<p>The Chaplain (Rev. Daniel Walsh) who offered to get the woman a new furnace was generous and was clearly doing the right thing. I am not sure why she would decline that help, although I know that some people are very resistant to anything that looks like charity. It is unclear how closely related her living relatives were, if she had any.</p>
<p>They also housed and fed her on campus, for some period. Her obit refers to “Beloved aunt of six nieces and nephews.” But there isn’t much on her, other than the wildfire effect of the union letter. No real footprint to learn from.</p>
<p>QM, if SMU is still sufficiently Methodist, we had quite a debate about a rather infamous adjunct in Dallas.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/62357-phantom-professor.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/62357-phantom-professor.html</a></p>
<p>If this particular individual deserved a better treatment at SMU or any kind of sympathy remains in the eye of the beholder. </p>
<p>You might enjoy this dive in the depths of CC. :)</p>
<p>Yes, that is right, she was housed at Laval House (the formation house) from February to March and could join the community for meals. I hadn’t read the obituary.</p>
<p>I will take a look at the SMU situation tomorrow or the next day–have to sign off for the present, and it doesn’t look simple.</p>
<p>QM…</p>
<p>Are you saying that the school, because it’s a Catholic U should have paid her a “living wage” for part time work? What does that mean to you? A decent hourly wage or full-time pay for part-time work? If hourly, how much per hour?</p>
<p>The whole “living wage” issue can be confusing. A single person (obviously) can “live” on a much lower wage than a family of four. Does a “living wage” mean that each working adult should be paid enough to support a stay-at-home spouse and a few kids? I don’t think that can be argued as some kind of right.</p>
<p>Or does it mean that two parents working full time should be able to support their family? If the “living wage” teaching means that two parents working full time should be able to support themselves and kids, then some could argue that each parent earning $9 a hour could be a living wage (family income of about $37,400). It wouldn’t be luxury living by any means, but a family could live on that if necessary. I’m not even sure if a family of four would actually owe federal income taxes at that level.</p>
<p>In HI our governor estimates you need $78k for a family of 4 to live modestly, so each adult would likely need more than one full time minimum wage job or live in much higher density with relatives and��/or others.</p>
<p>Must a person work to get a livable wage?</p>
<p>If others have a moral obligation to pay no less than a certain amount or if everyone has the moral right to a certain amount of compensation, then it follows that everyone has the right to a paycheck regardless of whether or not a person works.</p>
<p>The beauty is that high school drop outs would be able to make as much as college grads. This could be done by capping compensation so that nobody makes more than the livable amount. Then everyone in society will be happy. The government will serve as the enforcer to guarantee everybody’s happiness and to punish those who dare keep more than the livable amount for themselves.</p>
<p>Now, everyone will be free at last to live the life they dream when guaranteed a livable wage for whatever it is they do from developing new technologies to playing video games.</p>
<p>Of course, some in society will be more equal than others. But I digress.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the long-term teaching of the Catholic Church has been that a just wage is a “family wage.” That meant that a single earner should be able to support a family, above the poverty level. I don’t know whether they have adjusted this in light of the large number of two-earner or multiple-earner families.</p>
<p>Madaboutx, you don’t seem to get what I am arguing. Suppose that there is a group that calls itself “Extreme Australians.” Suppose that one of the beliefs of this group is that everyone should own a kangaroo (just to be absurd about it–obviously, I oppose having people “own” kangaroos). And suppose that another of the beliefs of this group is that one should help those who cannot provide for themselves. Then suppose that Extreme Australian University knows that an employee of theirs is in dire poverty and cannot possibly own a kangaroo. Should they do something about it?</p>
<p>The moral imperatives of a religion are incumbent on the people who hold to that religion, in my view.</p>
<p>Just to clarify: I am not saying that the university needs to pay a full living wage for part-time work. I have been saying that the appropriate wage for Duquesne to pay should correspond to the number of hours that they thought the teaching obligations would require.</p>
<p>Qm has an interesting idea in post 188, about going back in time 25 yrs to help this woman, so she wouldn’t be in such a tough spot. But why go back 25 yrs, when she’d be about 58? Why not go back 35 or 45? Even going back 55, she’d be nearly 30. Different choices during any of that time might have changed the outcome.
