THE COMMITTEE on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) did well last week in defeating the proposed cutback in the number of dining halls serving full breakfasts.
The meager savings anticipated in the plan would hardly have justified the substantial harm to dining hall workers and the unnecessary inconveniences to most students which would have resulted.
Even if there had been no immediate layoffs of workers as Frank Weissbecker, director of Food Services, insisted, transfers to different shifts would have been unavoidable. Schedule changes would have resulted in fewer hours for many workers and forced others to forfeit their jobs rather than accept new schedules which conflicted with personal obligations.
In addition, all savings expected from the plan were based solely on the premise that as employees left their jobs, replacements would not be hired. Clearly then, the University sought to reduce its labor force by instituting new shifts, relying on the inability of many workers to accommodate themselves to the imposed schedule.
The plan did not have much to offer students either. Prompted by appeals from union leaders, students voiced their opposition to the plan through petitions, referendums, and meetings with dining hall workers. This student protest was largely responsible for the CHUL's repudiation of the breakfast proposal.
A proposed method of reducing cost which relies solely on employee attrition is indicative of the University's lack of concern for the welfare of its workers. The student-worker unity displayed in defeating this proposal is an effective response to such an attitude.