In 2013, Emory University’s Committee on Class and Labor, tasked with exploring how class functions on campus, recommended that the University should “seek to reduce significant differences between the circumstances of Emory’s staff and circumstances of contracted workers.” It is my firm belief that if Emory is truly committed to applying knowledge in the service of humanity, then it must begin to confront the vast disparities between subcontracted workers and those workers deemed worthy of direct employment.
In light of the impending expiration of the contract Emory has with the company that manages its dining operations, Sodexo, the question of renewal is being discussed. If one believes the statements made by the Sodexo Group, then it actually is the “world leader in Quality of Life services.” Unfortunately, however, an examination of Sodexo’s actions tells a very different story. Across the 80 countries in which Sodexo Group operates, “quality of life services” include constructing and managing private prisons (as “Sodexo Justice Services”) and threatening workers who attempt to unionize or blow the whistle following human rights violations.
Several human rights reports unambiguously document Sodexo abuses. To name just one, the Transafrica Forum report found that “[t]he business model Sodexo employs keeps workers poor and locks their communities into seemingly endless cycles of poverty.” Sodexo is known to cut hours and their policies exclude a large percentage of workers from benefit eligibility — in Atlanta they don’t even get MARTA cards.
Sodexo has violently disrupted workers’ attempts to freely assemble and exercise free speech. In the past, Sodexo workers, many of whom are laid off each summer, faced the likelihood that unionization would lead to unemployment. In New Jersey, amidst widespread overcharging and undelivered rebates from Sodexo’s end, Tom McDermott of the Clarion Group, a food service consulting company, found that “In the [10] New Jersey districts, all competitive RFP [request for proposal] processes resulted in the incumbent retaining its contract, raising immediate questions about whether the bidding process is truly competitive.”
It appears that the “quality of life” Sodexo is concerned with servicing is that of its executives and shareholders at the expense of the basic human needs of its employees. At Emory, “quality of life services” means a meal plan that nets a large profit for the University while under-paying and under-providing for workers.
In 2013, Emory’s Committee on Class and Labor attempted an analysis on the quality of life for contracted workers on campus. The committee’s findings were startling:
“The committee was frustrated that we could not engage with contracted employees as we wished, and as we usefully did with Emory’s own employees. We could not gain independent information about important questions, such as whether some sets of contracted workers prefer part-time schedules, or whether employees find their company’s grievance procedures problematic. More generally, we could not ascertain how Emory’s contracted employees experience their situations on our campus. Notwithstanding the belief among Emory liaison officials that they have effective relations with these companies (exercising varying administrative styles), current arrangements limit the [U]niversity’s review of these companies’ labor relations largely to reviewing what the companies themselves report. The [U]niversity therefore cannot claim that it knows the status of the contracted workers’ experience.”
Emory’s mission statement is “to create, preserve, teach and apply knowledge in the service of humanity.” We cannot assure adherence to any of those values if the University has no means of knowing the workers’ experience. For the University to assert the presence of a safe and ethical working environment while simultaneously acknowledging in an official capacity that they absolutely cannot know the status of subcontracted workers is to promote an incoherent policy that resembles Orwellian doublespeak. Our mission statement itself calls for both the preservation and application of our knowledge to serve humanity. This hypocrisy cannot be tolerated.
Several of my peers and I who have written other editorials on this issue have been assured that there are plenty of informal interactions between Emory administrators and Dobbs Uuniversity Center (DUC) workers. But when the University’s own committee found that Emory “cannot claim that it knows the status of the contracted workers’ experience,” it seems reasonable to receive those assurances with skepticism. Absent a formal mechanism for enforcing standards on worker treatment, the University is relying on Sodexo to regulate and oversee itself.
In light of what we do know about Sodexo’s treatment of workers, it seems grossly irresponsible for the University to uphold their current regulatory approach.
We need actionable mechanisms for workers to complain directly to Emory, not just informal interactions, and we need a regulatory body with teeth, not vague commitments to generic liberal values.
To me the obvious question is this: if Sodexo and Emory are both so confident that they have done everything possible to uphold the stated values of a liberal arts university, why are they so reluctant to let a third party — or even an official Emory regulatory body — talk directly with workers? Why should we trust Sodexo to internally manage worker complaints when we know they have demonstrated a vested interest in suppressing everything from unionization to Emory committee officials speaking directly with workers? Sodexo’s track record speaks for itself — we cannot simply trust their word, and we can trust even less the idea that they will suddenly change their ways.
