OCR Text |
Show s T op 0 s ind o v he ure ttl 1 1,340,000 nickels to go, pecL The University is aiming at the student pocketbook again but this time through the stomach. Most recent rumblings include an increase in Union food prices. Dave Moore, director of Union food services claims that the Union needs to find $67,000 additional funds to offset wage increases, and food costs. Mr. Moore presented pre-sented Union Board with the dilemma Wednesday in their meeting. He outlined three possible methods to pick up the amount needed to keep the foods service out of the red. The suggestions include 1) raising selected food items and all beverages by five , t he ird - 4 . )Ut n mi v0 7 vri oi he x no NO he . :in ;oi ier " rlc - .n :e: ' ' "' -hi :o cents which he lists as the most feasible in terms of long range pricing; 2) increasing selected food items and all other beverages except coffee by 5 cents; 3) increasing selected se-lected food items by five cents with all beverages remaining re-maining at the present price. Mr. Moore explained that if alternative one is endorsed and put into effect, it would increase sales for 1971-72 by $65,000. Proposal number two would bring in approximately approxi-mately $50,000 and number three would add $30,000 to $35,000. The food service should be commended for its approaching ap-proaching the Union Board with alternatives rather than announcing a price increase and allowing no student recourse re-course as was the case two years ago when prices were increased without prior review. Though wage costs is justified, justi-fied, anyone who has eaten in the food service areas could comment on the overabundance over-abundance of personnel and their inefficiency at times. But even more appropriate would be the huge amount to be drained not from the faculty's pockets but rather from the students in the three student services areas. Rather than adding five cents to major items as is proposed, the Foods Service and Union Board should look closely at administration of the present items. Surely there are corners which can be cut. The Union prices are much higher than many of the local snack shops which can be partially explained by the table service and serving utensils but not completely. Charging sixty cents for a ham and cheese and forty cents for a grilled cheese seems ridiculous. One slice of ham could not up the price 20 cents. Obviously the popularity of the item is the reasoning as is witnessed by the proposed five cent increase in-crease of the bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich, fish- burger, cheeseburger, double JJi, cheeseburger, French fried ie potatoes and sandwiches. ni And charging 20 cents for a :o drink that could be pur- 3P chased from a machine for 10 cents again seems unrea- sonable. The more appropriate 3, remedy would be combining ;e food services with programs ti to attract more students 1 rather than overcharging those who are already frequenting fre-quenting the Huddle and Commons and Cafeteria. Friday night attractions such as folk groups and bands would draw more students stu-dents to the Commons and justify its retaining personnel for service. A more varied menu to appeal to regulars should also be tried. The Union seems plagued with food service prices. Every few years the prices go up as does tuition and books and so on. In other words, a new crop of students gets broken into the charges. But, it can't keep going on. The solution is not increasing the prices but rather finding another approach to stabilize prices and attract more customers. editorial An expected deficit should be alleviated, but we question ques-tion whether raising the prices of "selected food items" and drinks is fair. The primary justification for increasing in-creasing prices is the recent wage increase and new vacation vaca-tion policy for employees. |