story on the effect of federal binge and spurge spending in the sciences. #
In 2012, Council approved a new student housing complex on West Main—now some council members are questioning whether what they were shown matches what was built. #
The Architectural Review Board has approved a bike-themed mural on West Market, below the McGuffey Art Center, although at least one member expressed concerns that it might look like the bicyclists were riding away from Charlottesville’s downtown. #
City Police Chief Tim Longo is meeting with city leaders to work on protocols regarding the use of military surplus police weapons in Charlottesville. #
A 100-year-old Colonnades resident received military honors for her service in the WWII Women’s Army Corps #
-
Archive for Sideblog »
I just heard that the University shut off access to the Madison Hall wireless network early today, and are refusing access to food and books and anything other than what the protestors came in with yesterday a.m.
Too bad, I bet a bunch of those folks have blogs and Flickr accounts. It would be really interesting to see this thing from the inside.
Also, if this is true, it is making the U. look bad, in my opinion. I mean, if the students are tresspassing, arrest them for it. If not, why shut down communication networks and access to things like food and books. It comes off as totalitarian: shutting down their means of communicating their message and trying to starve them out.
Well, shutting off the wireless network and refusing to let them get fresh supplies to enable them to stay there indefinitely–sounds to me like the admin. is saying “if this is really a sit-in, you’ve got to be prepared to tough it out.” I mean, they want to send someone over to Bodo’s with an order for 17 sandwiches to keep up their energy? Someone forgot their chem textbook and wants to study during the lulls between internal debates?
The University wants them to get out but doesn’t want the bad PR of live TV footage of 17 passively resisting undergraduate students being dragged out of the building by police. I think it’s not unreasonable, and not totalitarian, to say “hey, we won’t arrest you, but if you want to do this, I hope you took into account how uncomfortable this might be.” The U won’t let them starve, but why give them wireless?
I don’t see the U suddenly caving and saying “okay, we give, $10.72 an hour it is.” I don’t see the students giving up after a day or two–they’ve invested too much, emotionally, in the idea of the sit-in. Their pride is on the line. It will take a really skillful and thoughtful and compassionate figure to figure out an outcome that allows everyone to save face.
I agree, Cecil. It’s fine to let ’em sit there, but UVa is hardly obliged to give ’em belly rubs and treats. I’m down with their cause, but, yeah, they should be prepared to tough it out.
Along those same lines, I’m questioning this bit from their press release announcing the sit-in:
“Because our sit-in has been seriously considered and undertaken with the best interest of the University deeply at heart, we also demand that no one suffer disciplinary consequences or civil liability as a result of participation in these acts of peaceful civil disobedience. These immunity guidelines have routinely been demanded and met in the dozens of student sit-ins that have taken place nationally during the last decade.”
Immunity guidelines? In addition to demanding the living wage, they also demand that they not suffer any consequences for the (illegal) actions they undertake while demanding the living wage?
I’m really feeling like a fuddy-duddy here…but it just seems to me that part of the essential nature of civil disobedience is you are prepared to suffer the consequences of the actions, NOT that you go into it with immunity. I mean, if you’ll only do it if you’re assured immunity from consequences, then what are you sacrificing? What are you risking? The only thing you suffer is no shower for 4-5 days? You suffer from trying to sleep on the uncomfortable floor of the president’s office with the overhead lights left on? You suffer from getting tired of granola bars after day 3? But hey, if I might get some kind of disciplinary comment on my permanent record, no way I’m doing this?
I’m down with the cause and I’m pro-civil disobedience, but this seems a little cake-and-eat-it-too to me…
The coverage in the Cav. Daily is hysterical; there are at least four articles/letters/editorials to gain the full perspective.
Oh, the humanity!
And from one of the protestors:
At least they are comfortable.
Another Cav Daily opinion column shames the U for cutting off protestors access to “necessities from outside such as food and wireless internet”. Food yes, but is wireless internet access considered essential to life now? The coverage and quotes from this little drama are an interesting commentary on modern life – welcome to civil disobedience in the entitlement generation. (You won’t bring us a latte!? You animals!) Really, if they are going to disrupt the daily work of the administration offices, they should expect some disruption in their own lives.
So, there may be a few rocky spots as these protestors, who have probably never been denied anything in their entire lives, are introduced to reality. In all though, good for them for standing up for something – I truly hope they are in this because they care about the workers, not just for the resume material.
I guess what I was really beginning to muse about in my post was why is the U. playing the game this way. If, as Cecil seems to agree with me here, that the sitters are doing something illegal, then why not have the police take care of it? Yes hauling the lot of them off to jail would be a spectacle, but wouldn’t it be more like ripping the band-aid off quickly. Basically the thing would be over, right? And a couple of months from now no one would remember this. Someone in the administration could spin the arrests by saying that they were breaking the law and that does not lend itself to legitimate dialog. The protestors would say they already tried that. Verbal slap fight ensues and the whole thing fizzles.
