16
THE CAVALIER DAILY
OPINION • www.cavalierdaily.com
ARAMARK IS STILL A PROBLEM Despite President Ryan’s promises about negotiating a living wage for contracted workers, admin. should continue to examine the issues with subcontracting
E
arlier this month, President Jim Ryan’s released a statement promising that University administration would implement a $15 minimum wage for both university workers and contracted employees starting on Jan. 1, 2020. The statement followed a report that came from Ryan’s community working group, which he created to improve the relationship between the University and larger Charlottesville community. In the report, the working group released results to a survey that showed living wages to be the issue of top priority amongst Charlottesville workers and residents. In response, not only did Ryan propose a minimum wage of $15 per hour for University employees, but he also assured contracted workers that he and his team would find a way to pay them a similar wage, despite current legal barriers. Many have celebrated Ryan’s decision to implement a living wage for University workers, but there is still no clear plan for raising the wages of contracted employees. Currently, the starting wage for contracted employees is $10.65 per hour, which is less than the University’s base wage of $12.38 per
hour and far lower than $15. While the University office of Human Resources office has claimed that this new base wage will not increase student tuition, there could be negative outcome for students from an increase in the wages of contracted employees. The University is of one of about 40 percent of colleges that contract companies to run their dining halls and currently contracts with Aramark for these services. These companies are
United States, and its CEO’s “per hour wage is about 1,700 times that of some of his employees.” Despite its large profits and highly-paid executives, Aramark still fails to provide a living wage to its employees. Furthermore, the financial success of Aramark calls to account the company’s priorities. Audits and university contracts with Aramak reveal that the money students pay to purchase a meal plan is not always accurately reflected by the
On average, universities charge around $4,500 for a three-meal-a-day meal plan per academic year. This breaks down to about $18.75 per day. While these increases have made meal plans exceedingly expensive, dining worker wages and food quality have remained subpar. There have even been complaints from dining hall chefs at Yale University about the declining quality of food that Aramark provides. But getting rid of Aramark will not
Students must remember that the living wage issue has not yet been solved and continue to support contracted workers at the University. in charge of both pricing their food and paying employees. As both the price of meal plans and Aramark’s profits increase, the University must question whether Aramark should have a continued contractual existence on Grounds. In 2016, Aramark reported revenues of $14.4 billion. Additionally, a Huffington Post article even named Aramark as one of the ten companies that pays its workers the least in the
costs associated with employees’ salaries or the food that students are being served. Instead, this revenue often funds contracting deals between Aramark and the institutions in which the corporation provides certain services. Many universities require that subcontractors price meals fairly in their contracts, but the price of meal plans for students is still on the rise. In fact, over the past 10 years, college meal plans have increased about 50 percent.
be easy. In fact, in 2014 the University renewed its contract with Aramark for another 20 years. Within this 20 year time period, Aramark has agreed to provide the University with escrow funds that will amount to $70 million in total. Additionally, the University is one of many colleges, such as University of Tennessee and Texas A&M, that has made partnerships with dining contractors in order to help pay for improvements around their campus-
es. If U.Va. puts its contract with Aramark in jeopardy, it could lose these funds. In fact, the University may even have to pay a pro rata portion of the funds back to Aramark. Due to the financial ties to Aramark, it is seemingly unlikely that Ryan will be able to take real action in support of a living wage for contracted workers. Students must remember that the living wage issue has not yet been solved and continue to support contracted workers at the University. The Living Wage Campaign at U.Va. was previously the longest-running unsuccessful wage campaign at a collegiate institution, but the perseverance of the activists and supporters finally did make a difference for many wage-earning workers. In order for this movement to carry on, students must continue to fight for progress at the University.
VICTORIA MCKELVEY is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com. **
AUDIT AND STREAMLINE ATHLETICS SPENDING Amidst national scandals, athletic spending must be curbed to unburden the student body
T
he Board of Visitors approved yet another major tuition hike in December, amounting to a roughly 3 percent increase for undergraduate students and up to 4.9 percent for graduate students. This increase is particularly concerning when you consider the University’s quantifiable history of questionable financial decisions, such as their massively overzealous $160 million needed for Alderman’s renovations — which is equivalent to annual in-state tuition for nearly 5,000 students. Because of this palpable fiscal irresponsibility, it is important for the student body to constantly scrutinize where exactly our tuition dollars are going. Nowhere is this more necessary than in the University athletics department, a non-essential sector that spends over $100 million annually and often fails to turn a net operating profit. While in-depth financial breakdowns of University Athletics’ spending and revenue streams are not available to the public, some rudimentary data is released by the National Collegiate Athletic Association each year. What stood out to me in the most recent data was the nearly $14 million in student fees that fund sports at the University,
which comprises more than 2 percent of total net undergraduate tuition and fees. This would be somewhat understandable if athletics turned a profit and provided some financial benefit to the school, but instead they reported a loss of nearly $8 million for the 2017 fiscal year. So in essence, a significant amount
than a drain on the University’s resources in their current states. While information regarding specific spending on each sport is not distributed to the public, it is clear that many sports teams are spending a lot more than they are earning — and perhaps a lot more than they need. Thus, I propose that funding
cilities which have begun to prioritize luxury rather than utility and simply cannot be justified given the lack of corresponding cash inflows for most sports. Moreover, the vast majority of men’s sports would be affected as well, so it is clear that gender is not of importance in this financial proposition.
In essence, a significant amount of our tuition dollars are funding peripheral programs that actually lose money for the school overall, which makes no sense to me. of our tuition dollars are funding peripheral programs that actually lose money for the school overall, which makes no sense to me. The root cause of this problem has to do with the fact that very few collegiate sports actually bring in substantial revenues. While football and men’s basketball generate massive returns, a study conducted at the University of Central Florida found that other collegiate sports eat up the majority of this profit due to their lack of financial success. Thus, income from football and basketball programs — supplemented by hefty student fees — essentially subsidize all other sports, which serve as little more
for individual collegiate sports be made relatively proportional to the revenues that they bring in, which would help to curtail this annual net operating loss. I recognize that such a proposal could be interpreted as an attack on Title IX and women’s sports, but this is not the case. Scholarships and essential spending for maintaining equity in areas such as coaching would be kept consistent, but extraneous spending and overhead charges — which together make up over 40 percent of the department’s cash outflows — could be targeted for cuts and streamlining. An example of this would be extravagant athletic fa-
On the topic of scholarships, though it is worth mentioning the recent national scandal in which more than 50 individuals were charged with large-scale bribery to facilitate college admissions, often under the guise of athletic recruiting. While the University was not one of the institutions mentioned in the report, I think it would be worthwhile to investigate and audit our athletic recruiting processes to ensure that tuition-funded academic scholarships are only awarded to those that need and deserve them. It is absolutely sickening to imagine that these scholarships could be going to wealthy, grossly unqualified individuals.
As is proclaimed in the University’s statement of purpose, “The University of Virginia is a public institution of higher learning guided by a founding vision of discovery, innovation and development.” We must always remember that the central focus and modus operandi of this establishment is to promote education and that athletics serve only to complement this mission. Unfortunately, in recent years, the financially distended athletics department has become something of a vestigial institution. However, through streamlining and budget cuts, the entity can be reinvigorated without negatively impacting the student body. We as a populace often find ourselves speaking out against tuition hikes, but rarely offer areas that the University could focus on to curb their budget. The athletics department is one such area, and a full-scale financial audit is crucial to ensure its long term sustainability.
MILAN BHARADWAJ is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@ cavalierdaily.com.