Dear Editor,

On May 13th, Stanford’s Vice President of Human Resources, Diane Peck, wrote a letter to the editor concerning the current Living Wage Campaign, a worker-student initiative to ensure all Stanford workers are covered by Stanford’s Living Wage policy. Peck sought to correct what she considered to be “factual errors.” Shortly after this publication, several students from the Campaign met with Peck and David Jones, the Associate Vice President of Employee & Management Services. Throughout the meeting, it was clear that Stanford takes its role as a “just employer” very seriously. Indeed, Stanford boasts one of the most progressive living wage policies in the Bay Area, but if Stanford is to truly consider itself a “just employer,” the Living Wage Campaign, which is supported by 15 endorsing groups, over 500 individuals who have signed its petition, and a significant number of workers, believes that a living wage for all Stanford workers is necessary. Let us examine Peck’s claims in turn.

First, Peck asserts, “ALL of the more than 12,000 employees paid directly by Stanford plus thousands of temporary and casual employees earn more than the living wage.” This may be true, but she fails to mention the thousands of workers who are NOT paid a living wage – for example, the custodians, cooks, and groundskeepers who enable the University to function.

Second, Peck and Jones have insisted that imposing a living wage would contradict the right of employees to bargain collectively. We agree that the right to collective bargaining is of prime importance, but we do not see how a living wage contradicts this. Indeed, the major unions on campus SEIU Local 2007 and 1877 support the Living Wage Campaign. But should a union decide, for some reason, that a Living Wage Policy interferes with its best interest, we suggest that unions be given an option: they do not have to adopt the Living Wage Policy, but if they do, the University should ensure that they are paid accordingly.

Third, Peck claims, “It would be unprecedented and legally unsupportable for the University to…impose its Living Wage Policy on separate legal entities that have a landlord tenant relationship with the university.” In the meeting, Peck made clear that she is not an attorney and thus unable to confidently speak to the legality of such a policy, but that she would inquire with legal counsel. Stanford has many stipulations to which renters must abide if they want to do business with the University; we are merely asking that the Living Wage Policy be added to that list. It may not be possible to impose such a policy in the midst of a rental agreement, but when agreements expire or are renegotiated, we see no reason, other than a lack of will, that the policy cannot be included. Stanford makes money from hundreds to thousands of businesses, but has no qualms about workers possibly making poverty-level wages at these businesses.

Finally, Peck discloses that Stanford’s current policy “applies to contracts that have an aggregate value of $100,000 or more.” There are many contracts that fall below this dollar amount, meaning that many Stanford workers are not guaranteed a living wage. Surely, monitoring all such contracts is not an easy, but we must assume these are not cash dealings made behind the dumpsters of Stern. The University is not exempt from ethical business practices. Having a comprehensive Living Wage Policy for all is a standard to which the University’s monitoring must rise.

While the Living Wage Campaign appreciates that the administration has taken the time to respond to our demands and to meet with us in person, we want more than face time. We demand that Stanford lives up to its claims to justice and its place as a leader in every respect.

Daniel Murray
Ph.D. candidate in Modern Thought and Literature
The Living Wage Campaign