By letting the protestors stay and denying the their “necessities”, doesn’t this have the potential to go all Tianamen on the U?
Again, just musing. So what do you all think?
“One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.” — From MLK Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, 16 April 1963.
Memo to the UVa 17 – Dr. King wrote that from his jail cell.
These kids may be well-intentioned, but their “demand” to escape suffering any consequences as a result of their actions (and I’m not referring to lack of wireless access) makes it hard to take them too seriously.
That’s absolutely the crux of it. (MLK Jr. notwithstanding. :) Without willingly suffering the punishments (which these slights surely do not yet constitute), it ain’t civil disobedience. It’s a slumber party.
Feeling fuddy-duddy also about the quotes in the DP… cutting off their wireless “absolutely obscene.” Hmmm. One thing about sit-ins, and I’m a veteran of West Coast sit-ins in the 1980’s, no less, is that they start to smell pretty bad. The absolute elite admins of the U have their offices in Madison Hall and they do not like it. The only office with similar sway is fundraising, and I think that is still adjoining the Rotunda.
I totally support their cause & more.
Two very bad things I learned recently:
1. The cleaning crews in the hospital work for a private contractor. “Contractor,” bah let’s just call them a “racket.” They have taken the kind of job that used to be a leg up into the middle class (see also: city garbage collectors), and turned it into MacMansion profits. Blah blah so here’s the bad part. Technically these workers have health insurance. The in-patient benefit is $500. Total. That’s less than one day’s charges at UVa Hospital, where they work. So they must go on Medicaid if they need to go to the hospital. Except to scrub the toilets, of course.
2. There is a special admissions process for UVa for rich people, run out of the President’s office by one of his special assistants. I say cut that dude’s wireless off and make him go work in the regular admissions office in Peabody. They have been successful in building up the endowment, but what the hell, the Commonwealth created this university and it belongs to the Commonwealth, not to the Richard Smiths of the world (FedEx scion convicted of assault as a student, no brains).
Now where is my bagel?
To Bilco: it might seem that hauling them out of there offers a painful-but-quick end to the situation. But I think that it wouldn’t be that clean-cut of an ending, and that’s why the university won’t do that (yet). The images would be awful–the students would each one have to be dragged out, literally, in front of a large crowd of supporters and TV cameras. Parents of these particular kids would be incensed and that’s not something the university would automatically dismiss as a concern. Moreover, the incident would provide fuel for every dissenting group’s fire for the next five years at least, worsening relations between the admin and any dissenting group. There would be national press coverage and the images would be linked with the university’s name for a good while. The pictures wouldn’t ever go away–and in the age of the Internet, too, they’d be emailed around the country in minutes.
So even if the students are breaking the law, the PR cost of being the institution that dragged 17 students out of a sit-in is a cost that would really linger. That’s my HO.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Cecil and I do see your point. I think it could still blow up in the administration’s face either way, but yes those inevitable pics of students being dragged from the offices of the Pres could hang around for quite a while. But so also might the pics of some dirty, hungry students on day 32 of the protest with an even bigger following outside shouting their support.
Not sure the media/public have the attention span for the latter, and I guess only time will tell.
I think that UVa’s wager is that the protesters don’t have the attention span for the latter. I expect they’re right, though I’m eager to find myself wrong about that.
It is kind of a no-win for the admin–if they negotiate or budge on their position, they’ve demonstrated that the tactic works (don’t negotiate with terrorists, as the argument goes in another context, and I am NOT saying the protesters are terrorists). if they let them linger there without food, they meet the wrath of angry parents who want their babies taken good care of (and I say that sympathetically, as a parent myself). if they let food be brought in, that enables the protesters to stay longer, which puts the admin on the spot–in addition to not being able to work in those offices, the press interest grows with every passing day.
i’m pretty fascinated by the whole thing, mostly because I participated in a sit-in in college myself. in our situation, we were lucky enough to have a thoughtful university president who manged to make us feel like he was giving us real consideration and enough of a concession that we could leave and call it a victory. i don’t know if Casteen and Co. can pull that off–or if they’re interested in going the “everyone wins” route at all.
Once again: well said, Cecil. I, too, am fascinated by this and while I support the cause (there is plenty of money here to go ’round), I wonder about the tactics on both sides.
So much so that I am going to bike over there right now and see what is up.
