Ten months ago, the Georgetown Solidarity Committee escalated its Living Wage Campaign, which culminated in an eight-day hunger strike and a “just employment policy” promising increased wages and benefits for all campus workers by July 1, 2007.

Since then, however, the process has stalled due to a lack of communication between Solidarity, the workers, the subcontractors and the university.

While university spokeswoman Julie Bataille said that “all of the university’s contracts except one have been successfully renegotiated,” Solidarity still alleges discrepancies between what P&R and other subcontractors have legally agreed to and what workers have received.

There is “still a disconnect between what P&R has said they’re paying the workers and what they’re receiving in their paychecks,” GSC member and point of contact for night shift workers Maya Zwerdling (SFS ’08) said.

She further insists that not all workers are aware of the benefits they are entitled to, and thus have no way to claim missing benefits.

Bataille has stated, in contrast, that “all subcontracted workers are now receiving a total minimum compensation of at least $13 per hour, [including] hourly salary plus benefits.”

Among the workers themselves, some appear more informed than others. While Alice Walsh, a security guard with Allied Guards working in LXR/Nevils, indicated she was unaware of the specifics of what she was to receive, other workers have shown consistent interest and involvement in the campaign and even know that July 1, 2007, is the final deadline for full policy implementation.

Rosibel Oyuela, a supervisor for P&R in the Reiss building, explained that the workers had believed in the movement’s success from the beginning and even that P&R would eventually agree to the students’ demands.

She said that, at least for her building, workers were aware of their eligibility for health insurance, paid sick leave and ESL classes, and that they had classes from noon to 1 p.m., on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

The workers’ attendance in classes comes in the face of alleged threats by P&R to “fire workers who attended [ESL] classes during their work hours.” (“Just Employment Struggle Not Over,” The Hoya, Sept. 23, 2005, A3)

For its part, the Advisory Committee on Business Practices, the committee responsible within the administration for implementing the Just Employment policy, has provided a breakdown of wage increases by contractor. Yet the ACBP has not made public the names of various contractors to show their progress, instead listing them anonymously.

Moreover, the university still has no specific timetable for when the workers are to receive eligibility for particular benefits, nor has it implemented a formal grievance procedure allowing workers to bring complaints forward without fear of risking their jobs.

Although all parties have made positive steps forward and appear to be acting in good faith, success or failure in any project often depends on communication between different interests.

To be explicit, I don’t think any party is actively trying to subvert the process. But with conflicting interpretations of worker benefits received, the university as the central entity in charge has an obligation to make clear to all parties the expectations outlined in the policy.

Speak softly and carry a big stick. The university must firmly establish that it will not tolerate any attempt at preventing workers from receiving benefits or attending ESL classes on the part of the subcontractors. And while the subcontractors may have accepted the inevitability of just employment, this does not necessarily mean that they will be jumping for joy to implement it. The university must make sure that the strong legal base it has already laid with them is followed by the subcontractors doing their part.

The devil is in the details. To avoid allegations by Solidarity and others of foot-dragging, the university must make public — as far as is legally allowed — information about when specifically named contractors will increase wages and how each one plans to work with the university to provide health care and benefits packages.

Habla espanol? The ACBP should consider ways to directly inform workers, in Spanish and English, of what they are entitled to. Since many workers, especially those in P&R, do not speak English, overcoming the language barrier is vital to the policy’s fulfillment. The university, following its philosophy of cura personalis for all within its gates, cannot assume that the subcontractors will inform workers and should instead take the initiative and contact them directly.

The living wage debate has been controversial from the beginning. Students on both sides of the issue have strong reasons, both economic and moral, for why an employment policy at Georgetown indexed to the cost of living in D.C. is necessary or not.

Yet it is time to move beyond the question in the abstract and recognize that the university has made a commitment that it must fulfill in a firm, timely and transparent manner. It falls on all of us at Georgetown to make sure our words to the backbone of this community do not ring hollow, but are matched with cold, hard checks and life-saving medical care.

A promise is a promise. Now the workers deserve to have their living wage and eat it too.

Chris Cairns is a junior in the School of Foreign Service and opinion editor of The Hoya.