Worried workers at BMH
New policy reveals administration’s priorities for McGill Food Services
W hen student and permanent employees returned to work this September, the composition and design of the McGill Food Services had changed drastically at Bishop Mountain Hall, the primary cafeteria for the 800-plus students in Upper Rez. Shifts were in disarray: some days we were overworked to the point of near catastrophe, others we had to play “musical coffee cups” to fill the time until we punched out. The shift confusion has since been worked out, but the structure of the McGill-run food services has been fundamentally altered.
I entered McGill and lived in Upper Rez in the 2007-08 school year, and while the meal plan wasn’t exactly fit for a king, I was comforted by the story of how this particular system came into being. Until this year, the Upper Rez plan was based on a rationing system that divided meals into portions of main courses and desserts. The former plan was the result of a student-led initiative in an effort to keep food costs low and affordable for students.
Last year, Deputy Provost (Student Life and Learning) Morton Mendelson told The Daily, after being asked about the University’s ongoing plans to centralize food services on campus, that “We are 100 per cent committed to having ongoing consultation with students.” By reorganizing residence food services over the summer, the administration has completely trampled on the notion of student consultation.
In what seems to be part of a larger effort by the University to move toward a general privatization of most of campus life, McGill has scrapped the old plan for the sake of a for-profit plan that is drastically anti-environment, anti-student, and I believe will become anti-worker in the coming years.
The workers at BMH probably have the best wages of any service-level workers on campus. Numerous co-workers of mine support their families on the shifts they work at the cafeteria.
Workers at the BMH and RVC cafeterias are represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 800. SEIU is one of the strongest unions in North America, and safeguards the high quality of life that workers at BMH currently enjoy. Permanent workers have full health care through McGill, and earn time-and-a-half on weekends. “Casual” workers, such as students, earn the same wage as the permanent workers. This makes BMH one of the best student jobs on campus: you don’t need a work visa, you don’t need to speak French, and you can more or less choose your hours.
Most of the credit for this belongs to a few BMH administrators who consistently bend over backward to facilitate student employment. But since this year’s reorganization of food services, new administrators have been brought on that most employees believe have mandates to reduce the number of shifts and to increase sales in the newly profit-driven system.
Fears are increasing among workers that in 2012, when the current union contract expires, the University will move toward a fully privatized system and outsource the residence food system to a private company like Chartwells. Anyone familiar with the overpriced and thoroughly disgusting pizzas in the Redpath basement knows just what to expect from Chartwells.
In recent years, the company has attempted to expand its operations on campus. Its blatantly anti-union policies are also a cause for concern, particularly among those who rely so heavily on these jobs for their livelihoods. The troubling trend toward the corporatization of McGill Food Services also flies in the face of ongoing efforts at increasing sustainability and gives the administration’s pledges of participation a hollow ring.
Whereas in the old system, virtually all beverages, such as coffee, soda, water, and milk were dispensed from fountains into reusable mugs and glasses, students now opt for cans of soda and bottles of water, creating bag after bag of waste each shift. As dishwashers, my co-workers and I fill three to four bags’ worth of waste more than we did under the previous system. By week’s end, the trash room in the cafeteria’s basement is overflowing. Much of the food, such as breakfast cereals and sandwiches, is now sold in individually packaged containers.
The motivation for this shift is blatantly capitalistic: people impulsively purchase when things are neatly packaged and individually wrapped, rather than more communally-oriented cereal and soda dispensers. Students are paying, out of a declining balance, as much as $14 for dinners. Rez students could be eating better food at Plateau restaurants for cheaper than at BMH. For those that stock the fridges, serve the food, clean up the waste, and throw out the trash, it’s quite obvious that the administration is laying the structural foundations to roll in an entirely privatized system.
A food system we want and need is one that respects student budgets, continued sustainability efforts, and a unionized workforce, not the needlessly wasteful new system, masked under a clean corporate Martlet logo.
