Stanford administrators remain firmly in support of the new living wage plan they announced on May 8, despite the Stanford Labor Action Coalition’s (SLAC) claims that the shift in policy was ineffectual.

The plan increases compensation for subcontracted workers by 10 percent, providing $11.15 an hour for those receiving health benefits and $12.59 an hour for those without. The policy contains seven restrictions, most notably its exclusion of unionized workers.

Executive Director of Human Resources Diane Peck said she had heard of no plans to change the new wage policy.

“I haven’t had any conversation with anybody about changing the wages we just announced,” she said. “I think this a fair amount. And I don’t know of any plans to revisit those numbers.”

Director of University Communications Alan Acosta echoed her sentiment.

“Although we certainly feel it is legitimate and appropriate for students and others to make their opinions known through peaceful protest and other means, the policy decisions are driven by the University’s commitment to the principles of fairness and appreciation for the hard work of people who contribute to the University’s mission,” he said.

Acosta added that no single organization will broadly influence the University’s policy.

Despite the confident stance from school officials, SLAC still argues the policy does not have enough of an impact.

SLAC spokesman Matt Seriff-Cullick, a sophomore, said that he hoped the public protests on May 11 would bring awareness to the argument that the University’s living wage policy does not do enough to help workers.

“It’s hard to gauge any effect in the first regard, but I think the rally itself, the press coverage following it and the series of teach-ins we’re now conducting are really starting to perk peoples’ ears to what, in my mind, is a pretty accessible and clear-cut issue,” he said. “And since the rally, there’s definitely a sense of momentum that will carry us through the end of the year and into next year so that we can hit the ground running.”

Seriff-Cullick said the next step for SLAC will be to develop teach-ins.

“We hope to get to as many dorms and houses as possible for the end of the year,” he said. “The teach-ins involve a living wage workshop, which is an interactive exercise that makes tangible, with specific numbers, the cuts and sacrifices that have to be made when you’re not earning a living wage — things like eliminating healthcare or struggling to cut your food budget in half. The second half goes over the administration’s current living wage policy and what needs to be changed for us to have a real living wage on campus.”

“We don’t respond to any particular group’s demands or analysis,” he said. “Policy is not driven by one group’s demands. You take many people’s opinions into consideration and think about what’s best for the University.”

“We’re not saying that the living wage policy is a bad idea,” Seriff-Cullick said. “We’re saying it’s a good idea. The administration agrees in theory, but their version of a living wage policy applies to almost no one, has never been enforced and falls below an actual living wage for Santa Clara County as calculated by the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization the California Budget Project.”

He argued that the University should make a number of changes to its policy.

“All of the seven restrictions should be removed,” he said. “Contractors should be required to show evidence of compliance as a condition of receiving a contract and should be audited regularly to ensure compliance, and that the policy should contain an explicit, transparent review process that will allow its level to be tacked to the cost of living. We would also like to see guarantees for the right to organize without interference by the University, so that workers have the ability to hold the University accountable when it fails to enforce its own policies.”

Peck disagreed, stating that Stanford’s living wage policy is fair. She cited her work on the Presidential Advisory Committee on Workplace Policies — a panel convened by the president’s office to compare Stanford’s wages to those of other Bay Area employers.

“We go out everywhere to see staff salaries and see what the marketplace is saying,” she said. “We went to about seven Bay Area government agencies like the City of San Jose and the City of San Francisco, and we found out what their living wage policy was currently. We used that information to form our recommendation to President Hennessy. SLAC could argue that all of the Bay Area organizations are wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case and we put a lot of thought into this.”

Acosta said he felt that Stanford’s living policy is not only fair, but also unique.

“The increase in the minimum wage for this sizable group of affected workers reflects our desire to acknowledge the contribution these workers make and the importance of the services they provide,” he said. “To the best of our knowledge, Stanford is the only private institution of its size in the Bay Area to have such a policy. The University’s leaders are aware that the cost of living in the Bay Area is a challenge to many workers, whether they work on our campus or elsewhere.”

Seriff-Cullick said he hoped that SLAC and the University can reach an agreement.

“Ideally, we’d love this to be a cooperative process with the University,” he said. “Our ideas can be communicated much more effectively across a table than with picket signs and slogans. Currently, both the head of Human Resources and President Hennessy himself have ignored our requests for information and refused to meet with us, so that’s why we’ve turned to protests, and that’s what we’ll continue to do until the administration listens to the voice of the students and workers.”