Our bargaining committee met with the representatives of the Harvard Corporation on Monday (6/16) to continue our contract negotiations. Here’s what went down:
Immediate Concerns: Appointment Lengths and Funding Issues
We opened by raising serious concerns about the Corporation suddenly shortening some researcher reappointments from 12 months to just 3 or 4 months in HMS and FAS. This came as a complete surprise to us—we should have been notified and given a seat at the table when these decisions were being made.
The Corporation claimed these changes are in line with pre-existing policy, at least for FAS, and that the short-term appointments may be extended back to 12 months if new funding is secured. We reminded them that colleagues are bearing the brunt of the funding uncertainty, and that it can be impossible to secure an apartment with a short-term appointment.
We asserted our right to transparency and input when decisions affecting our job security are being made. We are following up with Requests for Information and will continue to fight for full-length appointments.
Progress on Key Articles
A few highlights of our most recent counterproposal:
- Workers on short-term appointments can request evaluations
- Timeline for sharing written evaluations shortened to 15 business days
- Union representation available during any evaluation process if the worker wants it
- Teaching observations require 5 business days notice instead of just 24 hours
- Outlier student comments can’t be used against workers for reappointment/promotion decisions
We’re close on most issues but still fighting for:
- 90 days of email access after appointment ends (they want only 30)
- 90 days of library access after appointment ends, including those on appointments under 1 year
- The Corporation’s concern about “non-Harvard employees having Harvard emails” is bogus – they already give hundreds of unpaid affiliates Harvard email access.
We’re pushing for:
- Non-anonymized race/ethnicity/gender data to monitor for discrimination
- Visa status information to protect our international colleagues
This remains contentious. We reject the Corporation’s push to force current employees to reapply for their own jobs through “open searches.” This is unnecessary, burdensome, and frankly looks like retaliation.
Key principles we’re fighting for:
- Current workers should be slotted into appropriate roles when the contract is ratified
- Good performers should be reappointed – non-renewal should either be for cause or treated as a layoff
- End artificially “temporary” classifications for ongoing work
- Unified promotion structure across schools
This is where we’re farthest apart. Our proposals protect workers from:
- Arbitrary role expansion without consent and compensation
- Excessive hours (35-hour cap for full-time workers)
- Unreasonable scheduling (no required work before 9 AM or after 6 PM)
Instead, the Corporation wants to:
- Expand lecturer/preceptor workloads beyond the current 4 courses per year
- Impose blanket enrollment minimums regardless of curricular need
We’re standing firm against both. Many of our members are already at their breaking point with current workloads. A “one-size-fits-all” enrollment minimum makes no sense when curricular need could legitimately be 30 students or 5 students depending on the course.
We received three counters from the Corporation:
Health and Safety, and Access Needs
The Corporation trying to limit their obligations:
- Limited mental health support in the event of workplace violence: Only mentions existing EAP and insurance, no additional crisis support
- General limitations on responsibilities to only those which are those required by law
The Corporation is trying to carve out arbitration. Without the possibility of arbitration, there are no guarantees that the terms of the article will be enforced.
Major red flags in Corporation language:
- Supervisor has final say: “The final decision…will remain in the supervisor’s discretion and may be grieved…but may not be processed to arbitration”
- No real protections: Disputes “are not subject to arbitration” – meaning no real recourse
The Corporation’s proposals consistently include phrases like:
- “in the Corporation’s sole discretion”
- “subject to business needs”
- “supervisor’s discretion”
- “may be grieved but not arbitrated”
This pattern shows they want unilateral control with minimal worker recourse.
Moving Forward
The Corporation often suggests our proposals exceed “what they are legally obligated to do.” We’re not negotiating to match the lowest common denominator in academic labor conditions. Harvard’s substantial resources should translate into working conditions that reflect the value of our contributions. We’re Harvard workers doing Harvard’s work, and we deserve Harvard-level job security and working conditions.
Together, we will achieve a strong first contract! Some ways you can help:
- Attend bargaining sessions when possible (observers welcome)
- Stay informed about negotiations through these updates
- Discuss priorities with colleagues in your departments
- Support collective actions that demonstrate our unity
- Consider joining us on the Bargaining and Organizing Committees – reach out for more information!
This first contract will establish fundamental patterns for academic employment at Harvard. Strong protections now create a foundation for future improvements. Weak language preserving broad management discretion makes future advancement more difficult.
Harvard’s academic mission depends on our research, teaching, and technical expertise. It’s time our employment conditions reflected that essential contribution.
In solidarity,
HAW-UAW Bargaining Committee (FAS/HMS/HDS)