Welcome back! A lot has happened in the past few weeks. We write with updates from two bargaining sessions in December and a plea to help us track the administration’s plans to reduce NTT teaching positions for next year. But first, a reminder: Our next bargaining session is tomorrow Friday, January 23, from 2–3 PM. Please come observe in person or via Zoom! RSVP here to attend.

tl;dr:

  • We reached a tentative agreement (TA) on Health and Safety which includes innovative supports for workers who are doxxed!
  • Admin continues to refuse transparent procedures for granting postdocs PI rights, out of step with industry standards.
  • Admin continues to refuse meaningful protections for non-citizen workers.
  • We offered significant movement on admin’s discretion over non-reappointments, in exchange for longer initial appointments, especially for researchers. We await admin’s response to this proposal.
  • Admin continues to try to exclude hundreds of workers from our unit on specious grounds. At the same time, they continue to reject any union security provisions in the contract. We will have to fight for the integrity of our unit and our union’s ability to protect our members after the contract is in place.
  • Admin has notified us that they plan to significantly reduce the number of non–tenure-track teaching faculty in FAS. While they claim that these reductions will be accomplished entirely through attrition, we are concerned they could result in increased workloads, curricular loss, and unexpected non-reappointments. Please email us if you hear about reductions in your department/program or any planned changes in your working conditions as a result of these cuts.

How you can help:

  • Sign your card to become a member.
  • Help talk to your coworkers! This is essential in building our strength and community. Can you pitch in? Reach out here.

You can find a full update below. But first, a report from a colleague who came to observe on Dec. 8:

One disgruntled postdoc’s experience attending a bargaining session.

Today I watched as my tireless coworkers took time out of their busy schedule to meet with the representatives of the Harvard Corporation, a smarmy lawyer and many mostly silent administrators. I could go point by point through what happened. Some of this would include the administration bringing an “expert” on PI rights who seemed incapable or unwilling to explain even basic aspects of how the process currently works, the Corporation wanting the flexibility to collaborate with DHS and ICE (“state-sponsored fascist, racist paramilitary organizations” in the words of a wiser colleague than I), and continually wanting to preserve policies that Harvard has the flexibility to change (i.e., screw us over) at its whim.

But I am not sure such a list can correctly capture my feelings in the room as a silent observer. Instead, I want to highlight and paraphrase a very salient point brought up by HAW Bargaining Committee member Greg Given during the session:

We as non-tenure track teaching faculty and researchers haven’t formed a union solely for self-interest but also because we believe in and advocate for the core missions of teaching and research at this university. The people on the other side of the bargaining table treat teaching and research as losses on a balance sheet.

At first glance this feels bleak but I remind myself that we have immense power together. I know we can use our power to change the Corporation’s narrow point of view.

When we fight we win,

Gage Martin

Here’s the detailed update:

Non-Citizen Workers

You last heard from us when we announced our successful effort to protect J-1 visa holders from the Harvard Corporation’s dangerous error as it raised our health care costs. Most J-1 visa holders at Harvard would have been unknowingly in violation of their visa terms. Thanks to a worker reaching out to our bargaining committee, we were able to raise the issue with Harvard admins and push for an expedient solution. Now, all J-1s began the year safely on compliant health plans—and, moreover, everybody on Harvard HMO and PPO plans saw their new higher 2026 deductibles lowered by $100.

Yet even as they were scrambling to prevent the potential catastrophe caused by their own error, the administration continued to reject our proposed protections for non-citizen workers. Although we had previously won paid time off to attend visa or immigration proceedings, the Corporation still refuses to sponsor green cards or protect our members in any way from the threat of ICE/CBP/DHS. The Corporation has refused, for example, even a provision that would notify workers and the Union of expected visits from ICE/CBP/DHS and/or allow them to work remotely on such days. The only excuse they could offer: if they have to protect us, they might have to protect other members of the campus community, and they don’t want to assume that obligation.

Non–Tenure-Track Faculty Cuts

At our December 8th bargaining session, we questioned the Corporation’s team about rumors circulating that FAS would make steep cuts to the non-tenure-track teaching faculty budget. Although we had heard about this from several department administrators and chairs, the Corporation’s bargaining team denied that there were any such plans to discuss. We made clear that we expect to bargain over any changes in appointment terms, workloads, or other working conditions that might arise from such cuts, as is the Corporation’s legal obligation. In response to Crimson reporting on the aftermath of layoffs in SEAS, we also emphasized the urgent need for contractual provisions against the replacement of workers with AI.

