January 26th's Student Assembly meeting which the Assembly debated whether to pass a resolution asking the College to explain publicly why staff have been excluded from the budget committees ("SA debates inquiry of staff input on budget," Jan. 27) made me, for a moment, ashamed to be a Dartmouth student.
Allow me to clarify: the Assembly was not debating whether to oppose staff layoffs as the College determines how it will make $100 million in budget cuts. It was debating a resolution asking the College to merely explain why Dartmouth staff has had zero input in the decision-making process on layoffs and budget cuts. What upset me was the reaction of those most vehemently opposed to the resolution.
Apparently, 2012 Class Council President John Rutan '12 believes that "the College already has a sufficient understanding of the consequences of layoffs, causing SEIU representation to be unnecessary." Excuse me? Either this member of the Class of 2012 is aspiring to become a future union buster, or he's had one too many sips of the Kool-Aid. Dartmouth's union exists precisely because an intermediary is necessary to safeguard the rights of our staff from our administration. You don't have to look very far back in institutional history to see just how crucial it is that staff has union representation it was just a few months ago that the Hanover Inn agreed to pay $29,000 dollars in back pay to employees after receiving more than 740 citations for violations of labor laws ("Inn accused of violating labor laws," Dec. 1).
Others openly expressed fear of compromising the Assembly's supposed influence with administrators by taking a stand on the issue because, as we all know, the Assembly's incredible clout would all but vanish if they passed a modest resolution requesting increased transparency. Dartmouth has a contractual and legal obligation to engage in "good faith" collective bargaining with the SEIU regarding layoffs, yet the College rejected the union's request to put an indefinite hold on the layoffs, notifying the Valley News before the union itself. Belatedly, the College agreed to begin the bargaining process. I find it hard to detect "good faith," however, when the key issues dollars that need to be cut and numbers of staff that will be laid off have already been decided upon "fait accompli."
The vast majority of staff on campus are non-unionized; currently, the College plans to begin laying off non-union staff while preserving all unionized employees until negotiations have finished ("College announces plan to cut $100 million," Feb. 9). Thus, rather than allowing the union to fight for the jobs of all staff on campus, the College has essentially pitted union staff against non-union staff. This will inevitably lead to a hostile and unproductive work environment as layoffs begin and anxieties rise.
Staff reductions are not a matter of simply cutting down bloat. In fact, the number of College staff members has actually decreased since 2002. And as the Feb. 1 meeting of Students Stand with Staff revealed, there are alternatives to President Kim's proposal that went unmentioned by these spineless Assembly members. Professors have volunteered to take paycuts; the experts in our economics department could reexamine the Trustees' $100 million figure. Other universities like Portland State have already implemented ethical cuts that shared the burden across the school, rather than destroyed the livelihood of those most vulnerable.
The College released its preliminary budget announcement on Feb. 8, well in advance of union negotiations. Now more than ever, students must demand real transparency, a legitimate staff voice and a serious consideration of alternatives.
The Upper Valley depends on Dartmouth. Let's not forget that the College is dealing with real people and lives, not just a ledger book. Many of those left unemployed by the layoffs staff we have come to love will struggle to put food on their tables. As Biology Professor Lee Witters said, one of the values Dartmouth is supposed to imbue upon us "is a commitment to everyone on this planet." We've shown an incredible commitment to those affected by natural disaster in Haiti. When are we going to show solidarity to those in danger here in Hanover?