More later…
I seriously doubt many of the people who are demonstrating for the $10.72 an hour have really thought about this. Ideals are nice, but we can’t ignore reality. Where do they expect UVA to suddenly get the money? They should have gone gangbusters during the budgeting period; they demonstrated, just not hard enough. And if it came down to it, would they be willing to pay more for tuition if it meant the entry-levels would get the “living wage”? Would they be willing to sacrifice some UVA-based financial assitance? And we’ve heard the stories about city teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other employees who don’t make the “living wage” right now; who’s demonstrating for them? Certainly not these kids who are simply joining a bandwagon. Besides, $9.37 or whatever it is is a heck of a lot better than $5.15, which is nowhere near a “living wage” no matter where you live. Why not stage a sit-in at the State Capitol when the General Assembly didn’t pass a minimum wage increase?! What’s going on now at Madison Hall is more of a joke, a stretch for idealism rather than pushing for a cause…and the fact that they necessitate wireless Internet says it all.
Cvillenewser wrote:
I look at it this way, the tuition rate hikes will always happen, and student’s don’t really get a say in how the University spends there tuition money. This is their way of saying we pay tuition, we’d like you to at least have a living wage for your essential employees.
Think of it like this – you know that little box that allows you to give one dollar of your taxes to the presidential election fund? And to do so before it gets spent anywhere else. This protest is kinda like that only it’s their tuition dollars and a living wage.
And that’s my 2 cents.
cvillenewser,
I don’t believe this is idealistic thinking at all. I’ve seen many UVA departments scrambling to blow their excess money before the fiscal year ends on items that aren’t remotely necessary. And we’re talking thousands per department (and there are many departments at UVA). The money is there, but lets face it, people like janitors aren’t a priority for the administration.
I just went over there around 5pm and everything was very lively and very respectful. I’ve kept up with this organization over the years, and I’d bet that they did in fact have a representation at the State general assembly. Sure it may not have been as many as are outside currently, but I’ve known members of the living wage campaign who have traveled many hours to voice their opinions in DC, Richmond and elsewhere.
Frankly, you can pick on them for poor timing or whatever reasons you come up with to play devil’s advocate, but I’d rather have a student body that is out there doing something productive instead of reinforcing UVA’s image as a body of apathetic, snobby, wealthy kids here on their father’s dime.
And I seriously doubt many of us would have thought about this issue at all if it weren’t for these protests. At least it is food for thought. Should anyone be able to still be below the poverty line when they work a full time job in an affluent city/county?
Not sure. But plenty of the kids that go to UVA come from money and the amount of money in question here really isn’t that much in the overall scheme. So I guess it is possible that no one would complain about an extra $100/year added to tuition. Could be it would cause a riot. Someone would have to ask around.
That said, I would like to see some of the figures that are being batted around. It would help hone arguments on both sides.
Well, how about you protesting if is important to you (and I would support this cause as well). They are protesting this because it is a UVA issue and they are UVA students. Come on, get real. Do you think that if they are not out there protesting against every social injustice that they are somehow just hopping on a bandwagon?
I am so glad to see this discussion finally happening, not just in this community but at all. I have taken economics courses and I understand the market argument. According to the theory, the market is efficient and wages should be set according to the supply and demand of labor. Does “efficient” describe the market in Charlottesville, however? How can one argue that the Charlottesville market is efficient when about a third of its residences live in poverty? Let’s take the supply argument. Charlottesville’s unemployment consistently ranks among the lowest in the nation, so the argument that there is an excess supply of workers to explain why Charlottesville wages lag behind is hardly a sound argument. Demand: the area is booming and our economy remains strong regardless of national downturns, I don’t see how one can say that the demand isn’t here.
Back to efficiency, the average cost of a home within Charlottesville-Albemarle runs within the 200k range. Can anyone think of a way to purchase a home in this area on 9 something an hour? Many people may point Northern VA and say “look, its more expensive here and no one is complaining” well maybe that’s because the wages in NOVA match the cost of living. In the Washington, DC area things cost a lot but it is also the 4th highest paid metro area in the country. Charlottesville has above average costs but our wages are average. I encourage everyone to look at this site by Money Magazine showing average salaries for certain jobs. So far everyone I know that has seen this is underpaid.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bestjobs/other_jobs/index.html
I’d first like to point out that UVA08 in no way “understand(s) the market argument.” Also, comparing the bottom quartile or quintile in income will ALWAYS create a discrepancy. It is useless.
And among the other economic fallacies presented here (because unintended consequences never popup, despite good intentions (Just ask President Bush)), I’d like to present an alternative. Start people at lower pay, but give them greater opportunities to advance as a reward for hard work.
The thing with paying less than a living wage is that they’re going to get the money anyway, only through welfare and other public assistance services. It’s particularly silly for a government institution to pay less than a living wage, because it’s government that’s going to end up making up the difference anyhow.
typo on my part: previous comment should read: “Also, comparing the bottom quartile or quintile in income to average costs will ALWAYS create a discrepancy. It is useless.”
If that is indeed the case, then what’s the point?
It’s significantly more efficient to pay public employees enough to keep them out of poverty, rather than route the money through expensive welfare programs.