Jonathan Glencross wrote:
There are 5 reasons why your wrong about the direction and problems with food service at Mcgill, with exception to your informal relationship with and the concerns of BMH workers that I cannot discount. Here they are: You didn’t do any research.
“…over the summer, the university has completely trampled on the notion of student consultation.”
Did you know that, next year, food and dining services wants to launch a bottom up consultative strategy for food at McGill for the next 10-15, driven by students needs? No, because you didn’t do any research. Did you know that over the summer, a group of students from the McGill Food Systems Project worked directly with food and dining services to incorporate the lessons learned by students in their research on sustainability?
No, because you didn’t do any research.
Did you know that the student driven Gorilla composting as word directly with Operations and Food and Dining services to purchase an industrial composter for pre-consumer organic was at the residences?
No, because you didn’t do any research.
“part of a larger effort by the university to move toward a general privatization of most of campus life…for the sake of a for-profit plan that is drastically anti-environment, anti-student, and I believe will become anti-worker in the coming years.”
Did you know that the old system at McGill actually ran at such a loss that the university, ie OUR TUITION, was subsidizing this service? Did you know that the mandate of the new food and dining services has nothing to do with profit, but to create a system that simply breaks even, while improving the services? No, because you didn’t do any research. Do you want to explain to all of the students who choose to live on their own why their tuition should pay for food for students who choose to live in residence? Do you know anything about the local food days initiative, the composting imitative, the applied student research imitative? Do you want to apologize to those involved at McGill for falsifying the reality of the situation to support whatever goal you had in writing this piece?
“This troubling trend towards the corporatization of McGill food services also flies in the face of ongoing efforts at increasing sustainability and gives the administration’s pledges of participation a follow ring.”
Do you know anything about Bill 17, the new public tender process which requires all new food and dining services contracts to have a multi-stakeholder board (currently of 7), on which I and another student sit, where contracts are awarded in an open, transparent process which does not allow the university to knowingly choose a corporate bidder over a co-op, or one corporate bidder over another?
No because you didn’t do any research.
Ironically, very little consultation was done for this article, as anyone who has actually done research and taken real action towards improving our food service at McGill knows that this statement is a loaded emotional response to a different problem.
I would suggest a new strategy. In the following order; Do some research, actively listen to everyone involved, accomplish something meaningful and then write what you think. Doing it in the reverse order just continues to polarize an issue that we all want to improve.
Nov 30, 2009 at 03:17 PM
Michael Lee-Murphy wrote:
Your concerns about my article are well founded. Its true I didn't research the work of the Food Systems Project, and I probably should have gotten in touch with you or someone from your organization.
That being said, it was not a hard news article that intended to report on the situation is an objective way, and I think the article acknowledges my bias (I wouldn't have been permitted to write a hard news article because of conflict of interest). Rather, the article was a first hand account from the perspective of someone who works in the dining hall, based on what I see during my shifts and the views and opinions of the people I work with. The article was motivated by the negative changes to the system I saw after having worked at both RVC and BMH last year.
As for the consultation with McGill Food Systems Project that happened over the summer, it doesn't seem to have paid off, as environmental sustainability has surely decreased this year from last year. I think the idea of making students pay for individual items rather than in categories like "main course" and "dessert" was meant to encourage people to eat the food they pay for and not waste food, but this isn't happening. As i said in the article, we throw away a lot more waste this year than we ever did last year, on the scale of 3-4 more large trash bags per shift.
"Did you know that the student driven Gorilla composting as word directly with Operations and Food and Dining services to purchase an industrial composter for pre-consumer organic was at the residences?"
Yeah i had heard about this, and i probably should of mentioned that they had talked about it. In reality though, nobody has ever seen signs of this composting machine. I am the guy who actually throws the food away as part of my shift duties, and I can assure you the organic waste is not going anywhere near a composting machine.
