Defining model labor policy

If you were on campus last year, you probably heard about the Workers' Rights Organizing Committee, the group of students, faculty and staff who have been fighting to get a better deal for Princeton's low-wage workers. WROCers were pleased to hear the new Provost Amy Gutmann tell the U-Council last Monday about some changes in labor policy: The University will introduce an $11 per hour minimum wage; it will avoid the use of outsourcing, and/or guarantee that outsourced workers are paid at least $11 per hour; it will implement the salary increases ($2.2 million worth) recommended last year by the Priorities Committee in two years rather than three. These measures will definitely help Princeton's workers, and the Tilghman administration deserves credit for their implementation.

Now for the bad news: Princeton still has labor policies that upset and undervalue low-wage workers. These problems affect how Princeton calculates its wage levels and how it determines workers' annual increases, probably the two most important issues for your average janitor or dining-hall worker. At present, Princeton calculates what its workers are worth by doing a market survey; this means that the University contacts local businesses and asks them what they pay, say, a janitor. When Princeton administrators have made about half-a-dozen calls, they come up with a market average and base the salaries of Princeton workers on that figure. (The PriCom recommendations have led the University to shoot for 101 percent of market average for all workers — that's why Princeton is spending around $2.2 million in total to increase workers wages, which were previously that far behind.)

However, these surveys are conducted in secret, and workers have no opportunity to challenge or even confirm the validity of the University's numbers. Even if Princeton isn't trying deliberately to keep wages down (by surveying local businesses that pay least or are anti-union or both), there is enormous scope for error in this process. Princeton's low-wage workers have insisted that administrators open up this process; so far, both the Shapiro and Tilghman administrations have rejected the request. Until the process of doing these surveys is transparent through consultation with workers, or through a third party considered impartial by Princeton and its staff, it is hard to believe that the University's vaunted 101 percent of market average is actually a fair wage.

Even more troubling is the new administration's insistence on a flawed merit system to determine annual salary increases for low-wage workers. One of the last efforts of the Shapiro administration was to introduce pay for performance among Princeton's low-wage workers instead of a fixed increase each year for doing their jobs (an increase that was a bit behind the inflation rate); Princeton's janitors, dining-hall workers and others now face evaluations to determine the size of their increase. This sounds reasonable — we all take tests or exams to determine how well we're doing, after all — until you go see your janitor and dining-hall worker to ask them about the criteria for PFP. They'll tell you horror stories about poorly train-ed and apathetic managers grading their familiarity with equipment or personal appearance or, more likely, marking people down because they just don't get along with them.

Princeton's Human Resources department admitted last year that this system was designed, in part, to encourage the poor or marginal performer to leave; in other words, to starve workers into leaving the University's employ, rather than to deal with performance problems through good management. Even though President Shapiro himself declared that he disapproved of this policy, the PFP system has been expanded over the summer, and the Provost praised its fairness at the U-Council meeting on Monday. Workers have long argued that the University should give every low-wage worker doing his or her job an annual increase equivalent to the inflation rate. This ensures that Princeton's low-wage staff doesn't see its salary eroded by inflation. If workers are doing an especially good job, let's introduce the PFP system for bonuses. If workers aren't doing their job, there are ample disciplinary provisions in union contracts to address this; forcing workers into poverty with sub-inflation increases (or no increase at all) isn't ethical or appropriate for a university with the resources and the mission of Princeton.

Will the Tilghman administration respond to these concerns? There's reason to be hopeful since the President and the Provost seem genuine in their commitment to make Princeton's labor policies a model for other campuses. However, it's up to all of us in the meantime to remind the administration of a couple of things: First, that we regard all Princeton employees, whether they're faculty members or dining-hall dishwashers, as vital members of a single University community. Second, that we believe that we have a special responsibility to our low-wage staff, who work hard to support our everyday activities and who deserve, at the very least, to be given a fair wage that keeps its value from year to year. Nicholas Guyatt, a graduate student in the history department, is from Bristol, England. He can be reached at nsguyatt@princeton.edu.