Nothing But Hollow Excuses

Since last December, the Harvard Living Wage Campaign has united University and community members in an effort to secure a minimal living wage for anyone who works at the University. Last Tuesday, we invited President Neil L. Rudenstine to address our community and to explain why he has continued to pay poverty-level wages to workers despite the fact that support for a living wage has grown both on campus and nationwide. Not only did Rudenstine fail to appear at our rally, but he has yet to offer an answer to our question. In fact, he has made no response at all to the call for a living wage and has shown no commitment to the well-being of the people who work for him.

As far as we can tell, the only reason that Rudenstine has remained silent is that he can make no argument against a living wage that would not be publicly embarassing for the president of the world's richest university. By liberal estimates, implementing a living wage at Harvard would cost the University $10 million annually. This amounts to three-fifths of 1 percent of Harvard's annual budget, and exactly equals the compensation paid the University's top fund manager in 1998. It is impossible for Rudenstine to argue that Harvard cannot afford a living wage. Had he come to our rally, we can only assume that he would have made the same four arguments which other administrators have made against the living wage. We would like to outline these arguments here and put them to rest.

1. "Harvard already pays nearly all of its workers at least $10 per hour."

This argument is based on a purposely limited definition of the Harvard workforce. It includes only those workers who are directly employed at full-time hours--a fraction of the university's employees. Excluded from this definition are hundreds of full- and part-time workers, some of whom are directly employed, and some of whom are employed through outside contractors. Based on information gathered from the University, campus unions and the hundreds of workers with whom we have spoken, we estimate that when all employees are taken into account, an estimated 2,000 workers at Harvard are paid less than $10 per hour.

2. "When we consider total compensation--benefits as well as wages--even those 2,000 employees are paid at least $10 per hour."

In our experience talking with workers, we have found that most underpaid employees receive no benefits at all; their hourly wage of less than $10 per hour is their "total compensation." In light of this, the administration's emphasis on benefits is misleading.

Consider that the $10 per hour living wage adopted by the Cambridge City Council last spring was designed to apply to workers who also received benefits. Even with benefits, these workers still required at least $10 per hour to meet their families' needs. A living wage is designed to cover daily expenses such as rent, transportation and groceries. These expenses cannot be paid in dental appointments or yearly check-ups.

We do agree, however, that fair compensation should include both wages and benefits; for this reason, we support the implementation of a living wage of $10 per hour with the option of benefits.

3. "Ten dollars per hour is not a living wage. It is simply an arbitrary and inflated number."

Our $10 per hour standard is taken directly from the Cambridge living wage ordinance, approved by the City Council in May. The ordinance established a minimum wage of $10 per hour for all city workers, as well as employees of city contractors. According to the Eviction-Free Zone, one of three organizations which drafted the ordinance, $10 per hour was chosen because it was the lowest wage paid any unionized city employee. As such, it was seen as a minimal standard for a living wage. In fact, studies on the local cost of living show just how minimal it is. According to the National Low-Income Housing Commission, a wage of roughly $15 per hour is needed to live in the Boston area. Wider Opportunities for Women also found that in 1997, a living wage for families of varying composition would range from $11 to $18 per hour.

These findings have been borne out by our experience talking to workers: We have not found a Harvard employee who earns less than $10 per hour and who can afford to live in Cambridge.

4. "We can't force our subcontractors to pay a living wage."

The city of Cambridge and every other city that has passed a living wage ordinance requires subcontractors to meet its wage standard. Mechanisms have been developed in all these cities to force subcontractors to pay decent wages, and there is no reason to believe that Harvard could not employ similar means. In fact, Harvard already directly participates in determining the wages of its subcontracted workers through contract negotiations. As one of the largest and most powerful institutions in the state, Harvard has no trouble influencing the firms with which it does business.

The arguments presented by the administration are evasive, misleading and so obviously wrong that we can hardly imagine that administrators honestly believe them. It is clear to the overwhelming majority of students, workers and community members that a $10-per-hour living wage at Harvard is fair and necessary, and that the poverty that this University creates is unacceptable by any measure.

No Harvard employee should have to work three jobs to meet his or her family's basic needs; no working family should be forced to balance endlessly on the brink of economic disaster. In asking for a living wage, we call on Harvard administrators to join the rest of the community in recognizing that the lives of working people are more important than nickels and dimes. It is time for Neil Rudenstine to take responsibility for the economic survival of the people who make this university run.

Amy C. Offner '01 is a history concentrator in Lowell House. She is a member of the Progressive Student Labor Movement.