I believe the union man that wrote the article wants to focus solely on her final outcome and try to convince others it is wholly because of her last employer. He is hoping readers won’t think about her choices early in her life, and throughout her life, her family’s apparent lack of help, and her unwillingness to accept help from society later. Imo, if we get too hung up on what part-time jobs should pay, then we may lose sight of what I see as the bigger picture- that we each need to plan for our older years, and not to wait until age 58 to start that plan.</p>
<p>bahaha. Where does the Catholic church support a living wage? In what country? Out of which of their own coffers? I don’t know why you keep returning to that. It’s Quant’s philosophy.</p>
<p>The school is an institution. How nice, if they ran totally by some principles we admire. But the church, the Bible, also teach personal responsibility and wise decisions, family responsibilities, concern for others. Knowing when to seek and accept guidance and support. Religious tradition includes a healthy mandate for this. </p>
<p>I’m editing my strong comments on help aimed only at what crosses our paths, the tales that capture our attention. How that’s not Biblical.</p>
<p>I also think it’s far too easy to keep suggesting she needs a living wage- and not be able to take the conversation past that call. Not able to answer the logical questions that follow. Just returning to the “I think this.”</p>
<p>No, the idea of a living wage isn’t my philosophy (even though I do endorse it). As far as I can tell, it is part of the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and it has been for quite a long time.</p>
<p>As I read the description of the help that the Chaplain gave to the adjunct professor, they housed her at Laval House for a period when they had an available room. In March, a priest “in formation” arrived, and the room was no longer available. (I think that formation is a step toward priesthood, but maybe someone could help me out.) The Chaplain then offered to provide a working furnace for the adjunct’s home, so she could return there. I think the Chaplain did what he could to help.</p>
<p>While (obviously, I hope) I agree that I have an obligation to reach out to those in need who never cross my path, this doesn’t allow me to ignore the needs of a person I encounter, on the grounds that I can’t help everyone.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, the United Methodist Committee on Relief provides disaster aid and development projects, with comparatively low administrative overhead. You can direct your giving to very specific projects or specific disaster-stricken regions.)</p>
<p>Well, younghoss, given a time machine, perhaps it would be possible to go back far enough in time to equalize opportunities for young men and young women, and that would have helped the adjunct quite a lot. When I look at the careers of women I know who are only 5 years older than I am, it is clear that the changes when I was young have been of considerable benefit to me–and that’s to say nothing of the career trajectory of a woman who was about 25 years older.</p>
<p>People could change careers, of course. In the times in which the adjunct lived, it tended to be difficult for a woman to shift from a career as a secretary or nurse to something that paid much better.</p>
<p>While (obviously, I hope) I agree that I have an obligation to reach out to those in need who never cross my path, this doesn’t allow me to ignore the needs of a person I encounter, on the grounds that I can’t help everyone.</p>
<p>Not ignore the persons whose path you cross. BUT recognize that we can’t congratulate ourselves on our Christian (or other) charitable spirits, based on the onesie-twosies. The coat donated, the check written, the one day of service.</p>
<p>We aren’t supposed to congratulate ourselves for our kind and giving hearts and put down those who ask questions about a tale.</p>
<p>And this isn’t about how she could or couldn’t change careers! You guys are spinning a whole life for her!</p>
<p>I see a difference between saying that the “onesie-twosies” and the checks, etc. are not sufficient (I agree) and saying that they are not necessary (I disagree).</p>
<p>When it comes to being self-congratulatory, I think that no Christian group approves of the Pharisees. I am not generalizing beyond Duquesne. I think they fell considerably short of the requirements of the religion they proclaim on their web site.</p>
<p>My comments about changing careers and about career trajectories are in response to the posters who suggested that she should have changed careers.</p>
<p>Finally, with regard to personal responsibility: We’ve been reasonably responsible. But I don’t kid myself that we could cover all of the medical costs that might arise if someone in my family became seriously ill (beyond the normal expectations of mortality). Obamacare may change this–can’t tell yet.</p>
<p>Who said they aren’t necessary?</p>
<p>And see how so many are focused only on her? Her sad tale as written by a member of the steelworkers union. Her med expenses, her house, her simple desires. At what point would you tell the single mom with a PhD in French to find other ways to care for her needs? Is it OK for parents to be too proud to accept medical assistance?</p>
<p>The odds are that the President of Duquesne knew nothing about this until it hit the news–which is too bad.</p>
<p>Many religions recognize that there are obligations that people leave undone. So the people at Duquesne might well subscribe to the “just wage” doctrine, but left it unimplemented in this case. I am not foreclosing the possibility that the wage was just, based on the expectations of time spent. In terms of providing assistance that the adjunct (or others) would accept: that could be a necessary good deed that was left undone (aside from the Duquesne Chaplain, who really tried to help). I hardly know anyone who has sold all that he has, and given the proceeds to the poor.</p>
<p>QM - I get that you are trying to use religion to make your argument and will use the accusation of hypocrisy as a whip to beat This university with.</p>
<p>I don’t buy that argument at all. There are no verses in Scripture that call for a living wage or fair wage as defined by Unions, socialists or any other group. The Bible calls for paying the agreed upon wage and no less than what was agreed. Not one person has made the case that this lady was cheated by the university in any way, shape or form. My understanding is that she worked and got in return exactly what she expected and maybe turned down offers for more than what was expected.</p>
<p>I see no moral or spiritual hypocrisy here.</p>
<p>If the people on here want to really show compassion than send a check for this woman’s estate, create a scholarship in her name or pay her medical bills. If someone feels that compassion is the order of the day, then do something compassionate. Otherwise, you become the hypocrite who sees a need, feels someone should do something and yet does nothing him/herself.</p>