While we do need better oversight, the best thing that Emory could possibly do at this point is to say no to Sodexo when the food services contract is renewed in the coming weeks. It is clear to me that the presence of Sodexo on campus violates all principles and ethical commitments found in the University’s mission statement. If we claim to apply knowledge in the service of humanity, we must do better than Sodexo.
I have heard no compelling reasons to retain Sodexo. We must strongly resist the notion that contracting Sodexo could possibly align with our community values.
Andrew Jones is a College sophomore from Macon, Georgia.
Let me just go ahead and copy/paste my comment about this:
“To people papering the campus with anti-Sodexo signs – you’re 100% right that the larger Sodexo conglomerate has some major ethical issues. Where you’re wrong is targeting the Emory branch for the sins of the larger whole.
Sodexo pays $11.70/hour as a base rate for part-time workers. That is well above the average for Atlanta part-time work, and in a state that suffers from some of (if not the) worst unemployment in the country, your efforts to kick Sodexo off campus is damaging to the people you purport to defend.
I’ve read the anti-Sodexo articles and I know about the private prisons. But I challenge you to think critically about the practical impact of your actions – do you really believe that papering Emory will bring down the international prisons? The most you could accomplish is hurt the Emory Sodexo branch by forcing them out of their contract with Emory Dining. Who does this help? Congratulations, you’ve sent a message to Sodexo corporate. I’m sure they’ll get right on those major ethical reforms. In the mean time, your message cost a lot of good people who have done nothing wrong their jobs, which aren’t going to be easily replaced. So let me say with pride and confidence: I am a Sodexo employee, and you should leave my job alone.”
Also, reduced student demand leads to the layoffs over the summer. There aren’t enough people around to justify keeping every location fully staffed. That’s how business works. Being officially laid off gives affected workers the chance to obtain unemployment benefits prior to being re-hired at their former position and wage once the term resumes. That policy benefits the workers.
I *AM* a Sodexo worker. I employ nineteen others. You don’t need to go far to find out about my experiences. What body of oversight would you like to see put in place? I report directly to Emory Dining. Members of my staff attend the FACE meetings. Anybody can ask us any question they like. I control the policies of the Green Bean and there are no restrictions on what any individual may say in their own capacity. That’s why I do not fear getting into trouble with my bosses for posting this publicly, under my own name.
I agree with Sodexho. You will find that hiring a west coast based company will not change the nature of the business nor the way things run. Bon Appetite is well financed by Compass but Compass will not funnel money to Emory when Bon Appetite gets into a non profitable hole. If you are worried about employee rights, just look at BA’s HR Department…all young females with little or no experience, especially in the contract food service business. It is easy to sell a change of ideas and plans but Emory will find out that things will not be any better. Yes, employees get laid off during summer sessions..that is common in all university food service programs……..Bon Appetitie does not show any diversity nor seem to hire based on best qualified! You will learn the hard way………
Emory Students:
Bon Appetite has no diversity in their own mgt. When BA takes over, assuming in June, they will lay off most of the hourly employees. BA will put up a face, that is an HR Mgr., possibly more but WILL LAY OFF most of the hourly staff to get through the summer. Nice start and will not cure your problems at Emory attempting to address the quality of life for employees. Employees in this business know they work long hard hours during the school year. They do this for the students first and then to have time in the summer for their families and vacations. No hourly employee is working 60 hours a week! BA would not tolerate the overtime on their payroll! If this happened, you would get synthetic cheese on your pizzas……..Word to the wise for Emory….go to LinkedIN and look at the HR staff at Bon Appetite………look at the backgrounds…look at the diversity .this group does not see the problem in their own ranks so dont expect to find any difference in the workplace at Emory!!!!!! Be prepared for a long school year with no changes except in the signage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and a few new pretty faces around! And wait till you have to contact the offices on the west coast…………….days and days of endless sorry i missed you calls will come and go………………………………..
Here a review of Bon Appetite from thier own neighborhood in SAn Francisco::
Jesus Christ, where do I start? I am a student at USF on the schools meal plan, which means I eat Bon Appetit’s food for every meal, and i can say that I am in awe of how terrible of a service they provide. I have never seen people so committed to not giving a s**t about their jobs more than those working at bon Appetit. Every time you order food it seems like the person at the register has no idea what they are supposed to be doing. Often times, the same person who was preparing your food is the same one swiping your card, so when they hand you back your card you have a nice layer of chicken grease on it due to there inability to take off their glove. I’m pretty sure that most of the people working there have no prior experience working with food because everyone is doing such a half ass job. When you order pizza and a side salad, they first cut the pizza with office scissors, then promptly plop the dressing drenched salad on top of your pizza and close the top of the container, which forces you to later eat your way through your salad to reach your now dressing covered mediocre pizza.
