Yes to the Raise

Harvard never fails to tout its traditions of excellence. But what the administration often ignores--and would fail to reward should it prevail in the current union negotiations--is the essential contribution of the clerical and technical workers in perpetuating that excellence.

The members of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers are the people who sort and shelve the books at our libraries. They are the technicians in our labs and the secretaries in our offices. In many ways, both large and small, they help make Harvard what it is.

But the administration would deny them the pay commensurate with that important role. The union wants a 4 percent pay raise without a cut in existing benefits or seniority pay. The University's negotiator, Sally H. Zeckhauser, appears willing to accept the pay hike, but only in exchange for the union's acceptance of a slash in seniority pay.

On its face, Harvard's position against the pay raise holds water. The administration claims budget constraints and says it's having to cut back already. Indeed, the union payroll is the largest single item in each of the faculties' budgets. Overall, the 3600 union members receive $80 million annually.

But what makes the administration's position disingenuous is that many of the deans and their staffs have embarked on expensive projects in the last few years without much worry about costs. Remember last year's $47,000 cable line for the members-only Shad Hall gym? What about the 7 percent pay raises top Harvard administrators have received since 1990? Or how about the high six-figure paychecks Harvard money managers have been taking home even while the overall growth rate of the endowment has fallen in recent years?

The issue, we should acknowledge, is not as clear as union officials would have it. Deans and their staffs often begin pricy projects because alumni are willing to pay for those specific projects. Shad Hall, for example, was financed by alumni contributions.

And however much Harvard has spent or wasted in the past, the deans must of course still find the money to pay for this new expenditure.

This will be easier for some faculties than others. For the wealthy schools with generous alumni, the issue boils down to setting priorities for fund-raising dollars. Most contributors don't care where their dollars go within the different faculties. Some of the larger ones do. In this case, the amounts involved are so low that big contributors' pet projects needn't be discouraged. But in the future, deans should not be afraid to encourage these alumni to contribute not to flashy projects but to basic, day-to-day budgets and student services.

Since some deans seem unwilling to do this, President Neil L. Rudenstine and Provost Jerry R. Green should take a stronger role in directing the proceeds of fund-raising campaigns. In this case, that simply means central administration officials like Rudenstine and Green telling Zeckhauser to accept the union's terms.

The broader argument about whether the University's bottom line benefits from its decentralized, every-tub-on-its-own-bottom policy is not our concern here. But when one area is in particular need, Rudenstine and Green should not hesitate to act more forcefully in setting budgetary priorities. (The raise would cost the University as a whole about $3.2 million; the operating budgets add up to about $1 billion.)

Why should the wealthier faculties who can afford to invest in bigticket items with high returns "invest" in higher pay (without cutting benefits) instead? They shouldn't always. But in this case, redirecting money toward workers makes sense. First of all, we're not talking about redirecting a huge amount. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences' share of the 4 percent hike would amount to roughly $960,000, probably about the same amount the College spends on recruiting athletes and feeding non-resident tutors.

Second, the administration should think about the returns from this sort of investment in broader terms. Investing in people is a good way to achieve higher productivity, especially at Harvard, where productivity is usually not measured by the output of plant and equipment but by the output of its citizens.

We recognize that pay raises won't always amplify productivity, but in this case many of the workers are earning small enough amounts that they must constantly worry about life's basics. People tend not to be very happy or productive at work if they are worried about finding the next meal. And certainly investing in higher wages is one of the best ways to enhance worker loyalty.

The union's members make, on average, about $23,000 a year. Some make as little as $16,000 each year; none earns more than $42,000 annually. On these salaries, they must live in the Boston area, work in pricy Cambridge (with its dearth of cheap parking and lunch spots) and pay high state and local taxes (the sixth highest in the nation in 1988). Harvard's workers should be able to buy their children new school clothes and not have to live in dangerous lowrent areas of the city.

The administration rarely misses a chance to point out that union members already make slightly more per hour than their counterparts in other area institutions--especially the non-union shops.

But using others' low pay to justify not raising workers' salaries doesn't get to the debate's merits. It's a little like saying "All the other kids are doing it."

Harvard can do better.

Spending for higher wages also means more of an investment in the community--not just in terms of the boost in basic consumer spending that will result but in terms of providing healthy, fulfilling lives for the city's workers.

These often represent a greater return for the Cambridge area than a new building can provide. It is true that projects such as Shad Hall and The Inn at Harvard (another expensive venture union officials complain about) create jobs. Union officials should admit this more freely. But investing in higher wages creates benefits as well--and the administration seems to ignore these benefits.

In addition, we should not forget that 83 percent of the union members are women. The administration has the audacity to use the national differential in men's and women's pay to try to neutralize this as an issue. Nationally, women earn an average of about 70 percent of what men do. This should be a reason for Harvard to move forward with pay raises, not remain in the same place.

What about the not-so-wealthy Harvard faculties? How will they afford the pay raises? For schools such as the Graduate School of Design, the issue is not as simple as redirecting a small portion of fund-raising dollars from expensive projects to workers' salaries. Some deans simply don't have that luxury.

That's where Rudenstine and Green come in. Again, we're talking about small amounts when the $3.2 million raise is split among all the faculties. Whereas the wealthier schools should finance the raise on their own, the central administration should earmark a tiny portion (say, three-quarters of one percent) of the upcoming $2 billion capital campaign to pay for the raise for the smaller faculties.

An institution as wealthy as Harvard has the luxury of affording most of what it needs and much of what it wants. In this case, if Harvard prioritizes correctly, it can afford the pay raise. The clerical and technical workers are worth it.