Restore the 40-Hour Workweek for Campus Workers

What's this all about?
Last spring the University announced its intentions of cutting the hours of all Residence Halls and Commons (RHC) staff from a 40-hour workweek to a 35-hour workweek. The cuts were implemented in July, and the Administration recently indicated that these changes will be permanent. The cuts came, of course, during a time of financial crisis, and this has consistently been used as a catch-all excuse for any and all budgetary decisions.

Campus workers, however, rely on their 40-hour workweek to pay their bills, make rent payments, and feed their families. The current financial instability only makes a 40-hour workweek, and the steady income that comes with it, more important. Workers at our University--the ones that keep our residence halls running smoothly--are already feeling the consequences of the hour cuts, which amount to an 8% cut in pay.

Notably, RHC is already understaffed. With the construction of the new South Campus Dorm, the University had promised to hire 3 more maintenance staff, but have so far failed to do so. A cut in hours just increases the amount of work that must be done in a shorter period of time.

In late September, President Zimmer sent a campus-wide email explaining that the budgetary crisis at the University of Chicago was over and that he did not "anticipate seeking any further budget reductions" for the academic year. In the same letter, he even mentioned a systematic expansion of the faculty. Everything, it appeared, had returned to normal. So why are campus staff still working reduced hours and earning reduced wages?

What's Our Stake in This?
Impact on dorm life. RHC staff maintains all of the dormitories on campus, making sure everything from the plumbing, to the elevators, to the electrical wiring runs smoothly. They also do things like keep the bathrooms clean and stocked and monitor the entrances to make sure our living spaces are safe. Hour cuts mean that workers have less time to do their job.

Respect for the people who make this campus run. The current campaign for the restoration of a 40-hour workweek is also an opportunity for students to partner with workers on campus. Many workers will say that they are here for the students--to make sure our dorms run smoothly and that we have clean and safe places to live. Many will say that, without us, they wouldn't have a job. But the reverse is just as true. Without workers, like the RHC staff, our University wouldn't function. No University of Chicago employee should have to worry about whether they will be able to pay next month's rent but, unfortunately, this is not the case.

Responsible use of our tuition dollars. How much do you really know about where and how the University spends your money? We've all seen the new cobblestone on the quads and the new garden in front of the Reg. What does this say about the priorities of the University? We, as students, have a right and a responsibility to demand that our tuition dollars go to support the women and men who support us.

Answers to FAQs
Who, exactly, are the workers that have had their hours cut?
Residence Halls and Commons (RHC) staff are all the people who keep our residence halls operating smoothly. These are the people who restock toilet paper, sit at the front desks, fix things that are broken, etc.

Are these workers represented by a union?
Yes, there are two unions that represent these workers on campus. SEIU Local 73 represents the engineers (the workers who wear the blue jumpsuits), and Teamsters Local 743 represents pretty much everyone else. Workers from both unions are working together to demand a restoration of the 40-hour workweek, and students are working in solidarity with them.

Isn't a cut in hours better than lay-offs?
Many University workers have already been laid off since last January--close to 500, in fact. This is not a question of whether the University has the money to employ its workers at a full workweek--the University has money. This is a question of how that money is allocated. Why is the University balancing its budget at the expense those already most disadvantaged in the U of C community? What does it say about the University's priorities when needless development projects come before the well-being of its workers? Why haven't these cuts been made evenly across the board? Have managers and administration also received equivalent wage cuts? (The answer is no.) In fact, workers (who, after all, are experts at what they do) even presented possible money-saving alternatives to the University, but their suggestions were not heeded.