More information needed on campus workers, committee says
Report says some temporary and casual employees could be earning less pay for equal work
BY BARBARA PALMER
Diane Peck
"We know very little about the people who work for us in temporary jobs and maybe nothing about the people who work on campus as part of a contract to do services," said Human Resources Director Diane Peck, co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Workplace Policies.
The committee recommended that the university begin compiling annual status reports on the job classifications and compensation of its own temporary and casual employees and begin requiring contractors to supply detailed information about the number and compensation of individuals employed to perform work on campus.
Committee members, who were appointed by Hennessy to advise him on fairness and adequacy of current policies affecting campus workers, made a total of 27 recommendations. Included among them are recommendations that some restrictions to the current living wage policy for contracted workers be removed and Stanford's grievance procedure be modified to include temporary and casual workers. The university also should examine the feasibility of re-establishing a Stanford-operated temporary employment agency so that labor standards could be better monitored, the committee suggested. The costs of any labor policy changes ought to be assessed before they are implemented, the report said.
Hennessy announced the creation of a workplace policies committee last June, as six members of the Stanford Labor Action Coalition (SLAC) ended a week-long fast to protest university labor policies. The 13-member committee, made up of faculty, students and staff, was co-chaired by Peck and John Pencavel, professor of economics, and included Zev Kvitky, an accelerator systems operator at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and president of the United Stanford Workers.
"Similar work, different pay"
The lack of information about the kinds of work performed by temporary and casual employees could result in those employees performing similar work as regular employees for different rates of pay, despite Stanford's policy of equal pay for equal work, committee members concluded. As of December 2003, approximately 2,200 temporary and casual employees were employed by Stanford about 16 percent of its 14,000-person workforce.
Although not all temporary and casual workers are considered low-wage employees, the lowest-paid employees are temporary and casual workers, according to statistics included in the report. In December 2003, about 500 casual and temporary employees earned less than $10.13 per hour. No regular university employee made less than $10.13 per hour, and only 13 regular employees made less than $11.35. (Fifteen Stanford Linear Accelerator Center employees made less than $11.35 per hour.)
Hiring managers now are not required to designate specific job titles for temporary and casual employees, and each hiring manager has broad discretion in determining pay for those employees, the report said. Without job titles, "we are not sure of the work [temporary and casual employees] are doing," it said. "However, we suspect the [equal-pay-for-equal-work policy] is not being applied fully, because we have heard descriptions of the work of some temporary and casual employees, and some of them are close to the work of regular employees."
As a remedy, committee members recommended that Stanford develop more accurate definitions to describe the types of jobs performed and require hiring departments to assign specific job titles to temporary and casual workers to ensure that they are paid no less than the entry level rate for the position.
Companies that contract for work on campus, including bus services, janitorial services, groundskeeping, and dining and residential services, also should be required to supply information including the number of employees, employees' wages, fringe benefits and job classifications to the university, the committee recommended. Without such data, it's impossible to make confident statements about the extent of contracted workers on campus and about their well-being, the report said.
Debating the living wage
The lack of data about contract employees also makes it impossible to know the effect of the current living wage policy, or what effects that changes to the policy might have, the report said. In April 2003, Stanford instituted a living wage policy mandating that contractors pay minimum wages and/or benefits to regular, non-temporary workers employed under contracts lasting at least a year and valued at more than $100,000 per year. Stanford set the living wage at a minimum of $10.10 per hour if health benefits are provided, and a minimum of $11.35 if no health benefits are provided, as well as 10 paid days off per year for eligible employees.
The committee was divided about whether a living wage policy was the best way to improve conditions for workers, and also lacked key facts about the effects of the living wage policy at Stanford, the report said. "We and others simply lack the data to make confident statements about the effects of living wage policies" at Stanford.
Both sides agreed about the good intentions of the living wage policy, the report said. "All members want to see the condition of low-wage and low-skill workers enhanced, subject to the university's resource constraints."
Proponents of a living wage support it for ethical reasons, "but the ethical dimensions cut both ways," Pencavel said. "Most economists believe that if you want to improve the welfare of low-wage workers, you don't impose minimum wages."
Setting wage minimums for unskilled workers employed by Stanford contractors above the wages paid for similar work in the surrounding area could have the effect of making those jobs attractive to more skilled workers, who, in the future, could take jobs away from unskilled workers, Pencavel said. However, committee members who support a living wage policy argued that Stanford's primary concern should be how university wage policies affect the welfare of its current and future employees, not the broader public, the report noted.
The committee did unanimously agree, however, to recommend that if Stanford is to operate with a living wage policy, it should be less restrictive. The committee recommended that three conditions be removed, including that the policy only apply to contracts valued at more than $100,000 a year; to contracts that last at least a year; and to workers employed for at least 30 hours a week for a period of six months, or whatever period the contractor designates for its employees to be considered "regular" employees.
"If Stanford retains a living wage policy, it should be meaningful," Pencavel said. By operating a living wage policy that excludes many contracted employees, "Stanford might risk looking disingenuous," he said.
With all the restrictions, "it's doubtful that the existing living wage policy applies to the people who need it most," Kvitky said. Overall, the committee's recommendations don't offer a complete solution, he said. But if they are implemented "it will go a long way toward solving some long-running problems."
The Stanford Labor Action Coalition, which has campaigned in recent years for comprehensive labor standards for all employees on campus including temporary and contract employees, was preparing a formal response to the report, said Molly Goldberg, a coalition member. The labor group earlier voiced its disappointment that neither a coalition nor a low-wage committee member had been appointed to the committee, Goldberg said.
The university should submit a report to the campus community on action taken in response to the report by December 2006, the committee recommended. Committee members also recommended that the university:
- Simplify the language of the grievance procedure (Administrative Guide Memo 22.10) to make it easier for employees to use.
- Initiate a pilot project in Residential and Dining Enterprises to analyze employee training and opportunities for employees to advance.
- Create a "worker advocate" position that would serve as an advocate for non-exempt temporary and casual workers and for any regular employees outside the bargaining unit.
- Create "worker involvement committees" in departments where many non-union regular, temporary and casual employees are employed, to give workers a voice about their work environment.
- Consider extending Staff Training Assistance Program (STAP) funds to temporary and casual employees.
- When union organizing campaigns are underway, avoid hiring consultants who have been found guilty of unfair labor practices.
