"It was a bittersweet victory for University of Virginia student advocates of a $10.72 “living wage” for UVa employees.

President John T. Casteen III announced last week that by the end of the month, all academic division and medical center employees would earn at least $9.37 an hour, 49 cents an hour more than the previous bottom pay rate. Although it wasn’t the $10.72 the students were demanding, it was a step in the right direction, they said Tuesday. But they disputed some of the claims Casteen made in his announcement, arguing that many were deliberate attempts to confuse and “provide an excuse for inaction.”

“When you’re counting pennies, every penny counts, so this is an important first step,” said third-year student Benjamin Van Dyne, one of the UVa Living Wage Campaign organizers. Van Dyne read a statement at a news conference Tuesday on behalf of the campaign. “But if it is intended to placate the many diverse voices clamoring for a real living wage, it should be known that we students, the workers we are in dialogue with and our allies in the community will not be silenced or satisfied with half-measures.”

Casteen had emphasized the value benefits add to a worker’s total compensation. At the $9.37 rate, benefits add $3.29 an hour.

“Benefits are no substitute for higher wages, because, unlike monetary compensation, benefits are not fungible,” said fourth-year student Carmen Comsti.

But university spokeswoman Carol Wood expressed frustration with the assessment.

“These remarks that dismiss benefits as not counting are naive and flippant,” Wood said. “We see benefits as critical to the safety and well-being of our employees and their families.”

The students also argue that the university can raise employee salaries when it sees fit. Wood countered by saying market surveys and the state’s pay practices are the only ways to raise pay levels. Although the UVa Board of Visitors has in the past allocated money in addition to state funds to adjust classified workers’ salaries, the university cannot arbitrarily increase salaries, Wood said.

University officials also cannot control contract workers’ salaries, Wood said, which is another point at issue between the students and Casteen. Casteen has requested the opinion of the state attorney general.

The students’ final challenge to Casteen’s announcement dealt with the university’s treatment of classified workers. Casteen wrote in the statement that employees report that the university is an excellent employer.

“To say that the university is an excellent employer is willfully disingenuous,” second-year student Kevin Simowitz said. “It is an excellent employer to its higher-paid employees, but the university’s most vulnerable employees continue to be a low priority, despite President Casteen’s claims.”

Wood cited employees’ career advancement opportunities and the university’s dedication to moving employees through the ranks.

Fourth-year student Maria Bninski left the news conference disappointed with the university but heartened by the students’ work.

“I’m increasingly angry and ashamed of the university,” Bninski said. “There’s definitely moral clarity there. Things need to change.”" (Melanie Mayhew, The Daily Progress, March 15, 2006)

Contact Melanie Mayhew at (434) 978-7265 or mmayhew@dailyprogress.com.