We want to summarize first the insulting way the administration approached our last two sessions. Full details follow below.

On 9/18, Admin doubled down on their position that researchers paid via stipends “do not work for Harvard and thus should not be included in the union,” as their lawyer explained. This position ignores industry standards (stipendees are included in unions at Columbia, Penn, the UC system, and other universities!), ignores the reality of work in labs, and ignores what’s best for science.

Then in today’s session, they proposed an effective pay cut. They handed us a half-baked proposal that would lock in this year’s salary freeze, followed by 2% raises in the next three years. This would not keep up with inflation, is less than most get now, and comes in the same week that they announced a 17% increase in our health insurance premiums.

Rather than respond to the over 20 outstanding proposals, management presented a brand new Compensation article. We have yet to even settle on a shared framework for what positions are in the unit (see our Titles and Classifications proposals). Yet management wants to skip that step. Unlike many of their proposals that maintain status quo, this article is actually worse. It continues salary freezes for the current year, and would lock in raises far below inflation.

With this newest proposal, management is essentially trying to get us to give up on our rights and protections and accept lower pay for heavier workloads. We are hard at work on our own economic package. But we cannot put this package on the table until we have agreements on the basic parameters of our positions, and ensure we are protected against abuse, retaliation, and arbitrary layoffs.

Let’s show them that we are willing to fight for better! Here are some ways you can get involved:

Proposals Passed and Received

9/18 Union Proposals9/18 Corp Proposals10/2 Union Proposals10/2 Corp Proposals
RecognitionWorkloadEmployment RecordsAccess Needs (TA’d)Appointment SecurityCompensation

Details on Sep. 18 Session:

We proposed: Recognition, Workloads

The primary topic for the session was the false divide between postdocs whose funding flow through their PI’s grants and postdocs who have secured their own grants to perform work at Harvard (so-called “stipendees”). Harvard is attempting to exclude the latter from our union; The bargaining team had chosen to really focus their energy for this session on the issue of employees vs “stipendees” with three speakers, including two of our members and the tenured Co-Chair of Organismal and Evolutionary Biology Department, who attended the session to testify to why this is a terrible idea—logically, morally, and pragmatically. There is simply no difference between these kinds of workers.

We explained that postdocs at Harvard regularly switch between the two funding methods, performing the exact same work that contributes to the research (and often teaching) mission of the university regardless of the funding method. Currently, the primary difference for the worker occurs outside the lab, with stipendees at Harvard receiving worse health insurance and other benefits, to such a degree that those who fully understand the system would be better served either heading down the road to MIT for their better benefits or waiting until they are off of their fellowship to attempt to have children.

Wins: Despite the larger frustrations with management’s proposals, we did TA two articles. The first on Employment Records, which determines the scope and rules around disclosure around all documents pertaining to an employee’s record. The second on Access Needs details the procedures around accessing disability accommodations. Of special note here is our above-industry-standard win allowing workers to receive provisional accommodations pending verification of medical records, allowing ample time for workers to gather documentation. This is a victory for disability rights! You can find both of these articles linked above.

Details on Oct. 2 Session:

After a presentation from Harvard’s Chief Financial Officer explaining how the University endowment works and the Corporation’s prioritization of its growth, their bargaining team theatrically proposed a compensation article which would lock in 0-2.25% pay raises for the next 4 years. Not only is this offensive to our workers who play an integral role in the University’s research and teaching mission, it is entirely out of step with the bargaining process. They are attempting to circumvent discussing the real workplace issues that we intend to resolve via our non-economic articles rather than discussing each article on its own merits. They want to avoid engaging in important protections by dangling weak economic proposals. While we are hard at work on our own economic proposals, we are still waiting for responses to our information requests the corporation has ignored for over a year. We will not be swayed; our members deserve both robust workplace protections and pay commensurate with the value that they provide to the university.

From our side, we presented our counter proposal on Appointment Notification and Security, which would guarantee that the Corporation holds up its side of the appointment letters that it offers. In particular, a worker’s position would be guaranteed for the duration of their appointment unless terminated for cause (pursuant to the Discipline and Dismissal article), laid off (pursuant to the Layoffs article), or voluntarily resigns.

