Since last December, the Harvard Living Wage Campaign has united University and community members in an effort to secure a minimal living wage for anyone who works at the University. Last Tuesday, we invited President Neil L. Rudenstine to address our community and to explain why he has continued to pay poverty-level wages to workers despite the fact that support for a living wage has grown both on campus and nationwide. Not only did Rudenstine fail to appear at our rally, but he has yet to offer an answer to our question. In fact, he has made no response at all to the call for a living wage and has shown no commitment to the well-being of the people who work for him.

As far as we can tell, the only reason that Rudenstine has remained silent is that he can make no argument against a living wage that would not be publicly embarassing for the president of the world's richest university. By liberal estimates, implementing a living wage at Harvard would cost the University $10 million annually. This amounts to three-fifths of 1 percent of Harvard's annual budget, and exactly equals the compensation paid the University's top fund manager in 1998. It is impossible for Rudenstine to argue that Harvard cannot afford a living wage. Had he come to our rally, we can only assume that he would have made the same four arguments which other administrators have made against the living wage. We would like to outline these arguments here and put them to rest.

1. "Harvard already pays nearly all of its workers at least $10 per hour."

This argument is based on a purposely limited definition of the Harvard workforce. It includes only those workers who are directly employed at full-time hours--a fraction of the university's employees. Excluded from this definition are hundreds of full- and part-time workers, some of whom are directly employed, and some of whom are employed through outside contractors. Based on information gathered from the University, campus unions and the hundreds of workers with whom we have spoken, we estimate that when all employees are taken into account, an estimated 2,000 workers at Harvard are paid less than $10 per hour.

2. "When we consider total compensation--benefits as well as wages--even those 2,000 employees are paid at least $10 per hour."

In our experience talking with workers, we have found that most underpaid employees receive no benefits at all; their hourly wage of less than $10 per hour is their "total compensation." In light of this, the administration's emphasis on benefits is misleading.

Consider that the $10 per hour living wage adopted by the Cambridge City Council last spring was designed to apply to workers who also received benefits. Even with benefits, these workers still required at least $10 per hour to meet their families' needs. A living wage is designed to cover daily expenses such as rent, transportation and groceries. These expenses cannot be paid in dental appointments or yearly check-ups.

We do agree, however, that fair compensation should include both wages and benefits; for this reason, we support the implementation of a living wage of $10 per hour with the option of benefits.