The Right Kind of Negotiations

A Harvard dining hall worker I know is taking what little vacation she has—from both of her jobs—so that she can fast and show her full support of the sit-in. She already earns a living wage.

We from the inside of the Mass. Hall occupation do not scoff at the movement the administration has already shown to be possible in response to the groundswell of local and national community, worker, alumni and faculty support for ending poverty on campus. I am encouraged by President Neil L. Rudenstine’s pledge to re-open discussion on the issue of a living wage. However, though he has announced the formation of a committee, there are many details that are unclear. And, frankly, I’ve got some concerns. Will there be representation of workers or students? What’s the time frame? Will it be a purely advisory body or will it be able to make decisions? What is its mandate or agenda? It is difficult to make an informed judgment about this prospective committee without that kind of information.

Before any committee process begins, the University should join almost 400 of its faculty members in affirming the principle of a living wage. Such an affirmation should form the basis of any committee’s work. No study is needed to determine that the University should pay all of its employees enough for them to live decently, and to raise a family without having to work 80 hours a week. But reasonable people can disagree about how that principle is best implemented, and because of that, any committee must have broad representation from every aspect of the University community, and must not be another committee of administrators and faculty handpicked by administrators. It should include students and workers.

Broad representation could be a real step forward. Although there have always been opportunities for some members of the community to voice opinions, community members have never had the ability to participate in genuinely free discussions, where all participants had a role in making the final decision. Workers themselves have always had and continue to have legitimate reasons to fear reprisals for speaking up; many members of the living wage campaign are familiar with the experience of engaging a worker who is afraid to talk for fear of being fired. For that reason their enduring support has been one of the most remarkable parts of the sit-in so far. And for that reason, their meaningful inclusion in any committee is vital.

I recognize and appreciate Rudenstine’s sincere commitment to a fair process. However, I am personally reluctant to move forward if Rudenstine refuses to ensure that working conditions for Harvard employees will improve. It is beyond the time when a process is needed to evaluate whether or not working conditions require improvement; we have all concluded that improvements are necessary. Poverty wages constitute a campus crisis, heretofore invisible to some, that must be addressed as soon as possible. At heart, this is not about people sitting in at a building; this is about Harvard workers being denied a decent standard of living. We cannot lose sight of the immediate, continuing and omnipresent impact Harvard’s poverty wages have upon workers. Their concerns and suffering cannot be held in abeyance while Harvard undertakes a study.

The University has often expressed its commitment to the collective bargaining process as the proper way for workers to voice their concerns. I agree with the administration that collective bargaining is vital, and for that reason, I urge it to reexamine the current union contracts, as campus unions have already requested, and to adopt card-check neutrality to employees, a provision that ensures that currently non-unionized workers who wanted to organize could do so without threat from the University and subcontracted firms. But collective bargaining, which occurs only every few years, is no substitute for a sustained engagement between workers and the University. Any committee should include their voice; they know their own needs best.

All of these suggestions are in the spirit of past or current University policy or positions. However, given prior commitments to collective bargaining, fair employment, and dialogue, and given the many things the administration could have done, it worries me that the only thing the administration has offered to Harvard workers is a vaguely-defined, direction-starved process.

What has been so exciting for me about the past two weeks has been to see so many parts of our community act without waiting for the administration. I have seen undergraduates come together in unprecedented numbers. I have seen graduate students organize at the Divinity, Education, Law, Government, Public Health, and Medical schools—completely astonishing and new support for a living wage. I’ve even seen a few people from the Business School. I’ve seen numerous alumni join us by pledging money to the Harvard Workers’ Center at the Law School. I’ve seen Harvard’s famously willful faculty come together behind a living wage.

Most importantly, I’ve seen hundreds of Harvard workers outside of Mass. Hall demanding to be paid a living wage and treated decently. In many respects, this strong, lasting coalition for a living wage now is the most important development of the past two weeks. And I hope that all of us—students, faculty, workers, and administrators—will celebrate our eventual exit from this building as a chance to realize a moral commitment to improving the lives of the least well-off in our community.

Susan Misra is pursuing a master’s degree in public policy at the Kennedy School of Government and will graduate in 2001. She is a member of the Harvard living wage campaign.