News-Letter

Media Credit: William Parschalk You're Fired! Have a Nice Vacation! [Click to enlarge]

For years, the poor quality of dining options was one of the student body's most significant gripes. The University responded by disposing of the previous dining services provider, Sodexho, and signing with Aramark, one of its major competitors. Aramark promised substantial improvements. A university at which students once ate practically under duress would soon be vaulted into the highest echelons of collegiate cuisine.

But at what cost?

The News-Letter has been consistently wary of the effect of this transition on dining employees, folks students care about and sometimes even develop relationships with. Employees have expressed misgivings over Aramark's business practices for virtually the entire school year. In part, this was due to strife over a new contract for workers. Yet, even though that contract has finally been signed, their reservations continue.

According to several employees who preferred not to be named for fear of retribution from their bosses, Aramark is effectively denying vacation time of greater than two consecutive days. Workers are being forced to take their vacations over the summer, which is really no vacation at all. The contract grants vacation time, but Aramark has decided that contracts are mere words.

Sadly, this comes as little surprise. Aramark is well known for poor treatment of its employees. In 2004 the catering behemoth was forced to pay back $29,000 in tips withheld (one might say "stolen") from waiters and waitresses at the Southbridge Conference Center in Massachusetts. This illegal practice went on for more than a year and a half before the state's Attorney General managed to get the employees compensated.

Aramark has been roundly criticized at colleges all over the country -- the University of California at Irvine, Duke University and Pomona College to name a few -- for price gouging and employee mistreatment. Aramark is also a major supplier at prisons, employees of which have been similarly vociferous in their complaints.

Unfortunately, Aramark refused to respond to these allegations, as they have in the past when its employees at Hopkins expressed concerns over the company's management. Aramark is simply not interested in what students think of it. For Aramark, the money is already in the bank. As long as students are ignorant of the company's labor practices and willing to pay exorbitant prices at the Charles Street Market and elsewhere with a minimum of grumbling, Aramark is in the clear.

The consistency with which Aramark has been accused of various forms of corporate malfeasance should certainly give us pause. Given its history of unethical practices, it is up to us to advocate on behalf of Hopkins dining employees. Seemingly, no one else will.

Article Tools