As for your concerns about "OUR TUITION" being spent on the old system, think about it. The meal plan is part of the cost of living in residence, so nobody who lives on their own pays for REZ kids' meal plan. That would be messed up. Look at your minerva e-bill: none of your tuition fees actually go towards a meal plan for someone living in BMH. So I will decline to apologize to people who live on their own for advocating the former system that wastes their money, because it doesn't.
"Do you want to apologize to those involved at McGill for falsifying the reality of the situation to support whatever goal you had in writing this piece?"
the goal of the piece was to provide an account of the food service from the inside, which I did. The "reality" of the situation from inside the dish room might be different from the administrative "reality" that goes on at meetings between McGill and the Food Systems project. I didn't communicate the "reality" that your group is working on, and I do apologize for that; it probably would have made my piece stronger if I had. But I am certainly not lying (falsifying reality) about whats going on in the caf itself.
With regards to your concerns about student fees, I find it difficult to believe that paying 3 dollars for a gatorade or a full dollar for an apple (i see the receipts when kids turn in their trays) really saves anyone money. Money that students dont spend by the end of the year doesn't get returned to them. Furthermore, the plastic waste created from all this packaging is staggering. Kids don't use the mugs or the glass cups anymore. They use the disposable styrofoam cups available from a nicely logo-filled dispenser. Most of the plastic is of the 3 and 6 type in the resin identification code, the less commonly recycled plastics. Why would the cafeteria introduce cans of soda and bottled water when both are available from fountain dispensers? This doesn't make sense to me in a sustainability context. Maybe the Food Systems Project could talk to someone about this.
Your point about Bill 17 is well taken, and I should have researched McGill's bidding process.
I think the article makes it clear, however, that my speculation about a corporate food contract coming in is purely that: speculation. And that these are merely the fears of people who work in the food service. The fact that this process coincides with an upcoming union contract expiration has a lot to do with this speculation, and so does McGill's past pattern of behavior.
I'm psyched to hear about all the work the Food Systems Project is doing, and congratulations on all the money you just won in the referendum. But accusing me of obscuring facts and falsifying realities is a little overboard. I was reporting on what was happening in the caf itself, not what is happening in meeting rooms with administrators.
Nov 30, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Jonathan Glencross wrote:
Thanks for the acknowledgments. I should have made the tone of my article less personal. We have made serious progress and your article painted a very unrealistic picture of that.
If you want to talk about the martlet meal plan, EMAIL food and dining services. Seriously. Because you did not present any of their reasoning or consultations. I think 14 dollar meals are steep too.
1) Composting: The composter was only ordered this semester. It will be installed next to the wong building. Info is available through the reporter if you were interested. Want to help tell people?
2) Food waste: Other workers have reported a decline in food waste as a result of students only taking what they want to pay for. I found it frustrating that you extrapolated your experience as generally true for everywhere else. It is "falsifying reality" when you do this for food waste, and all your other experiences. I think it sucks that your throwing out food. But lets work on changing that rather than writing articles which make future collaboration with admin very hard to keep genuine.
3) Packaging: The executive chef wants to remove the excessive packaging, but students bitch and moan about convenience. The MFSP are working on it. Want to help? That might yield better results than this approach.
4) Tuition and fees: The residences are for the most part economically independent. However, anytime a section of the university does not break even, who do you think pays? It comes from the university, which is funded in part by our tuition. Of course there is no earmarked funds for this in our e-bill as the university does not intend for it to continue.
5) Food pricing. Living in res is a luxury. You have security, cleaning staff, floor fellows, your food is ordered, prepared and cooked for you in the same building you sleep in. TO have safe, consistent, reliable, for the most part healthy, and sometimes (sometimes) even good tasting food costs more than food from the grocery store that you cook yourself. There is a mryiad of laws forcing the university to order certain types of food from certain producers.
6) Anti-environment since the changeover. Local Food Days does 10 times more for environmental sustainability of our food supply than anything else I can think of.
