Yesterday was our third bargaining session which featured dueling visions for how Harvard should operate. Our Union was formed because the workers that make the University run deserve a say in their working conditions; Harvard admin and their lawyers are fixated on maintaining unilateral control.

Before we dive into the details of the day’s session, we invite you to listen to our next bargaining session as it happens on Halloween – Thursday, October 31st from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM. RSVP here!

Our first order of business was to express our displeasure with the 9.7% increase in healthcare premiums this year without negotiating over the increase.

A lively discussion centered on Recognition, which establishes the parameters of who is in our bargaining unit. Harvard began by reiterating their stance that postdocs on stipends do not perform work for the university. After some discussion, they suggested verbally that postdoc stipendees who must perform work for the University as a condition of their funding should be considered employees. While we are glad to see this movement, it is going to be important to finalize language that reflects inclusion of all postdocs regardless of their fellowship status. We anticipate that it will take some pushing to get clear language to ensure all workers are included in the union, as we should be.

Harvard admin brought a number of proposals of their own to this session, four of which overlapped with articles that we had also prepared:

  • Personnel Records: Harvard must keep good employment records, for the purposes of promotion, among others, and workers have the right to access their records. As a standard practice, there was only a little disagreement between the two proposed articles and we expect some changes will get us to a tentative agreement.
  • Discipline and Dismissal/Discharge: This article outlines the parameters under which Harvard can discipline and/or dismiss an employee. We had an important win with the Employer agreeing to just cause, with protections against arbitrary or unfair discipline/dismissal. Unfortunately, management caveated this by reserving the right to arbitrarily ‘soft fire’ you by arbitrary non-reappointment. The Bargaining committee recognizes that appointment and reappointment procedures impact job security for our unit. We plan to propose just and transparent procedures for re-appointment.
  • Grievance and Arbitration: To ensure that our contract is enforceable, it must lay out a process in which it is enforced. Any violations by the Employer are subject to the grievance and arbitration process, and all workers have the right to union representation throughout the process, from complaint to resolution.

The Union also presented our Union Security proposal, which outlines how the University must transfer Union dues to the Local Union. Harvard Admin presented their No Strike-No Lockout proposal.

Finally, the largest and most important topic of the day was centered on how workers continue to have rights after the bargained contract has been ratified. The Union believes that any working conditions not explicitly covered in the contract should continue as they have been, and any changes should be by mutual agreement between the Workers and the Employer; we put this into writing with our Past Practice article. Harvard Admin put forth their Management Rights article with over two dozen privileges, some as broad as the right “to take such action as is necessary to maintain the University’s efficiency and effectiveness.” Harvard Admin wants carte blanche over our livelihoods however they can get it. Despite several disheartening proposals from the administration, we are committed to winning a contract that gives our members a fair deal and a real voice. We look forward to doing that with our members at our side.

In solidarity,

HAW-UAW Bargaining Committee