SGA discusses Aramark conflict
By JUSTIN LI · The Johns Hopkins News-Letter · April 14, 2011
At Tuesday’s Student Government Association (SGA) meeting, a bill was discussed that would announce SGA support of the Aramark workers in their contract negotiations with Aramark. The bill called for a fair and responsible contract to be negotiated between Aramark and its workers. The bill was met with significant opposition by SGA members who felt that either the SGA should remain neutral or that the SGA had insufficient information on the situation to form a conclusion.
“This is basically to recognize student awareness and student support,” sophomore senator Archie Henry, the bill’s sponsor, said. “We’re not taking a drastic step, but we’re calling for a fair and just contract for workers.”
Henry cited and referenced in his bill the petition Aramark workers had been soliciting students to sign in the past week as an indication that a significant portion of the student body supported the Aramark workers. According to that clause, over 900 students had signed the petition.
Some members of the SGA sought to amend the bill to reflect a more neutral position.
“The only stance we can take is that we advocate that this be resolved quickly and fairly. We shouldn’t be taking a side,” Executive President Mark Dirzulaitis said.
Some felt neutral amendments should be made to protect the SGA from future backlash as the situation develops and others felt the SGA should not support either side, but rather support the fair resolution of the situation.
“As the voice of the students, [the contract negotiation] has the potential of getting in the way of food service,” senior senator Max Dworin said. “It doesn’t matter who’s at fault, who’s more in the right or who’s more in the wrong. What matters is that they get it done so that our food service won’t be affected.”
Questions were raised as to whether or not the SGA was aware of all the facts, given that the contract negotiations are confidential and that the SGA was only receiving information about the situation from the position of the workers due to Aramark’s unwillingness to talk to the SGA. Concerns were voiced over how strongly the SGA should consider the petition despite not having seen the petition’s exact wording yet themselves.
“It seems like nobody has any idea what’s going on,” Dworin said. “I don’t even see why something should even be passed until we have definitive answers to questions like ‘What is actually going on?’”
Several amendments were made to the bill that eliminated clauses that members felt were too supportive of one side including the reference to the petition.
Some members advocated for the altered bill on the grounds that it was sufficiently neutral and that it merely declared SGA’s support for fairness.
“It’s not controversial for us to support a resolution to something that’s distracting from good service,” a member of the SGA countered.
After a lengthy discussion, the bill was tabled for further discussion at the following week’s meeting. In the interim, SGA members were tasked by Senior Class President Josh Ayal with gathering further information and to form their final opinions on the bill, which is to be voted on at the next meeting. Junior Class President Ardi Mendoza, a co-sponsor of the bill, offered to rework the bill with Henry for next week’s meeting and to acquire a copy of the petition for the SGA’s evaluation.