Is Environment Duty the Exploitation of Free Labor?
By An Nguyen
What do you think of when you hear the phrase ‘Child Labor'? People today link this question with children doing strenuous tasks for a long period of time to earn a bare minimum amount of money. University High School in Parkville has been enforcing a similar type of work called “Environment duty” which is more commonly referred to as Garbo. You may be thinking what is Garbo? Garbo is a day’s work that must be carried out by all students from year 7-9 once per a year. This demanding chore involves cleaning up school grounds for six long hours and earning as little as an ice cream. Many students argue that “childhood is meant to learn not earn” hence disagree with the idea of Garbo, while others such as teachers believe that Environment Duty is an act of community service and consequently crucial for all students to carry out.
A poll was carried out to see if Uni High students love or loathe environment duty. The results show that 90% of students dislike Environment Duty. One student said “Garbo is a pain that the students have no rights to act against” and another asserted “most students in the school aren’t willing to miss a day of school and simply collect garbage from others.” Children of the school are being forced to work hard in order to keep the school clean and they are missing out on their favorite subjects just because of this formidable task. “Pupils at our school are missing out a day just to collect garbage?” asked a new student in surprise, upon finding out about Environmental Duty. Why do Uni High Students dislike Environment Duty so much that they are willing to protest against it? Most definitely 99.9% of students have faith that they are not earning enough food from their work. If Environmental Duty persists, our school will certainly earn the reputation of using free child labor. The students all understand that the teachers want to teach them responsibilities for later use in life but there are still other ways to fulfil this need, such as letting pupils go on more excursions to teach them how to survive alone in tough situations.
On the other side of the argument, most teachers and staff at University High School strongly believe that Environment Duty essential for all students. The vice principal of the school said “Garbo teaches the students responsibility and gives them practice of taking care of themselves.” As well as contributing something good to the school, the students are also earning some cleaning skills that they need later on in life. According to the kitchen staff; “The students are doing a fantastic job in keeping our school clean and beautiful. Even though they sometimes lack focus in their chores, they always end up making our school a safer and better environment.” Even though the prestigious University High can afford garbage men and women, they decide to cut off the funds to spend on something better for the students. When you grow up, nobody is going to take care of you except yourself so you should be prepared to do any sort of tasks thrown at you. Why would the school need garbage men when they can use students to contribute in keeping the school clean?
This topic concerns me and other school pupils because we all know what it is like to be used as a cleaning tool. Anyone who has experienced environment duty would know that it could annoy someone to the extreme when they find out that they earned an awful minimum amount of food. Aren’t all humans equal? We should all have a choice to whether or not we would like to do chores for the school. If we end up doing it for six-hours, the reward needs to be increased otherwise Garbo is the exploitation of free labor. Students shouldn’t be afraid to speak up for themselves because there are many other students who feel the same way about Environmental Duty: we shouldn't have it.