Word: hcecp
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...then again, you’re no Rudenstine. Your spineless predecessor gave birth to HCECP’s misguided musings when he pandered to PSLM. Now you can set things right by refusing to act until HCECP provides evidence supporting its central claim. Doing so will take some courage. But I think you have...
Perhaps taking your hint, HCECP declined to make any moral claim at all. True, the report mentions “Harvard’s obligation to be a good employer,” concluding that this obligation means Harvard must raise its lowest wages to a level between the magic numbers of $10.83 and $11.30 per hour and guarantee that outsourced workers earn as much as their directly-employed counterparts...
Doubtless there is truth in the idea that Harvard’s mission depends on all its employees—from you to the janitors who clean your office. But to argue that this concept justifies HCECP’s specific proposals is laughably farfetched. HCECP essentially wants you to believe that Harvard’s academic aims are compromised because cashiers at the Greenhouse make less than $10.83 per hour. Please. I suppose, then, that once Harvard’s least skilled and (forgive my frankness) most replaceable workers get raises, we’ll see Nobel Prizes...
...exaggerating the report’s implication a bit, but the essential point remains: HCECP doesn’t offer one shred of evidence demonstrating a relationship between the wages of Harvard’s lowest earners and the University’s academic output; nor does it provide evidence suggesting that the employees who would benefit from HCECP’s recommendations are currently giving less than full productivity. You are a policymaker. You aren’t in the habit of endorsing policies without empirical support. And yet that is precisely what HCECP is asking...
...questions whether HCECP takes its central claim seriously. I suspect the report’s idiotic instrumental justification of a pay hike was simply a way of letting HCECP say what it wanted to say all along without resting its case on the naked assertion of elusive moral precepts. It seems that at the heart of this report lies a standard theme of the left’s loony repertoire: since the rich (and Harvard is indeed rich) have so many dollars, they had better cough up a few (million) to help save the world. Rejecting the report?...