When Harvard paid three janitors back wages of more than $4,000 in December, it rightly rectified an injustice perpetrated by outside cleaning contractors. Still, Harvard has done too little to prevent other companies from avoiding wage and benefit obligations and exploiting their workers.

In the case resolved in December, Harvard had found McGarr Services Inc. was wrongly representing itself as two separate companies—McGarr and White Glove Inc. By doing so, McGarr had avoided the $50,000 contract threshold, above which companies must match their employees’ wages and benefits to those of workers employed directly by Harvard. The two contracts totaled more than $50,000 in work, but McGarr employees received $9.95 an hour in February 2003 rather than the union wage of $11.85 an hour.

The requirement of parity between unionized and non-union outsourced workers is one result of the Harvard Committee on Employment and Contracting Policies. The stipulation is designed to remove Harvard’s incentive to outsource as a method of cutting wages. Making good on that intention, and guaranteeing that all employees are paid a fair wage, requires that the University be vigilant in overseeing contractors and enforcing requirements.

The University should have detected McGarr’s tactics long ago. Instead the underpayment only received attention when the janitors’ union, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) local 615, noticed that McGarr and White Glove were owned by the same company and brought the matter to the University’s attention. If Harvard is going to continue outsourcing, it must do so responsibly, and proactively work to hold its own contractors accountable.

McGarr could easily be the tip of the iceberg. No regular, administrative monitor was able to catch the impropriety, and the University remains woefully oblivious to how many other companies are employing similar schemes to cut costs at workers’ expense—and in violation of University policies. Though fulfilling its commitment to pay a fair wage in this case is certainly a positive step, Harvard should be embarrassed that its own rules were skirted for so long.

It also took the University surprisingly long to act on the McGarr case. SEIU brought the matter to Harvard’s attention in February 2003, but McGarr employees did not begin to receive proper wages until May. The University did not pay retroactive wages until six months later.

Such inadequate safeguards and a slow reaction time must be corrected if the University is to be deemed a truly responsible employer. SEIU did an incredible job of holding Harvard accountable, reflecting the importance of active unions for campus workers. By first detecting the problem and then working to right that wrong, SEIU acted as an effective advocate for all of Harvard’s janitors. After this case, in addition to monitoring its contractors more carefully, Harvard should appreciate the benefit of campus unions, and work to ensure that all people who work here have access to adequate and advantageous union representation.