Department of Public Safety officers forcibly restrained several students attempting to enter a meeting in New South on Wednesday to protest what they said was the university’s refusal to live up to its promises of increased worker wages.

The members of the Living Wage Coalition who led the protest were attempting to bring their grievances before the monthly meeting of the Advisory Committee on Business Practices. The protest was the start of what members threatened would be a renewed campaign for workers’ rights.

Last March, following an eight-day hunger strike by 26 members of the coalition, the university issued its Just Employment Policy, committing itself to a “living wage” of no less than $13 per hour, including benefits, for all subcontracted employees by July 2005.

But coalition members said that workers contracted by Georgetown through the custodial services company P&R Enterprises have yet to receive the full package of wages and benefits promised by the university last year.

They also alleged that Georgetown administrators are standing in the way of the workers’ hopes of joining the Service Employees International Union.

University officials and administrators on the ACBP denied the students’ allegations and said that they are fairly implementing the Just Employment Policy.

A Calm, And Then a Storm

As the ACBP sat down to its meeting in the Office of Facilities and Student Housing, around 30 coalition members gathered outside New South, waiting, according to member Emily Napalo (COL ’06), for the go-ahead to enter from a student committee member. A grouping of about 10 DPS officers patrolled both entrances to the building.

A handful of P&R workers were also present, and when the demonstration started, they were at the forefront. Coalition member Geoff Paquette (SFS ’06) led the workers to the entrance of the facilities office and told DPS officers that the workers wanted to speak to the committee. The officers turned them away, saying the meeting was closed to the public.

Standing in the crosswalk on Tondorf Drive, coalition members began shouting in protest after the workers were denied entrance. Paquette made a few attempts to persuade the officers to let him into the building, but after repeated rebuffs, he and several other members headed for the New South Doors.

At its peak, the conflict escalated enough that DPS officers called in reinforcements to restrain coalition members. Bystanders gathered around the periphery of the scene as officers pushed back against several coalition members, forcing some to the ground while the rest of the coalition chanted.

“Workers have a right to be at the bargaining table!” they shouted. “Let them in!”

Paquette came closest to gaining entrance to the meeting, moving as far as the New South doors before officers brought him to the ground and held him there for several minutes. The members ultimately halted their efforts as administrators including DPS Director Darryl Harrison and Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Jeanne Lord, stepped out of the meeting to speak with the coalition.

Lord, who spoke with coalition members and the assembled workers, did not address the coalition’s specific grievances but said that it should trust the committee to implement the Just Employment Policy.

“Let’s follow the process,” she told the assembled coalition members. “That’s the way we’re going to make the most progress.”

Paquette, who was examined by GERMS for what he said was a nosebleed sustained during the scuffle, aimed his criticism at administrators and not DPS.

“I understand DPS officers were simply following orders, but this struggle has come to the point where obviously the committee is no longer producing results,” he said.

Wage Discrepancies Persist, Union Dispute Sufaces

At the heart of the protest was the coalition’s contention that Georgetown’s “living wage” commitment has not been met.

Silvia Garcia, a custodial employee subcontracted by the university through P&R who attended the protest, said that her wage amounts to $9.92 per hour, up from $8.75 per hour before the implementation of the Just Employment Policy.

Maya Zwerdling (SFS ’08), a member of the coalition who sits on the ACBP and was at the meeting, said that the minimum package for subcontracted employees is just under $10 per hour, plus an additional $1.50 per hour for health care.

She said that the package does not meet the promised $13 per hour because the university is removing around $1 per hour from paychecks for work lost due to sickness and bereavement. Members of the coalition said that according to the Just Employment Policy, these expenses must be included in the wage.

But university spokesman Erik Smulson said that subcontracted employees currently receive the promised $13 per hour in wages and benefits.

“Georgetown’s Just Employment Policy puts us at the forefront of just wages in this region and the policy is being implemented,” he said.

Coalition members did not have exact figures to contradict the university’s claims, but blamed this on the failure of the ACBP to provide the appropriate information.

“The only way Georgetown proves it paying a living wage is it says it is,” Paquette said in the interview.

As part of the Just Employment Policy, the university also agreed to raise the minimum wage to a total compensation package of $14 per hour by July 2007 and to continue to adjust that wage according to changes in the Consumer Price Index.

Coalition members also criticized the university for its position on P&R workers’ ongoing campaign to join SEIU Local 32BJ, a union of 85,000 building services workers along the East Coast.

Rich Gibson, a spokesman for the union, said that 50-70 percent of P&R workers at Georgetown have already joined the union. SEIU and the Living Wage Coalition want Georgetown and P&R to observe card-check neutrality, which requires a business to recognize employees’ union membership after a majority of workers have signed cards.

Gibson said that P&R observes card-check neutrality in other areas of Washington, D.C., but has refused to do so in the case of workers at Georgetown.

Smulson said that the Just Employment Policy does not require Georgetown to recognize card-check neutrality, and said that doing so would prevent all workers from participating in an election to join the union as outlined by the National Labor Relations Board.

“The students view the NLRB process as `complicated and undemocratic’; we do not share that view,” Smulson said.

But Gibson said that requiring an election would open workers to intimidation tactics from P&R, a tactic he said the company has used in the past.

“It is very common for companies to fight against their workers to keep them down,” Gibson said.

A spokesman for P&R did not respond to a request for comment.

The New Campaign

Though the coalition’s hopes of having P&R workers attend the ACBP meeting went unfulfilled, members said that the protest was only the beginning of a new campaign for full implementation of the Just Employment Policy.

Coalition member Jack Mahoney (COL ’08) said that the group has set March 14 as the deadline by which the university must meet its demands. The date falls on the anniversary of the deadline the coalition gave the university to implement the Just Employment Policy last year before it began its hunger strike.

Mahoney did not say whether or not the coalition is planning another hunger strike, saying that plans for the new campaign were still underway.

But Zwerdling struck a more diplomatic tone in discussing the committee’s work. Despite lingering concerns, including the absence of P&R workers at ACBP meetings and vacancies on the committee that are meant to be filled by workers, she noted that the ACBP has recently responded to several of the coalition’s complaints. She referred to an ACBP decision to give Allied Barton security workers on campus more breaks while on the job.

Zwerdling added that the new campaign is unlikely to be as dramatic as last year’s.

“This isn’t nearly as major a demand,” she said.