SLAC demands unreasonable

The Student Labor Action Committee (SLAC) staged a rally on the Homewood Campus this Wednesday to repeat its perennial demand that the University administration pay all of its workers and sub-contracted employees a "living wage." While we cannot fault SLAC for its tireless commitment to securing sufficient wages for all Hopkins employees, the group has once again espoused views that seem both uninformed and unreasonable.

Senior SLAC member Eric Leslie's comments about the relationship between a planned Biotechnology Park in East Baltimore and the living wage issue are especially indicative of the oft-misguided rhetoric of the group.

According to Leslie, "[SLAC] wanted to highlight the Biotechnology Park today because if Hopkins has the money to do that, they should be able to pay a living wage."

But a letter to SLAC from Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration James McGill said, "The planned Biotechnology Park in East Baltimore is not 'the Hospital's.' In fact, this initiative is the Baltimore Mayor's."

Is it correct to characterize Hopkins' commitment of resources to O'Malley's initiative as "treating the city like a game of Monopoly, trading properties and displacing families at will," as SLAC alleges? Perhaps "supporting the city" would be a better description of the University's involvement in the project.

Even if the project were being led by Hopkins, Leslie's analysis would still be incorrect. He claims that the University should be able to pay its workers more, simply because it can afford to fund new construction projects.

By this logic, all of the school's employees should have received a raise when the campus walkways were redone in brick last school year. And don't forget Clark Hall, Hodson Hall, the Mattin Center and the new Recreational Center.

If Hopkins can afford those, can't they give their workers a raise? Of course, to buy this argument, you'd have to ignore the fact that the University received donations specifically to fund these projects, and in the case of the Mattin Center and Rec Center, raised tuition to help cover operating costs.

Does SLAC think that the proposed Biotechnology Park would be any different?

Then again, this all assumes that Hopkins is not already paying its workers a "living wage." But in McGill's letter, the University claimed that it already pays all of its employees at least $8.20 an hour, which, according to SLAC, is the current Baltimore City Living Wage. The letter further states that all University contract employees will also be paid at this level by July 1.

Even this is not enough for SLAC, though. The group now demands that the University commit to an "indexed living wage," which would continue to increase based on inflation and the cost of living.

This, Hopkins has wisely declined to do. Agreeing to increase future wages without knowing the economic climate that will surround these changes would not be a sound financial decision.

By continuing to demand that the University make this irrational choice, SLAC risks appearing unreasonable and losing the credibility necessary to request that the administration enact future wage increases when the Baltimore Living Wage does, in fact, rise.