harvard's security guards, supplied through a contract with alliedbarton, earn $12.68 per hour, plus benefits that include health insurance, retirement planning, and paid time off. these guards are separate from the deputized harvard university police department, and generally assist with lockouts, small packages, and other unskilled tasks. most are stationed at desks with internet access, and are permitted to talk on the phone, listen to music, read, and surf the internet while on duty.
$12.68, which is above the cambridge, ma living wage of $12.19 and several dollars above the legal minimum wage, is not enough, argues the student labor action movement (slam). to protest, eleven of its members have undertaken a hunger strike "of indefinite length and proportions", according to their statement. yes, you read that correctly, a hunger strike. these eleven students say that they have not eaten for what has now been 6 days, and one of them has been hospitalized for complications. this is also the middle of finals period.
reasonable people can debate whether or not $12.68 is a fair wage for our security guards. i haven't considered the question carefully enough to reach a definitive conclusion, but my feeling is that it probably is. the job is unskilled and there is very little labor involved, either physical or mental. i'm not sure how much a person could reasonably expect to be compensated for those tasks. in fact, i can think of many much more difficult jobs that pay a comparable or lower amount: research assistance, beach lifeguarding, and technical support call center work all come immediately to mind. these guards must also be paid the same or more money than employees at many harvard square businesses, such as felipe's or qdoba.
there is no question that living anywhere near cambridge on approximately $13 per hour must not be easy. if i were one of the guards and found this to be too difficult a task, i would probably try to move to a less expensive area of the country, or else pursue education that would allow me to gain a better paying job. in fact, the security guard who is usually on duty in my house is extremely personable, intellectually curious, and highly intelligent -- i can tell the latter two by the books i see him reading. i find it impossible to believe that he could not find a skilled job that would pay him more money if he set out to do so. my guess is that the utility of the increased wages would not make up for the lost utility of such an easy job and a pleasant work environment.
therefore, while i am suspicious of the idea that our (unionized!) security guards are underpaid, i will accept it as a conclusion that reasonable people might come to. slam has been lobbying harvard for better conditions for the security workers for almost a year now, with negative results. now, they have upped the ante several orders of magnitude in an effort to force the university's hand. they want harvard to insert itself in what is actually a private negotiation between alliedbarton and the guards' union. the hunger strike has been accompanied by other actions designed to arouse feelings of pity and gross injustice, such as letters to president bok in poem form. an excerpt from one:
President Bok,
I know it may seem like
this is self inflicted hunger,
but back when i used to ask my mom
for hamburgers
she couldn't afford to buy
for all of my brothers
she would say:
None of us eat unless we all eat.
We are a community
and if one of us is hungry
we are all hungry.
I hope you take care of me
as well as I promised my mom
you would.
Love,
[redacted]
i guess i'll refrain from comment on that.
returning to the subject of the hunger strike, to resort to such a drastic tactic that is so shamefully disproportionate to the issue in question puts harvard in an awful position, and i consider it revoltingly inappropriate. protest tactics such as a hunger strike should be reserved for egregious violations of fundamental human rights. not being paid an above-market wage is neither egregious nor a violation of a right. are these hunger strikers willing to
die because our security guards are only paid $12.68 per hour, plus benefits? this seems quite literally insane to me, and six days later i am still shocked that it is actually happening.
a simple thought experiment will allow anyone to see how this policy is unsustainable. imagine if any time a person's wish were not granted, he made a credible threat to kill himself. for example, what if every time a man was passed over for a promotion, he told his superiors that he would commit suicide if they did not change their mind? this puts all parties in an impossible situation and, if sufficiently widespread, would quickly bring all of organized society to a deadlock.
in this case, just like in the general scenario above, everyone is forced into an untenable position. the university has no jurisdiction over the guards' contract, and no interest in becoming involved, but it must carefully weigh the fact that as time goes on, several of its students are in (self-imposed) significant bodily danger. the hunger strikers at this point are so invested in the cause that they are unlikely to stop until they are satisfied with some concession. students who do not support the strike may feel uncomfortable saying so when classmates are at such risk -- but again, i emphasize that they have brought this risk upon themselves as part of a strategy which i consider unfair to everyone.
i can only predict that the university and slam will eventually agree to some mutually face-saving compromise. the hunger strikers are certainly well-intentioned, but just as certainly misguided. this approach is poor judgment and unlikely to result in any advances to workers' rights at all comparable to the magnitude of the protest.