Bon Appetit claims to have all natural fresh ingredients, but i can’t say I see a difference. The quality of the food is mediocere at best and it’s extremely overpriced for what your getting. San Francisco has so many great restaurants (many with similar pricing) so it feels like your being robbed having to eat from the the pig trough of a selection that is the market cafe. Often times, the chicken in the burritos is largely made up of fat and cartilage, the beef nears the texture of mashed potatoes, and the rice is almost never all the way cooked. If your sitting there reading this review thinking “it can’t be that bad” you may be somewhat right. The salad bar has a nice selection, and the pre-made sandwiches are edible as well, but living off a diet of salad and ham sandwiches gets old pretty fast. Finding something suitable to eat is even more difficult on the weekends because they have about half the selection and even less staff. The lines during the weekdays get bad enough due to their inability to work efficiently, but during the weekend….dear god.
The fact that a company so poorly run as bon Appetit has a monopoly on all the food sold at USF is extremely frustrating. I think I might just go on the ramen diet for the rest of the year.
Was this review …?
Useful 3
Funny
Cool
Another student body review from Bon Appetite’s backyard at the Univ. of San Francisco:
Another USF student here – representing Student and Faculty general disdain for Bon Appetit.
The contract with USF offers Boner ApeTit a monopoly over the school’s food. Their exploitative card charge and pricing process is in direct conflict with USF’s Jesuit principles of social justice.
(Examples abound: $1 extra for coffee at law school campus, average price for meal on campus is greater than or equal to high-quality local restaurants, and please see previous reviews)
The only relationship that makes any sense is if Boner ApeTit offers some large profit or lucrative kick-back to whomever is in control over on-campus dining.
This relationship prevents fundraising, acceptable quality of food, market price value of food, and student run projects from existing on campus.
If you live on campus please venture elsewhere for food. This city has so much diversity and quality to offer in food and your dependence on on-campus dining prevents you from this realization.
Was this review …?
Useful 5
Funny 3
Cool 1
ashley w.
San Francisco, CA
5 friends
14 reviews
Share review
Compliment
Send message
Follow ashley w.
9/2/2009
Bon Appetit manages the University of San Francisco’s cafeteria and caters USF’s on-campus events. Bon Appetit is grossly overpriced. On campus, they charge $4 for a single box of mac and cheese. This same box can be purchased at Safeway (which has also been accused of being overpriced) for less than a dollar. I once purchased a chicken breast that still had a feather shaft in it. It looks as gross as it sounds. This was my grossest experience, but the food in general was gross. And the people who worked for Bon Appetit were, in general, mean (not the servers or cashiers, who have always been friendly to me, but the managers). I got yelled at once by a manager and I’ve heard stories about the rudeness other managers from those who were employed by Bon Appetit. Also, I have a friend who was in a club that wanted to have a fund raiser on the USF campus. The club wanted to sell In N Out burgers on campus, but due to USF’s contract with Bon Appetit, the students were forbidden from doing so. That may not sound so bad, but the club was trying to raise money for a volunteer trip to another country to work with children. And to think that clubs can’t sell *food* on a college campus for a *fundraiser* to do *good works* because the school has a contract with some stupid money -hungry company is just absurd. And very wrong.
Was this review …?
Useful 7
Funny 2
Cool 1
More Bon Appetite reviews from University of San Francisco:
For the past four years, I’ve suffered through plate after pate of Bon Appetit cafeteria food in several of their Silicon Valley locations. You know the kind of food you get college dorms? This is pretty much the same stuff, scooped and slopped on your plate, and charged an arm and a leg for. Sure, it’s convenient, but at what cost?
My biggest complaint with the food at Bon Appetite is that it’s missing the most essential ingredient of all–love. Whether it’s a sad wheel of a quesedilla filled with low-grade cheese, slathered with soggy beans, or any filet of chicken or pork, dry, and flavorless, sitting in a metallic bin for hours before arriving on your plate, there’s no pride, no visible effort by any of the chefs to make the food taste better.
But hey, when you have prime, high-traffic locations (or more accurately, when you can get rich serving shitty food), why bother putting in the effort?