While administrators continue to refuse to negotiate with the 37 students occupying Massachusetts Hall, both student protesters and the University have publicized their competing claims through a flurry of press releases since the start of the sit-in one week ago.

The most striking discrepancy in the information disseminated by the University and student activists concerns the number of workers earning less than a living wage of $10.25 per hour.

While University officials say 400 workers earn less than the living wage figure, Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) members maintain that more than 1,000 workers earn wages below the poverty level.

In addition, PSLM members and University officials argue over the provisions of a report released last spring by the University, calling for an increase of worker benefits but denying the efficacy of a wage increase.

Protesters charge that the report is inadequate, and contend that the University has failed to heed its own recommendations.

University officials counter the report’s provisions are quite substantial, and are being implemented.

Neither side has backed down from its claims during the ongoing occupation of Mass. Hall, now entering its eighth day.

The Numbers Game

The difference in the number of Harvard workers earning below a living wage is simply the result of opposing definitions of the word “worker.”

While the University figure includes only workers directly on Harvard’s payroll, the number being pushed by the student protesters includes both subcontracted and casual employees.

The University’s figures are taken from a 100-page report released last spring. In response to PSLM’s agitation for a living wage, a high-ranking committee of faculty members and administrators recommended last spring that the University enlarge the scope of worker benefits, including health insurance, education and access to campus facilities.

The report notes that out of 12,722 regular employees, 372 directly hired, unionized workers earn less than $10 per hour. And “somewhat less than a quarter” of approximately 2,000 subcontracted workers—employees of outside companies working on campus—earned less than the living wage figure.

The report does not provide an estimate for a number of casual workers earning less than the living wage.

PSLM members say, however, that they are campaigning for all campus workers—not just those individuals directly on Harvard’s payroll. They say that including these two subsets of workers brings the number up to at least 1,500 people earning less than $10.25 per hour.

They note that their numbers are taken directly from the University’s report.

“The administration is just being deliberately narrow with its definition,” said PSLM member Amy C. Offner ’01.

But University spokesperson Joe Wrinn said it is quite simply a question of how broad a definition of worker to include. The wages subcontracted and casual workers are simply more difficult to tally.

“Nobody is intentionally trying to change numbers or skew numbers,” Wrinn said yesterday.

“The principle remains the same, no matter what the number is,” Wrinn continued. “We counted everything during the time that we were looking at the issue. Our difference in number is just the size of the circle.”

But PSLM members lobbying for a living wage say it is essential to include outsourced workers in the count.

If a living wage were only granted to directly employed Harvard workers, PSLM members say they suspect that the University would simply hire more subcontracted and casual employees.

She cites the outsourcing of security guards to the SSI security firm in the summer of 1999. By outsourcing the guards, Harvard pays the firm rather than the individuals themselves.

“It’s crucial that they take responsibility for all the workers, especially since they continue to shift to outsourcing,” said PSLM member Emilou H. Maclean ’01. “These are really deceitful things that the University is doing.”

But it is the administration’s 400 employee statistic—as opposed to the 1,500 worker figure pushed by PSLM members—that has won the attention of national media covering the ongoing Mass. Hall occupation.

Stories in both the Associated Press and the Boston Globe cited the number released by the University.

“It’s the University’s number that has been picked up first,” Maclean said. “It’s really disturbing to us that people are assuming the University’s numbers are true just because they are the University’s numbers.”

Benefiting Workers

In response to the continuing Mass. Hall occupation, University officials continually cite the report released last spring that recommended increased health insurance, education and access to campus facilities for workers.

The committee did not recommend raising wages.

“Our bottom line is that education is a better way to lift people out of lower paying job than an arbitrary wage scale,” Wrinn said. “The students simply disagree with that.”

PSLM members not only reject the recommendations of the report, but they also charge that the administration has not sufficiently implemented the stipulations of the committee, as it pledged to do.

But despite protesters’ claims, steps toward the report’s implementation—albeit slow—are not nonexistent.

The most substantive recommendations involve extending health insurance to employees who work at least 16 hours per week and expanding a worker literacy program.

The reception to the increase in health benefits has been “disappointing,” said Polly Price, associate vice president of human resources, in an interview prior to the sit-in.

While the recommendations extended subsidized health insurance to 247 more workers, Price said that only 19 had signed up by the end of March.

The insurance, which is not free but is offered on a sliding pay scale, is either too expensive or not as beneficial as plans available elsewhere, Price said.

Additionally, Price said many of the Harvard employees qualify for Medicaid—a government health care program for the poor. She said employees who do not view their job as unpredictable would not want to be bound by the University’s health care system.

“Medicaid is very time-consuming to sign up for and pretty generous,” Price said. “So people may choose to stay with that.”

PSLM member Aaron D. Bartley—a third year law student who has spent the past seven days inside Mass. Hall—said the result indicates serious flaws in the University’s treatment of its employees.

“Anyone who’s being employed by the University should not be so poor that they are eligible for Medicaid,” Bartley said. “They should be ashamed.”

In addition, the attempt to implement the recommendation simply was not realistic, Bartley said.

“The package of benefits they put together just wasn’t affordable for the people who really need them,” Bartley said. “If it’s too expensive for anyone to afford, it’s an empty recommendation.”

The expansion of the “Bridge” training program has proven more successful, but has still not yet met the goal of serving 500 employees per year stated in last spring’s report.

Currently, 250 employees are enrolled in the Bridge program, which includes literacy classes and education in technology.

The program—described in the report as a “win-win” situation—is free to employees. In fact, more workers signed up this year than could be accommodated, Price said, and further expansion is in the works for next year.

“We’ve moved pretty aggressively on this,” Price said.

But PSLM members said that while they acknowledge the importance of GED classes and computer training, it is not enough.

“It’s great that the University’s offering it, but it doesn’t pay the rent or buy the food,” Maclean said.

—Staff writer Daniela J. Lamas can be reached at lamas@fas.harvard.edu.