Chronicle trivializes workers' issues

After reading the April 15 editorial, "Food for thought," in favor of downsizing Dining Services, I was infuriated by what The Chronicle views as a progressive stance on Duke-Durham relations and the question of "fair" wages. Rather than seeing Local 77 as taking the lead in demanding a "fair" workplace, The Chronicle supports the perpetuation of an unfair system where the working class is forced to struggle for survival from day to day. The editorial board's reasoning is both ignorant and contradictory.

The Chronicle trivializes Dining Services workers' difficulties by saying that they may have to go out and find a new job or take a cut in hours after downsizing. Having wrongly created a picture of economically affluent workers in their heads, The Chronicle fails to acknowledge that we are talking about people whose weekly paychecks will "make 'em or break 'em."

It is suggested that Duke is "throwing money at employees" as part of a "lie" that covers up the greater issue of respect, claiming that "respect and money are two very different things." Not only is it insulting for The Chronicle to suggest that the money employees receive is not earned, but also how dare upper-class private university students even suggest that in the United States respect and money are two different things! By calling for lower wages and part-time work, The Chronicle supports the idea that in America, uppity whites are respected, while food workers are considered menial servants who don't deserve good pay and a stable job.

It is dangerously irresponsible to pit wages against respect, since in this capitalist country, the two go hand in hand. To lessen labor costs and encourage greater respect between Duke and the people of Durham, perhaps they should call for cuts in the ranks of the predominantly white Dining Services management, where the really high wages go, and call for management that better represents the ethnic make-up of Dining Services employees.

Erik Ludwig

Trinity '98