HAW-UAW Contract Negotiations Update – Dec. 2, 2024

On Monday, December 2, we held our sixth bargaining session. We presented two new articles, three counter-proposals, and reasserted one additional proposed article that Harvard had previously rejected. Harvard had one counterproposal to present, and a proposed preamble to our contract—non-binding language that would open the agreement. We again raised the issue of a moratorium on time caps given the administration’s slow response to our proposed article on Appointments and Reappointments. Again, the administration dismissed our call to halt time caps while negotiations remain ongoing.

We presented:

  • Successorship (Re-presentation): This article would protect our contract in the case that there’s a substantial change in management of Harvard. Management had previously rejected this article outright, arguing that it would be unlikely for Harvard to do something like sell off a part of itself. In reproposing the article, we pointed to the case of EdX, a joint Harvard-MIT venture that was eventually spun off and sold. We believe that it is important to ensure that our workers are protected in the event this happens again. The administration objected that such protections could hinder a future deal—which proves our point that this is a possibility we ought to prepare for, however unlikely.
  • Discipline and Dismissal (Counterproposal): We believe we are nearing an agreement. We re-added language deleted by the administration in their last counter defining actions such as written warnings and reductions in duties or pay as examples of discipline. We also reasserted the right for a worker to have union representation at any disciplinary meeting.
  • Employment Records (Counterproposal): We proposed a compromise on dealing with disputed information. Management rejected our proposal that disputed information be removed entirely, so we have proposed a process by which, in the event that the administration refuses to remove disputed information from an employee’s file upon request, the request and refusal is itself noted in the employee record. We are also asserting that the union requires the capacity to request information that would be pertinent and important for union activity.
  • Artificial Intelligence (New Proposal): This article seeks to protect our workers from being replaced by AI, being surveilled by AI, or otherwise being forced to use AI by administration or supervisors. This article has been carefully crafted to allow for workers to use and develop AI tools in their own research and in collaboration with their PIs—it is not a ban on all use of AI. We simply seek protections against Harvard imposing the use of AI in ways that would change our working conditions without our consent. We’re especially worried about algorithmic bias that could be introduced by the use of automated tools for evaluating employees or potential hires.
  • Non-retaliation (New Proposal): This article ensures that we are protected from retaliation for participating in union-related activities, exercising rights under our contract, or seeking other employment.

Management proposed:

  • Preamble (New Proposal): This would not officially be part of the legally binding contract, but introduces statements about how the two parties have mutual respect and shared values. Their purpose is to address our previously stated position that the administration should be called “the Employer” in our contract and not “the University.” We maintain that we are an integral part of Harvard University and not external to it. Management pled convenience in seeking to smooth this over, noting that management is referenced as “the University” in other union contracts at Harvard.
  • Job Postings (Counterproposal): Management struck out or rendered unenforceable many of the key provisions of our proposal. They removed language that would require all jobs to be posted publicly, as well as guarantees for advance access to job postings for unit members and an interview for unit members that meet minimum qualifications for a posted position. In such cases the administration’s proposal instead ”encourages” the practices we proposed, but they could not elaborate on how exactly such encouragement would work.

Before ending the session, we signed the tentative agreement on the Labor Management Committee, which was verbally agreed to in the last session.

Finally, we expressed our concern that there are now 14 outstanding proposals from HAW-UAW that await a response from the administration. We pointed out that time is of the essence for us—many of our unit members will face termination and replacement under time caps this Spring if action is not taken. The administration originally dismissed our Memorandum of Agreement to pause time caps because, they said, the reappointment process would come up in bargaining. We introduced our proposal on Appointments and Reappointments over a month ago, and have yet received no response. In this bargaining session, we pressed them on our proposal and asked them to have a counterproposal ready for us by the next session. They said they could not give us a timeline for their responses.

Harvard is dragging its feet while our livelihoods hang in the balance. It’s up to us, as a union, to push them toward action. We need you to help turn up the pressure! If you want to help us win the strongest contract we can, let us know you want to help and we’ll be in touch soon to loop you in.

In solidarity,

HAW-UAW Bargaining Committee