JANUARY 31, 2023 (HANOVER, NH)

SWCD Statement on Dartmouth’s Uncooperative Bargaining Practices 

HANOVER, NH – On the bargaining session held on January 24, SWCD provided the College with a complete contract package. This package contained significant consensus-oriented propositions, and demonstrated on our part great understanding and willingness to engage in productive negotiations. 

After being provided with this generous package, Dartmouth provided us with a paper outlining their proposed wage structure. The paper proposes a base wage of $18.50 for cafe workers and $17.50 for Snack Bar and Collis Market workers. This proposal is identical to the proposal submitted by the College at the end of Fall term. At the time, this second proposal had provoked an outpouring of outrage by student workers, who, after a term of quantitative and qualitative arguments advocating for a 21$ wage, found the 50-cent increase to be mockery. 

The paper further includes percentage illustrations of the wage increases in question. SWCD had provided a position paper illustrating the cost of its proposed wage increases late last year, where it had already calculated that a $21 base wage would amount to about 0.18% of wages paid out by Dartmouth on a yearly basis. We had also demonstrated that all wages paid out to all Dartmouth dining student workers would amount to less than half of what President Phil Hanlon was paid during 2020 (a number which has presumably gone up following post-pandemic expansions). Finally, we had also shown the difference between the two proposals (18.50$ and 21$—not taking into account a graduated rise that starts from $19 and $20) amounted to about $89,000 per year, representing a 0.02% increase in the amount Dartmouth already spends on wages. This estimation excludes heightened productivity and profits due to be brought in by the changes.

In short, the paper provided to SWCD nothing that it already did not know. In fact, it reminded us that what was to student workers a massive difference in living conditions was a miniscule, negligible expense to Dartmouth. It reminded us that Dartmouth was paying out tens of thousands of dollars in retainer fees, possibly exceeding the total cost of the wage differential, to attorney Joseph McConnell of Morgan, Brown & Joy (whose alma mater, Northeastern University, had a recent wage increase from 9$ to 30$ for dining workers), instead of coming to table and agreeing to pay student workers a fair wage. 

If Dartmouth does not respond with similar concessions alongside their own lack of movement, it will only cement the fact that they have been acting in bad faith. Dartmouth seeks concessions from SWCD but proposes nothing in its turn, spending bargaining sessions talking about the qualitative generosity of their offer. Dartmouth sees concessions by SWCD and then exploits these concessions to reiterate their unsubstantiated demands. 

The paper provided by Dartmouth underlines for us their insistence on a contract that imprisons student workers for three years to an underpaid contract that depreciates annually due to inflation, without recourse via the right to strike. This position is unacceptable to us. We demand Dartmouth to deliver a full response in writing by the end of the work day, this Thursday, to our package proposal.

2/4 Correction: The annual difference between the two wage proposals (18.5$ and 21$) vs. total annual wages adds up to about 0.02%, in an upper estimate, not 0.001% as previously stated. The latter percentage reflects other important termly differences.