Right for the Wrong Reasons

The staff is correct in arguing that it's time for Harvard's clerical and technical workers to receive a pay raise.

Age-old business practices dictate that successful institutions increase their employees' salaries every few years. In large measure, these hikes are designed to keep compensation at pace with inflation, though they also serve to build confidence and moral among an organization's employees.

"Traditionally, it has been usual to get a certain percentage increase [in pay] in each contract period," says Patricia Greenfield, a labor relations scholar at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. "[It is based on] the concept that workers are entitled by virtue of their continuing work with an organization to an increasing standard of living and that...as they continually commit to the organization, the organization has to continually commit to them."

Four percent is a reasonable figure, slightly above the rate of inflation, neither outlandishly high nor ridiculously low. And it is a figure that, as the staff rightly points out, the University can afford with relatively little financial discomfort.

Where the staff errs is in groping for complicated reasons to justify a salary hike. By ignoring the obvious--that every competent employee deserves a pay raise once in a while--and drawning this message amid a sea of questionable economic arguments, the staff position is severely weakened.

First, a simple, across-the-board pay raise such as that being requested by the union should in no way be viewed as a "reward" for "perpetuating excellence," as the staff implies. Such terminology should be reserved for seasonal bonuses or merit raises, items not currently under discussion.

Second, Harvard's alleged financial irresponsibility is not an issue here. As the staff points out, "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."

Along these lines, however, the staff's suggestion that Harvard might find the money by encouraging alumni to contribute "not to flashy projects but to basic, day-to-day budgets and student services" is wildly idealistic. Does the staff really expect any wealthy alum to donate $1 million to an endowment for clerical salaries?

Third, the staff's assertion that "investing in people is a good way to achieve higher productivity" is, at best, debatable. It is based on the argument made by Adam Smith (and, more recently, Gov. Bill Clinton) that "the wages of labor are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives."

Legendary economist though he was, Smith offered no evidence for this particular hypothesis, nor does the staff. In fact, the father of capitalist theory wrote, "Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three."

Fourth, the argument that Harvard's investment in higher wages constitutes an investment in the community and provides for "healthy, fulfilling lives for Cambridge's workers" is both questionable and irrelevant. If union workers are, as the staff suggests, "worried about the next meal," then a four percent increase in their income is not likely to boost consumer spending significantly.

In addition, the last point raises questions about Harvard's responsibility to the community beyond its ivied walls--something administration officials readily acknowledge but must weigh against the University's continued financial security. Insensitive as it may sound, Harvard's central mission is research and education, after all, and not community welfare.

Finally, the national differential in wages based on gender is another important, albeit irrelevant point raised by the staff. Certainly it is true that far more women than men are employed as clerical and technical workers at the University. The staff suggests, however, that since women earn less than men nationally, Harvard's female employees need to earn more--as if this will somehow help make up the difference.

Such reasoning is both convoluted and inapplicable to the situation. The more important point is how the wages of Harvard's employees compare with those of clerical and technical workers elsewhere. And, as the staff indicates, "union members already make slightly more per hour than their counterparts in other area institutions."

Nevertheless, the staff's central thesis is indisputable. Clearly, the time is right for Harvard's clerical and technical workers to receive a raise. Not as a reward, or an infusion of cash into the community, or because Harvard occasionally wastes a lot of money in bad investments. Simply because it is reasonable, affordable, and the right thing to do.