Don’t Slam Families

This Halloween, janitors, their children, and members of Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM) appeared on University President Lawrence H. Summers’ doorstep asking for more than just candy. In addition to requests for an increase in wages to $20 an hour, the protestors asked for paternity/maternity leave of three to five days, for a sick leave of three to five days, that childcare benefits be extended to part-time employees, and that the University continue to work towards increasing the level of full-time custodial staff to 60 percent. While we are opposed to the $20 per hour increase in wages, we support these other demands as they will do wonders towards creating a culture respectful of family values. Harvard employees are a valuable and important part of the community. They should be allowed to enjoy time with their families and care for relatives in times of need.

The stunt of showing up at Summers’ door has drawn some criticism, criticism which is unfair. In their quest to raise wages and receive more benefits, custodians need to generate all the media attention they can. These custodians, SLAM, and their supporters have to fight the apathy of the general student body and the indifference of the University. That is why the janitors approached student members of SLAM with the idea of trick-or-treating at Summers’ house; they wanted Summers to see the faces of those individuals most affected by the University’s insensitivity—the children. By shining a spotlight on the issue, the janitors and SLAM succeeded in keeping their views and campaign in the limelight.

As for the actual requests of SLAM, Harvard’s decision to deny paternity/maternity leave and sick leave to janitors is rather cruel. It is a harsh blow to families and their ability to function healthily, and granting leaves to Harvard custodians would come at a small price for the University. The birth of a child is one of the greatest moments in a couple’s life, and both parents should be allowed to enjoy the moment. Similarly, allowing janitors to care for a sick relative holds families together. When a parent falls ill, the comfort and solace of his or her children is immeasurably important for recovery. By not giving janitors time to care for an ill mother or to grieve for a deceased father, Harvard displays a troubling lack of concern for the health of Harvard employees’ families. Other Boston area universities have recognized the significance of family and granted their workers sick leaves and paternity/maternity leaves comparable to those demanded by SLAM. Harvard should do the same.

Similarly, Harvard should extend the childcare benefits it gives to its full-time employees to the part-time custodians. Again, Harvard should do this because such action supports families. Childcare benefits are critical to Harvard’s working-class employees, and any member of the Harvard community should be receiving such benefits. Children should not suffer because their parents need to work multiple jobs.

Finally, Harvard should continue to work towards increasing the proportion of full-time janitors to 60 percent. In 2002, the University established a contractual goal with the janitors that they would strive to have a 60 percent level of full-employment. Three years later, Harvard has made noteworthy progress towards this goal. From March 2002 to July 2005, the percent of full-time staff grew from 32 percent to 49 percent, about a 53 percent improvement. By increasing the percent of full-time custodians, the University will help parents better provide for their children and other dependents. We recognize that such an increase in the rate of full-time staff will cause some part-time workers to lose their jobs. While this is regrettable, it is very important that Harvard stay in good faith with its contract with janitors and help its full-time employees’ live happier lives with their families.

While we opposed the tremendous raise in janitors’ pay supported by SLAM and others—a raise to $20 per hour from $13.50 per hour—our support of these other initiatives is not contradictory. The proposed pay increase was too great because of the distortions it would create in the labor market. A wage increase of this size would dramatically increase costs for the University and would likely lead to the firing of some janitors. Furthermore, the current janitors employed would face more competition for their jobs from a group of people with a greater skill set than those previously applying. The current employees might be replaced by these more qualified employees. The raise meant to help the current Harvard custodians would end up hurting them.

The modest changes in benefits we support, providing childcare to part-time workers, offering paternity/maternity leave, etc., would not have such a large distorting effect on the labor market. Moreover, these proposals are explicitly tied to family values, something Harvard cannot turn its back on.

Family is one of the most important parts of a person’s life. Harvard should help families stay strong and loving because a happy Harvard will lead to a better Harvard.