Don’t Increase the ‘Living Wage’

Harvard’s janitors are a part of the Harvard community. But if “living wage” advocates succeed in parlaying janitors’ inclusion in our community into a pay rate far above what is fair, they will set a dangerous precedent for other Harvard employees and likely lower Harvard hiring in the future.

Last Monday, members of the Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) rallied to demand a $20 per hour living wage for Harvard’s janitors. The janitors, who are in the midst of renegotiating their contract with Harvard, are currently paid $13.50 per hour. This salary represents an over $2 per hour increase (adjusted for inflation) from the living wage terms Harvard agreed to in 2001 when SLAM’s predecessor, the Progressive Student Labor Movement, helped janitors win a $10.25 living wage. Though we hope that the janitors and Harvard will settle on a mutually agreeable number—one that reflects the fair price of labor—we do not support SLAM’s calls for a $20 living wage.

The actual numbers put to living wage demands are based on estimates of the cost of a decent lifestyle in Boston. Living wage advocates are defining “decent” far too generously. According to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the 2005 median income for a family of four in the Boston metro area is $82,600. This number is slightly higher than the U.S. Census Bureau’s last median income estimate for all of Massachusetts (in 2003), which showed that the state had the second highest median income in the nation. At $20 per hour with a 40-hour workweek and two weeks of vacation, two Harvard janitors would pull in $80,000 a year for their family. In essence, then, SLAM is demanding that janitors at Harvard should make nearly the median wage in Boston for doing unskilled labor, when janitors across the state make an average of only $26,000 per year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. A decent lifestyle doesn’t necessitate the median wage, and it is not reasonable to demand Harvard should think otherwise. Of course, the $20 per hour rallying cry is probably part of SLAM’s posturing. Their real goal is likely lower, more in line with the $16-$17 hourly wages for janitors at some peer institutions around Boston. Even this lower figure is too high. Dining hall staff will renegotiate their contract this spring. Right now, their wages are far lower than the wages paid to janitors. If janitors are granted $17 an hour, then why should dining hall employees demand anything less? This is the flaw inherent in the concept of a living wage. It calculates the money necessary to support a decent lifestyle independent of the nature of the actual work being done, and independent of the compensation that the labor market demands.

In practice, if Harvard were to grant a living wage, it would have to make up the extra expenditure through other means. Living wages granted in cities nationwide have mixed track records. Businesses sometimes report being able to make up for lost cash through increased worker morale, but the majority of cases see businesses voluntarily accepting reduced profits. With a fixed operating budget every year, Harvard is far less flexible. To compensate for a living wage, it would either have to hire fewer workers or take the money from other places. Both outcomes stand to leave Harvard employees worse off overall.

In response to arguments against a living wage, SLAM and other advocates argue that it is Harvard’s responsibility to help raise wages for the unskilled workers who are part of the Harvard community. Harvard’s janitors are part of our community. But further wage increases beyond what is fair will hurt our community as surely as it will artificially raise the standard of a “decent” lifestyle in Boston. As good as it sounds on paper—and painted on protest signs—a further increase to the living wage is not the answer.