2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 4/1/08 Section: Editorials
Even with union voice, argument still falls short
I appreciate the union writers' loose consideration of the term "recent," referencing letters written well over a month ago and with the exception of a couple statements, information derived from over a decade ago. I shudder to think how my letter could have been interpreted as anti-worker. I was pushing for the formation of the worker's fund, you know, so they would not have to siphon funds from former Secretary of State Colin Powell's honorarium, or worse yet, my Housing Dining and Guest Service fee (HD&GS).
My qualm is far from being with the infinitely kind workers at Miami University, it is with their mealy-mouthed self-asserted student-representatives. By the way, are there any official numbers yet on how many Student for Staff (SFS) members have headed the call for them to sacrifice for their cause? I am not holding my breath, but I am sure, Ms. Lee, out of any of them they ought to feel the most radically motivated to shake individuals down into such a coffer.
The only thing that can give credence to Students for Staff's movement, something I have told to their membership through this paper, and in person, is for them to lay out figures. That is, what constitutes "basic necessities" and a "living wage"-one single minimum-level of wage that would cross over from their conception of "abusive" to "appropriate"?
The dialogue is open and, I am glad to see the union participating. However, I am sad to see the same refuted and rejected information regurgitated. Instead of using percentages, use monetary figures, such as $9 per hour for the absolute lowest paid individual on this campus-try to get that out of high school at the new Wendy's with the same benefit offering.
It is times when you throw out terms like "market value" and then make reference to supporting a policy that would seek to actively alter "market value" that one is faced with how society is, and how a minority of individuals feels it should be for their own personal and/or monetary gain. A living wage looks good on a curriculum vitae and a weekly pay stub, but not so good when those individuals are bumped up a tax bracket and are effectively held in the same fiscal position if not provided with information on what "basic necessities" truly entail.
Benjamin Alexander
alexanbd@muohio.edu
I appreciate the union writers' loose consideration of the term "recent," referencing letters written well over a month ago and with the exception of a couple statements, information derived from over a decade ago. I shudder to think how my letter could have been interpreted as anti-worker. I was pushing for the formation of the worker's fund, you know, so they would not have to siphon funds from former Secretary of State Colin Powell's honorarium, or worse yet, my Housing Dining and Guest Service fee (HD&GS).
My qualm is far from being with the infinitely kind workers at Miami University, it is with their mealy-mouthed self-asserted student-representatives. By the way, are there any official numbers yet on how many Student for Staff (SFS) members have headed the call for them to sacrifice for their cause? I am not holding my breath, but I am sure, Ms. Lee, out of any of them they ought to feel the most radically motivated to shake individuals down into such a coffer.
The only thing that can give credence to Students for Staff's movement, something I have told to their membership through this paper, and in person, is for them to lay out figures. That is, what constitutes "basic necessities" and a "living wage"-one single minimum-level of wage that would cross over from their conception of "abusive" to "appropriate"?
The dialogue is open and, I am glad to see the union participating. However, I am sad to see the same refuted and rejected information regurgitated. Instead of using percentages, use monetary figures, such as $9 per hour for the absolute lowest paid individual on this campus-try to get that out of high school at the new Wendy's with the same benefit offering.
It is times when you throw out terms like "market value" and then make reference to supporting a policy that would seek to actively alter "market value" that one is faced with how society is, and how a minority of individuals feels it should be for their own personal and/or monetary gain. A living wage looks good on a curriculum vitae and a weekly pay stub, but not so good when those individuals are bumped up a tax bracket and are effectively held in the same fiscal position if not provided with information on what "basic necessities" truly entail.
Benjamin Alexander
alexanbd@muohio.edu
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Appalled
posted 4/01/08 @ 8:40 PM EST
Dude, can you write in English next time? It is almost impossible to follow what you are saying. If you graduate Miami with the writing skills you demonstrate here, you have been gypped. (Continued…)
Post a Comment