Solid Progress on Wages

Last week, University President Lawrence H. Summers announced his decision to accept the major recommendations of the Katz Committee and to implement a wage increase for many of Harvard’s poorest workers. His choice is a wise one, as it will result in tangible and immediate wage increases for Harvard’s lowest-paid workers.

With Summers’ decision, the University will not only reopen union negotiations to increase wages for the school’s 1,000 lowest-paid service employees but will also regulate the wages of outsourced workers with a parity wage and benefits policy. Even though his verdict comes up just short by not guaranteeing all Harvard’s workers a living wage, the outcome demonstrates Summers’ leadership on this issue and his ability to work constructively with others who have interests in Harvard’s wages. Moreover, the decision requiring wage parity and wage raises are very important and significant steps forward in improving Harvard’s workers’ quality of life.

The Harvard Committee on Employment and Contracting Policies also deserves praise. An inclusive committee comprised of faculty members, employees, students and administrators, the body was an exemplary method of producing the consultative findings. Summers should continue to take into account evidence and viewpoints on the living wage and other issues from these groups and other members of Harvard’s diverse community.

Despite this important and meaningful victory for workers, we worry that as standards of living change over time, some of the gains made today may erode tomorrow. Only a constantly reevaluated living wage would ensure that Harvard’s workers will always receive fair and just compensation.

In order to keep Harvard’s wages fair, Summers must actively follow up and reassess wages often within the collective bargaining framework. But when wages rise, that increase must not be used as an excuse to lay off workers, even if the economy is struggling through a recession.

Though the end is tangible progress, that alone does not justify the means. It is regrettable that coercive tactics as opposed to constructive dialogue were used to achieve this result. Of course, no action would have been necessary had former President Neil L. Rudenstine had acted earlier to avoid the Mass. Hall conflict.