UW-Madison's Student Labor Action Coalition has proven itself to be one of the few organizations on this campus making a genuine attempt to get something done within the red tape-laden bureaucratic system that is student government. After their initial referendum to raise wages for limited term employees was passed in the fall and then overturned due to a technicality, SLAC gathered enough signatures to re-introduce the Living Wage Initiative and put it on this spring's ballot. For this we applaud SLAC, yet the initiative before students this week again falls short.
The initiative would require entities receiving funds from segregated fees auxiliary budgets—the Wisconsin Union, Recreational Sports and University Health Services—to pay all of their employees an hourly wage equal to or greater than 110 percent\ of the poverty line for a family of four. This would increase wages from approximately $7.25 per hour to $10.23 per hour. The money to support such a change would come from a raise in student segregated fees, approximately $9 per student, but SLAC contends it could come from existing budgets.
A major problem arises when determining who falls into the effected category of employees. Beyond the 152 LTEs on the job, the Union and Recreational Sports employ, combined, more than 1,000 UW-Madison students. Most of these students would also receive the pay raise. There is no reason why a student employee working 20 hours a week at the SERF or Memorial Union should receive such a substantial wage increase—especially when funded by student fees.
The purpose of this initiative should be to raise the wages of LTEs, which would allow workers with families to live comfortably without needing more than one job. But the ultimate goal should be to convert LTEs to full-time status, a process which would be severely hindered if students were paid upwards of $10 an hour due to constricted budgets.
The wording of the initiative needs to be changed so that it only incorporates LTEs and not students. Until that happens we cannot endorse this initiative due to the stated inefficiency.
\
