As evidenced by the demonstrations and marches I've witnessed on campus lately, wage increases and improved benefits for our custodial staff is a hot topic. However, I strongly feel as though the arguments of the student activists are lacking in economic reality, and their solutions to the problem could have unintended consequences that must be considered.
Outsourcing is a smart policy for Tufts University. On many levels, it is a question of specialization. Tufts is an educational institution, and its specialty is providing quality higher education to its students. For example, Barnes and Noble, as a member of a national network of booksellers, is better situated to run a bookstore than Tufts University, so it makes sense to out source there.
Simply put, they have the resources to do a better and cheaper job than Tufts could if it chose to operate a bookstore independently. Outsourcing custodial services to OneSource is the same idea. Running a custodial operation is something that a company that specializes in such activities can do more efficiently than an institution of higher education. Through outsourcing, Tufts saves money and resources and is able to concentrate its efforts in education and learning.
However, a mandated increase in the wages of its workers negates the efficiency and cost benefits of outsourcing. We must remember that OneSource is a business that must have a certain profit margin in order to sustain itself in a competitive market, and sets its wage accordingly. A mandated wage increase will lead to two possible scenarios.
First, it is very possible that OneSource - or whoever assumes the contract - would pass the increase in operating costs to us, the consumers of the product. That would translate into a marked increase in our fees and housing costs. The magnitude of this increase is debatable, but regardless, it is an increase. Without question, I agree that the university and its students have certain community obligations, but it is important to remember that a Tufts education approaches $35,000 a year. As a graduate student paying full tuition, I firmly believe that the University also has an obligation to its students to keep costs as manageable as possible.
The other possible scenario of a mandated wage increase is that OneSource would be forced to keep a smaller employee roster or hire its staff for less hours in order to compensate for the rise in operating costs. Having a reduced custodial staff hired at a higher wage would be great for those who manage to retain their employment, but what about those who would be released? A decrease in the quality and/or range of services provided would be inevitable with a smaller work force. Or what if the company keeps its workforce but just hires for less hours? Are the workers necessarily better off?
Rather than asking for wage increases that will inevitably increase prices for everyone or reduce the quality of facilities, we need to understand why the custodial staff is paid such a low wage, bearing in mind that wages for similar employment are basically the same across the Boston area.
The unfortunate reality is that the janitorial staff lacks the skills or education to obtain higher paying employment in today's technology-oriented job market. If we really want to improve the living standards of the custodial staff, we would help it obtain the skills necessary to move up the economic ladder. Instead of organizing student demonstrations and sit-ins, concerned citizens could coordinate efforts to provide ESL and computer classes, and GED tutoring.
The possibilities are endless, and as university students, we all know first hand that education is the true key to increased opportunities in life. It takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice to break the cycle of poverty, but for those willing to make the final break from a minimum wage existence, the opportunity to do so should exist.
Sara Yun is a MALD candidate graduating in 2003 from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