Early in the New Year, admin notified us that there are, in fact, plans to cut the number of NTT positions in FAS beginning next year. They claimed that these reductions will be fulfilled entirely by “attrition,” claiming that no one will be laid off during the term of an appointment. But they would not offer a budgetary percentage or a concrete number of cuts, and they confirmed that it is likely that some unsuspecting workers whose appointments are coming up for renewal (workers who are not reaching the end of their time cap) will not be renewed. We questioned them on the effect this will have on the curriculum and on workload. Although they again offered no specifics, they conceded that these cuts will likely lead to fewer courses offered and some class sizes increased. They reiterated their intention to continue enforcing time caps, even though some timed-out workers will need to be replaced.

Because FAS admin gave us no details, we need your help tracking this plan as it rolls out in the form of administrative plans for next year. If you catch wind of any changes in our working conditions—changes to appointment terms, workloads, or class sizes—please let us know. The Corporation has a legal obligation to bargain with us over such changes, and we intend to hold them to that.

Layoffs

On December 8th, four months after we made our last counterproposal on the increasingly crucial matter of layoffs, the administration finally returned their own. They rejected almost all of our proposed language—rejected the classification of non-reappointment to academic positions as a layoff; rejected any obligation to demonstrate financial necessity for layoffs; rejected to pay benefits for furloughed workers; and refused any responsibility to support, reassign, re-hire, or even give preferential treatment in an open search to workers who are laid off.

The Corporation cancelled the bargaining session that had been scheduled for December 12. But at the next session on December 19th, we promptly returned a counterproposal offering significant compromises on the treatment of non-reappointments, while doing our best to protect our members’ core interests by making these compromises contingent upon the Corporation’s acceptance of proposals for longer initial appointments for most workers. This counterproposal maintains provisions that would require the Corporation to demonstrate necessity for layoffs, to treat non-reappointment of long-term workers as layoffs, and to offer a streamlined re-hiring process to laid-off workers.

Workload

On December 19th we presented our counterproposal on workload. The Corporation continues to resist any concrete protections against overwork, especially for instructional workers. We are moving closer to an agreement on “right to unplug” provisions, and have proposed that only certain previously-notified workers, such as lab safety officers, can reasonably be expected to respond to work-related communications outside of regular working hours. We continue to seek to ensure that research postdocs are compensated for any teaching work they take on, and that part-time instructional workers receive at least a percentage of the wages that they were expecting for classes that end up cancelled.

Union Security

On December 8th, we offered a counterproposal that again sought to secure our Union’s ability to effectively enforce our eventual contract and advocate on behalf of our workers. The law requires us to represent every member of the bargaining unit, whether or not they choose to join the Union. While no worker would be required to join the Union in any case, we have proposed that non-members pay an “agency fee” to the union in lieu of dues, which would make it possible to ensure that we can maintain effective representation for everyone. The Corporation does not want us to have an agency fee because they do not want our union to be strong enough to enforce our hard-won contract provisions.

No Strike/No Lockout

On December 8th, we counterproposed a version of admin’s article which would protect us from being forced to cross the picket lines of other campus unions if they go on strike, and from being forced to take on their work (aka “scabbing”) while they are absent. On December 19th, they reasserted their position that HAW workers should be blocked from withholding work for any reason, which could potentially force us to cross picket lines and scab on our coworkers in HUCTW and HGSU. Such a provision would place many of us in a painful conflict between principled solidarity with our coworkers and fear of retribution—and would weaken our broader movement at a time when we desperately need to be united.

Non-Retaliation

Our counterproposal, submitted on December 8, would ensure that the non-retaliation protections in our contract match the reality of our academic workplace, where professional retaliation often manifests in the realm of recommendation letters, grants, authorship, etc. Given the history of retaliation at Harvard, we also want to ensure that we are protected from retaliation when we report misconduct or pursue our intellectual property rights. Non-retaliation is key to being able to enforce the contract we are fighting for.