Aramark Ethics Lies

By Patrick Burkart, Travis Donoho, and Paul Odekirk

This month MIT must decide whether to renew its contract with an

unscrupulous and lawbreaking dining services provider. Aramark,

formerly ARA, is a multibillion dollar mammoth, operating various

services illegally throughout the world. Aramark currently operates at

MIT, Boston University, and numerous other college campuses across the

country; it is one of the top three food service providers in the U.S.

For years, Aramark has committed and admitted to unfair and

illegal trading practices, including violating federal anti-trust

laws. Also, Aramark has been suspected of having massive organized

crime connections in its transportation and vending-machine

divisions. The food service giant first got into trouble with the law

in 1964, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) negotiated a consent

order in which ARA did not acknowledge guilt, but agreed anyway to

dispose of some of its vending machine companies worth an annual $7.7

million. Again, in 1973, ARA accepted another FTC consent order, this

one requiring disposal of the vending and periodical companies that it

owned. On top of that, ARA had to pledge to stay out of certain

markets delimited by the FTC. In 1979, the FTC successfully pressed

for and won a $300,000 civil penalty against ARA after the company was

found guilty of violating the terms of the 1973 agreement. This

penalty also required ARA to dispose of some of its business

assets. ARA was also fined an additional $80,000 in 1973 for

conspiracy to fix cigarette prices in Cincinnati.

In 1977, ARA admitted to making questionable and sometimes

illegal payments between 1970 and 1976, according to a Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) report. A total of $393,000 in payments were

made to politicians and "client related" recipients who were

influential in handing over state contracts to ARA. Also, ARA admitted

receiving $504,000 in questionable and sometimes illegal rebates from

1970 to 1976. ARA made $23,400 in political campaign contributions

that the company itself reported to the SEC as illegal, and another

$11,550