Sharples

[indecisionwins]

So I'm looking at the Sharples menu page (here), and it looks like they got rid of the entire "Week 1" of meals that they used to have. That includes falafel bar and greek bar. Nooo....how can we survive without Greek bar??

Seriously, what's up with that? It looks like they also got rid of Indian bar, and one of the steak nights. Is the college really cutting funding to Sharples this year or something, that they have to get rid of expensive but really good meals, and replace them with some of the worst meals that Sharples serves (which it seems like they did)? That's really a shame.

Note: I just posted a version of this to the Daily Jolt also, but since the Jolt has gotten pretty worthless, I might as well post it here too...

Edit: I just decided to send an E-mail to Sharples' suggestion box about this, so I'll see what they say (or if it changes anything). Hopefully if enough people complain, they'll change their minds about this...

Edit 2 (1:07 AM): OK, based on mumbly_joe's comment that they're trying to cut costs in other places too, I'm starting to think this might be part of how they're going to pay for the living wage, if they do enact it. Which leads to an interesting question. Is it worth it to have some of the best meals that Sharples serves replaced with some of the worst to enact a living wage? I feel bad saying that giving us good food is more important, but...I also don't like the idea that our food is going to get noticeably worse because of living wage.

For one, that's sort of pushing the priorities of the college more towards "social action" and less towards providing a comfortable environment for students to get a great education. It could even be a factor in convincing some people to not come to Swarthmore, if this change is permanent. Interesting, and sort of disturbing...or am I reading too much into this?

Comments

[mumbly-joe.livejournal.com]

They did also insist that fewer people work in the breakfast room, I overheard runnerchild saying, in an effort to cut expenses.

That's only hearsay, of course.

Also, a lot of fairly irritating changes in dining services policy: No eating/drinking or bringing backpacks in to the serving area of Essie Mae's; no more sign-ins for students with lost cards; seem to be aimed at cutting costs more than anything.

I mean, I wasn't aware that they were having a problem with students stealing food, and the backpack policy's all well and fine until we have another string of backpack thefts like my freshman year...

[indecisionwins.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's interesting. Mabe this all a prelude to living wage being enacted, since they'll have to cut costs to pay for that??

Wow, well this is sort of an interesting proposition, now that I think about it. I feel bad saying that we deserve good food more than people deserve a decent wage, but on the other hand....that sucks if our food is going to get noticeably worse because of the living wage thing.

[deathbysnusnu.livejournal.com]

Ditto. I believe that (the part of) the tuition (that I can actually afford to pay) should go toward, y'know, stuff I need. While employing people in a fair and equitable manner is a good thing, cutting necessary services to facilitate it is bad. I wouldn't give a rat's ass if parties got far less SAC funding because of wage changes, but I'm *forced* to pay for the dining hall as long as I live on campus. I can't avoid it. And a significant decrease in food quality would be terrible, since I either have to eat the food or watch my money go to waste. It's not an optional service. As long as I live in a dormitory, I have no other say in the matter. I'm not certain that these cutbacks are all related to living wage, or that they're as bad as they may seem at the moment, however. If they are, though, I shall be quite irritated.

Forgive me for slightly off-topic ranting, but I have to say that I think Living Wage sucks. Social action is a good thing, and I can certainly see the merits of their message, but the execution of the whole campaign was downright piss-poor, in my opinion. We saw all sorts of events (a damn living wage weekend, practically) that, given that everyone was aware of the campaign and they had pretty much already accomplished everything, served no purpose but to waste funding. More importantly, I thought their slogan was just appalling... "Find the money, Al!" As far as I could tell last year, all Living Wage ever did was demand a change in the staff pay scales and present some figures for why they wanted an increase. What "Find the money, Al!" is indicative of is that, well, they had no plan of their own. The whole thing was an ultimatum, not a solution. Anyone can say "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to give workers more money?" Finding a place in the budget to get it from is a bit harder. I believe that it certainly can be done, but that Living Wage should've, y'know, done it. Starting something rolling and then passing the buck is a terrible way to do things, in my opinion, and sadly representative of what a lot of student activism is like as a whole.

[mumbly-joe.livejournal.com]

Thanks, you saved me the need to rant at the moment.

Of course, it's interesting to note that the Swarthmore student pay scale isn't enough to actually sustain students, even at full-time hours, who are living off-campus for the summer. You can cut rent in a bit more than half by living in ML, but of course, you *need* to be working on campus in the summer to justify that. And in any case, if you plan on doing anything other than working full-time, (my actual hours ended up amounting to about 1/2 to 2/3 of full-time over the entire summer- still substantial, since I was taking two classes at the same time) you had better expect to lose money.

I'm actually more irritated by the potential cutback in breakfast room employees, as, y'know, that actually does ammount to fewer student jobs. Which means, for some students, that they actually are paying more tuition out-of-pocket.

I dunno, I have a whole bunch of problems with the way employment is handled at this school with regards to the students. Being a student myself, and a customer of the college, I feel that these are more important than providing a living wage. I mean, my mom doesn't even make a living wage, and she's helping me through college at the same time she's still providing for my sister. In some circles, such sentiments are understandable.

[crystalpyramid]

Yes it is, if all you're paying are living expenses and maybe saving for tuition, and working full-time. It's probably preferable to get a cushy stipend, though. And the library staff in Friends pointed out that people generally work elsewhere when the economy is good, so I guess they don't exprect people to have to live on it. Or something.

There was a student job shortage last fall. Why does cutting the number of jobs alleviate this?
While we're at it, they should give some kind of actual preference to work-study. And to researchers in the summer housing lottery.

[mumbly-joe.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's do-able, under those limited conditions, but other than stay far far away from family, there seems to be very little reason to do nothing but work full-time at a job that provides no actual benefit to one's credentials. Especially since such a thing can easily be done at home, without having that nasty 'living expenses' problem.

It's not like I wasn't working *that much*, given that I still worked the equivalent of full time for 2/3 of the summer. And there was those two weeks I was homeless and staying with friends because I couldn't get housing through the school, even though they knew none of my classes ended until the week after the dorms closed, and approved me to take the classes (and even helped pay for one of them) while having this knowledge.

And yes, actually doing what they say the do with regards to work-study would be nice. For that matter, maybe they should be sticklers about giving student jobs to, y'know, students (i.e, not alumni), while they're at it.

[arctangent.livejournal.com]

No eating/drinking in the serving area of Essie Mae's has always been policy while I've been here. I mean, it's basic protocol for that kind of eatery not to eat while you're getting your food.

And I didn't have my ID for the first few days of school and the checkers were all very accomodating.

Re:

[mumbly-joe.livejournal.com]

They were considerably less accomadating on the third day of classes, when I had lost my ID along with a number of valuables, and had hoped for just that.

As far as Essie Mae's, like I said, it makes sense, really, but the backpacks thing is certainly new, otherwise that string of backpack thefts really would have been a tad worse, and I've not had a talking-to about taking a sip of water or munching on a pickle on my way out before. The enforcement of that bit is definitely new, as well.