A Worker’s View on the Sept. 18 Bargaining Session:

Hannah here, postdoc in Genetics at HMS, reporting back from the 9/18 bargaining session for our union. The bargaining team had chosen to really focus their energy for this session on the issue of employees vs. “stipendees”.

If you don’t know what that word is, you’re not alone. Basically, the administration is hell-bent on limiting the available rights and benefits afforded to workers with external funding sources. For those of you on the teaching side, this might sound like nonsense, but in the postdoc world, this is a big deal. Many of us spend months writing meticulous research proposals, competing against hundreds of other applicants for the precious few fellowships awarded each year. We’re told that it will bring us prestige, cover our salary, and help our mentors spend their money in other places. We aren’t told that, after winning, we’ll be denied basic benefits. After securing funding for my own salary, working tirelessly on an HMS research project, publishing a paper with Harvard’s name firmly attached, I’m now being told that I do no work for Harvard.

On Sept. 18, the Bargaining Committee (aka our intrepid team of volunteers) invited several people to testify about the stipendee issue. A postdoc in Systems Bio spoke about losing health care options when she switched to a different funding source (for the same project!). A senior faculty member (co-chair of the FAS OEB dept) explained that he doesn’t see any difference between his lab members who are considered “stipendees” vs “employees”—on the contrary, he explained, they have identical work expectations. And then I testified that, having been both a stipendee and employee, I had no change in my work—I had the same supervisor, the same expectations for my productivity, the same mandatory meetings, the same equipment and reagents provided by my employer. I explained that my funding is contingent on having sufficiently fulfilled the expectations of my supervisor, and therefore, Harvard. Together, we explained the sincere harms to postdocs who don’t receive equal salary and benefits. We explained the danger to Harvard’s research program if they cannot recruit good postdocs. We explained the danger to individual labs when they suddenly have to pay more salaries than they budgeted for because no postdoc is willing to apply for independent fellowships…

And the whole time the Harvard administration team nodded and smiled at us and I thought, “Wow! We’re really getting through to them! They understand!”

Immediately after I finished speaking, the head lawyer for the Corporation explained that there was nothing he can do—hands are tied!—stipendees are simply not employees, don’t work for Harvard, and what employer would dole out benefits to people who don’t work for them. Our Bargaining Team asked him to clarify that Harvard could choose to treat stipendees as employees. The lawyer said, yes, they could.

I was awestruck. Here this man was literally ignoring every word that had come out of our mouths. Everything he was saying was factually inaccurate!

Our bargaining team brought forward a recent regional NLRB decision that unequivocally finds that postdocs are workers, even if their salary is paid by private funding. Harvard’s lawyer (presumably well-paid) had apparently not heard of this ruling. Our bargaining team pointed out all the examples that had been shared of ways in which fellowship-funded postdocs are contributing to Harvard’s research mission. They refuted the lawyer’s claims that anyone could simply take fellowship funding and relocate to a new institution. The lawyers just shook their heads sadly (“What do you expect us to do? We can’t just be giving benefits to people who aren’t employed by the University! We’re sad about it too!” they seemed to say) and asked, “What was that court case you referenced again?”

It was at this moment that I had a revelation. This wasn’t a question of misunderstanding. It wasn’t a question of ignorance. We had laid out rational arguments explaining the danger of inequity; we had laid out the logic for how folks on fellowships met all the criteria for employees. Tragically, here is the inside scoop: THEY DON’T CARE. This lawyer was sitting there gaslighting us, making claims directly at odds with the testimony they had just heard (from multiple parties, including a full Professor who CHAIRS A DEPARTMENT)…and their response was just, “Nope.”

It’s not information that’s going to change their minds. It’s not logic. I hate confrontation so much, and I’m so frustrated that the Harvard administration is unwilling to even acknowledge the facts of our work, much less discuss the reasonable solutions and compromises that are genuinely available. Our bargaining team pushes back against these people with research, logic, empathy, discipline, and civility. They come in and argue in good faith with people who stall and dissemble and have nothing at stake here but extra money. I’m so impressed by our bargaining team.

But more and more, I’m realizing that the rest of us are going to have to step up too. Because these people do not care about us. They expect us to cave. And so far we haven’t done enough to change their minds about our power and our resolve.

The University relies on us, on our work. The University is nothing without its researchers and educators. We need to make sure that the Administration and the Corporation know that we know our value.