On behalf of the employees who resigned from the Stanford Guest House and many who continue to work there I would like to comment on the February 12, 2007 article “Guest House workers walk out” and the subsequent letter to the editor of February 13, 2007 by Michael L. VanFossen. Both articles omit many grievances and realities that have shaped the worsening conditions at the Guest House and do not clearly articulate the astonishing level of mismanagement that led to five resignations in late January.

Against the backdrop of four general managers in two years, the retirement of the hotel computer system in April 2006 without replacement, open positions being posted for a year without hiring, an increase in workload, the use of “temps” for 15 months, a 25% pay cut and the proposed removal of chairs and water from the front desk, one can see why resignation en masse was not as surprising as VanFossen suggested, “We were absolutely dumbfounded that some of these employees would ask for reassignment.” If the University was dumbfounded it was not for lack of signs or information since senior Stanford management, VanFossen and Faulkner included, have been aware of all these concerns for at least three months and have done precious little to address them.

In fact, the Stanford Guest House has used temporary workers to cover vacant full-time positions for longer than a year and a half. These “long-term temps” (a category for temps Residential & Dining Enterprises recently coined) in no way fit into the model VanFossen described for them, “They are assigned temporarily to fill in during periods when jobs are vacant, staff are sick or on vacation, or during peak periods when additional staff are needed on a short-term or interim basis.” Former front desk agents Al Atienza and Kerry Stroud, who both resigned, are perfect examples having been long-term temps for 15 months and 11 months, respectively. If the University takes a year or longer to repost and hire for vacant positions, as it has at the Guest House, it deserves a reputation for misusing temporary employees.

Another contributing factor on the road to resignation was the retirement of the hotel computer system in April 2006 that left the Stanford Guest House without an automated way of booking rooms, selling gift shop items, generating housekeeping reports and other basic daily tasks of running a hotel. Workers were told a new software system would be installed within the week and yet today, 10 months later, it has yet to happen — leading to a substantial increase in workload. The manual system that has been cobbled together uses archaic carbon copies of credit cards, manual blocking of guests into rooms using spreadsheets and paper copies of all guest bills to be stored and reconciled daily by front desk staff. Now add on additional housekeeping assignment responsibility, new cash drawer counting, credit card reconciliation and monthly sales tax computations that were all handled by the prior software and one begins to get a picture of the increased workload the skilled long-term temps have been undertaking. Skills not represented in the new 1A2 job descriptions that pay 25% less than the old, more accurate 1A4 postings. Another deficit of the manual system is a much higher error rate, leading to guests being assigned occupied rooms, an embarrassing situation indeed demanding deft customer service skills to avoid an incident. Stanford’s inability to purchase an off-the-shelf hotel program in 10 months points to another management failure, further frustrating front desk staff.

Stanford University, and Residential & Dining Enterprises in particular, seems to have two sets of rules, one for management and one for everyone else. I should like to see those who have defended this pay cut live locally on a $30,000 a year salary. Two of the defenders of this pay cut won’t have to as both enjoy subsidized living on-campus that is unavailable to normal workers, and have even received a special exception to have dogs, again unavailable to normal residents of campus. It is very easy to speak in broad terms about the outside market forces and what a competitive wage is when one is not personally subject to such forces or rules. I once believed that Stanford treated its employees differently, that it would not stoop to the minimum the law allows, or the minimum the market will bare. If Stanford wishes to maintain its reputation as a preferred employer and desirable place to work it will have to change many of its management and personnel policies — and quickly.

Given these previously unprinted factors about conditions at the Guest House, the resignations of late January may seem less sudden and more foreseeable. It is my hope Stanford will take this as an opportunity, not to stay the course and pretend all is well, but to meaningfully investigate its own policies and managers to improve working conditions and wages for those that still work at the Guest House and the University as a whole.

Zeb Feldman is a former front desk supervisor at the Stanford Guest House.