I guess my point is that these are huge issues, that require well research opinions, and oversimplifying the situation and writing 'perspectives' does not help change anything. I do not want to discount your frustrations. I honestly think that communications on these things at mcgill is a travesty. I also think that until this summer, things were 10 times worse. But the only way that's gonna change is by working very very hard. If your interested in this, shoot us an email
mcgill.foodsystems.project@gmail.com
Dec 1, 2009 at 03:55 PM
David Gray-Donald wrote:
I just had to throw my 2 cents in.
As someone working from both perspectives, I must say that you're both completely right and completely wrong!
Michael, I think we both know exactly why the shifts schedule was a nightmare in September.
Jonathan, I think we both know that a promise of future consultation is not the same as an absence of consultation in the past. Your counterargument does not discredit Michael's point about the changes this fall.
Micheal, you are right that we are very well paid, but do we, and everyone else there, in the greater context of things, deserve it? Really?
Jonathan,the amount of plastic, metal, glass, and disposable container waste has drastically increased at BMH.
Micheal, I'm pretty sure I have seen a decrease in FOOD waste at BMH. Granted it was not so at the beginning but now that students know what's up. Garbage has always been piled head-high in the cold room.
Jonathan and Micheal, I have talked to both of you about the incoming composting system that is being financially supported by F&D Services, and its limitations.
Jonathan, "Local Food Days does 10 times more for environmental sustainability of our food supply than anything else I can think of." Source? Really? You want to stick by that statement? Micheal made some good points you may want to consider...
Micheal, I agree with your speculation on a corporate takeover of BMH. The real question is "would the student residents be opposed if they had all the information in front of them?"
Guys, there are growing pains when a new person comes in with the task of combining two distinct food services into one functional system. Micheal, you are seeing growing pains and are worried about the final destination. Jonathan, you are excited about a potential final destination and are brushing aside the importance of some of the growing pains. Who is right? Who is wrong? You both are both.
Dec 3, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Michael Lee-Murphy wrote:
Thanks for your well considered response David, and I just have one reply.
"Micheal, you are right that we are very well paid, but do we, and everyone else there, in the greater context of things, deserve it? Really?"
We (students) may not. But other than students, the caf employs primarily immigrants who support families/send money back home. They absolutely do deserve the wages they get. The fact that the high wage is uncommon does not mean its unjustified. And this is related to the other point about Chartwells, as they generally pay minimum wage.
Dec 6, 2009 at 09:50 PM
DLC wrote:
Re: 'We (students) may not. But other than students, the caf employs primarily immigrants who support families/send money back home. They absolutely do deserve the wages they get. The fact that the high wage is uncommon does not mean its unjustified. And this is related to the other point about Chartwells, as they generally pay minimum wage.'
Chartwells should pay minimum wage; its a simple job with a high turnover rate that requires no real training or specialized knowledge.
Market wages are 'fair' wages because of supply and demand. If someone gets fired from their 'fluffy' cafeteria job and is expected to find a new job how will they deal with taking a significant pay cut to a more realistic food services salary? Probably not well.
Deserving a higher wage should be a matter of performance, not because you feel sympathy for someone's situation -- that's actually discriminatory. That being said: absolutely amazing workers immigrant or not, deserve higher wages. Thats part of the incentive for workers to do a good job, progress their careers, and it fosters a better work ethic. But from my experiences in the cafeteria, most workers are not extraordinary and it would make no difference if any of them were replaced.
If you want better food services, with more choices and more reasonable prices, put a tender out to more than just Chartwells -- the more competition the better! It shouldn't be a single vendor contract! Not only that, but they'd hedge their risk in case one or two of the companies didn't meet their SLAs or were unsatisfactory. Look at other universities who have a more diverse food situation than we do, and use that to build on ours.
Don't blame 'corporatization' when really its an issue of McGill establishing a crappy (almost monopolistic) deal with a crappy company.
Dec 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM
We've switched commenting systems. Please scroll to the bottom of the article, where you can now log in and respond to this story.