Nobrainer…. I’m always in the mood to learn. Enlighten me please. What is the market theory?
Sloan: I guarantee you my comments were not efforts to “pick on them,” as you claim. Secondly, the “image” you describe might be one you have of students there — and I respect that, though I disagree — but I find it hard to believe the university has that image of itself (as indicated by the apostrophe in your typing “UVA’s image”).
bilco: If this or any other cause worth protesting were important to me, I’d be out there. Being familiar with some of the students involved in this demonstration, however, I can assure you that many are raising their voice because others are.
To Sloan, bilco, and everyone else: I apologize for incorrectly labeling all persons involved in this demonstration as joining a bandwagon. I agree with bilco and others on this board that many are there, in fact, because they care and it’s an issue that matters to or affects them. I ask for your forgiveness.
Finally, to Trvln Mn: Thank you for continuing the discussion in the spirit of sustaining dialogue rather than pointedly “picking on” someone’s opinions.
Fair enough. But that’s just a benefit to the taxpayers. The majority of taxes paid, of course, come from upper and middle class folks. By what you’re saying, this sit-in has absolutely nothing to do with the workers. This is a sit-in to reduce the tax burden of the well-off?
I could accept, if I thought it were true. If you assume the same quality and quantity of worker, then yes, it would probably work out for the best. Now, I’ve got to assume that higher wages will attract more talented applicants — applicants who are less likely to be in need-of or qualified for government aid. It’s only fair to hire based on talent and qualifications. The result is an overpayment for labor, and a remaining need for aid that has to be paid to the person who became unqualified to work for the state. But the overpayment for labor can be offset by requiring fewer workers, as one must assume that the newer, more talented employees will be capable of doing more work per hour. Plus, raises won’t be limited to the bottom rung. Margins between employees and management have to be maintained.
This scenario is both more realistic and less preferable.
UVA08: The market is most efficient when the buyer gets sufficient quantity at the least price. That’s it. Low unemployment or not, there is ample supply of labor at sub-living-wages.
Urbanitas:
The comment, especially considering the rest of the editorial, is meant as mildly sarcastic, as is the style of many Cavalier Daily lead editorials.
I didn’t say that, you did.
You lost me there. You think that paying another dollar an hour will result in applicants who are more “talented” at cleaning toilets and mopping floors? And that this improved talent makes them less likely to need government aid…why? By virtue of making more money? Which can also be accomplished by paying the existing workers more? And the scenario that you describe is preferable…how?
Waldo, you make it sound as if the workers end up with the same compensation one way or the other — lower wages with more government benefits, or higher wages and no government benefits. The net gain you propose comes from avoiding “expensive welfare programs.” If the programs are cut, fewer taxes are required. Being that taxes are most heavily paid by the rich and middle class, they’ll be one’s benefitting the most. Of course, I’m assuming, quite optimistically, that a government official would want to reduce taxes instead of finding new ways to spend money.
And yes, I think that paying an extra $1.35 an hour will attract more talented employees. You’re right that talent isn’t needed to scrub toilets, but as the pay increases, you’ll bring in people who’ve been working other jobs (at say $10.15/hr), maybe haven’t been working at all (like a middle-class housewife), or maybe have more education (college kid taking a year off). This seems trivial to me. When you pay more, you expect a better product in return, and you’ll find people offering that better product.
Like I said, this living wage scenario is more realistic and less preferable.
The living wage scenario is really only appears preferable when you assume that nothing but the wage changes and that everyone earning it is indeed living below the poverty line. I doubt those assumptions are valid.
That’s right. One way or another, we’re going to support people who live below the poverty line. Either we can compensate them for their work at a level that will put them above the poverty level, or we can make up the difference with social welfare programs.
I can’t see any question that the former is preferable.
I would add that not only does the upper/middle taxpaying class benefit from reducing the need for expensive social welfare programs (by saving the tax $$ needed to fund those programs), but the recipients of the programs benefit too–as everyone who supported “welfare-to-work” programs was fond of arguing, there’s more dignity in work than in taking a handout. Now, I don’t know about the truth of this statement from any firsthand experience–I’ve never had to go on welfare–but it does seem pretty plausible that most people would rather have one decent-paying job that they can do with some pride and dignity than either (a) working three crap-paying jobs or (b) having no job at all and just taking handouts.
So if our society has the choice of supporting our poorest members either by (a) expensive welfare/safety net programs or (b) an artificial wage floor, it seems like Plan B offers more pluses: reduced tax burden on the middle/upper classes who are paying more $$ in income taxes and increased dignity and self-respect for the workers. Which dignity and self-respect, again to hark back to those welfare-to-work supporters from days of yore, is supposedly so critically important that it justifies making women with children leave their children in precarious day-care situations in order to go work two crappy jobs so that they don’t lose their meager and diminishing government support…