Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4714)	5/6/2001 8:09:22 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6089

Did I blame you? I think that's part of what it means to be liberal. Of course the causes have to be the right causes, but this one is. Does it matter in the equation that the protesters want action from a private employer of which they are clients? Clients, or customers? They are the ones the workers are serving. With no Harvard students, there are no Harvard workers. So it's like Nike customers demanding that Nike stop using sweatshops. Perfectly fair, IMO. More than fair, just. Now, I don't know how many of those students would agree to pay an extra $1,000 per year tuition to pay for the higher wages. They think it can all come out of endowment, and maybe it can. I don't know what dollars we're talking about. But for Harvard students not to want to be waited on by workers who don't make a living wage, well, that sounds fine to me. They may not win, they may not even deserve to win -- I haven't looked into the matter in detail, so can't say. But to fight for the principle of fair pay to serve you, that's right by me. Does your invocation of Kennedy imply that you think the government should be taking action, as well? Not at all. It says I think he should be coming out in support of the students, or else explaining why he thinks they're wrong. But silence on such an action taking place in his hometown is, IMO, ducking it. And implies lack of support. Does your statement imply that the failure of an employer to provide any employee, no matter how replaceable and no matter the value of his contribution, sufficient pay to support a wife and three children is a human rights violation? Would that be a litmus test for a liberal? Nope. Not at all. There is a place for some entry level jobs in small businesses which wouldn't exist if they had to pay $15 an hour to every employee. Again, I don't know the full details of the Harvard situation. But when you're talking about are full time workers in one of the richest institutions in the country whose professors routinely go to Washington to testify on all sorts of liberal causes, the students have every right to expect that the administration either provide a living wage, or make a satisfactory argument why they can't or shouldn't. From what I read in the article the University hasn't done the latter. Just said these are the prevailing wages. Same excuse slaveholders used for generations -- the "everybody else does it, so that makes it okay" argument. This is the quality of discourse at Harvard?? It may be that Harvard shoudn't be paying "living wages" (however that is defined) to all its workers. But they need to be accountable if they choose not to. So I'm all in favor of the students forcing the issue and pressuring the University either to pay or justify.