I’m Vicki, a member of your bargaining committee!
Yesterday, we had our fifth bargaining session with Harvard. We covered a number of economic articles, and we also discussed the University’s counter on Article 7 (Non-discrimination). The number of observers in the room just keeps growing!
We need you in the room next Thursday, May 6th between 2-5pm ET. Your bargaining committee will present proposals to strengthen racial justice and health care in your contract negotiations. Your presence can really make a difference in ensuring that we strengthen these rights and provisions in our next contract. Please RSVP to join us in the bargaining room here, and if you haven’t, join your union today.
If you are interested in hearing more about bargaining and discussing with student workers across the University, come to our General Membership Meeting on Tuesday, May 4th at 7pm ET. Register here.
Here’s what we covered this week:
Article 7: Non-discrimination, Harassment, and Abuse or Intimidation
- As part of advocating for a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, we proposed a number of additional protections from discrimination against student workers, including medical conditions, gender expression, linguistic abilities, and accents. We also proposed additional language clarifying the definition of affirmative consent. Unfortunately, the university rejected all of these proposed changes, on the grounds that issues of harassment, consent, and discrimination are being discussed by working groups formed under the last contract.
- While we want the working groups’ recommendations to be incorporated into Harvard’s policies, we also believe it is urgent that we have stronger protections in the contract currently being negotiated. It is also important to note that the working groups do not have a specific end date, so we must fight now for stronger protections.
- The University also made multiple references to wanting a uniform set of policies that applies to all students, not just student workers. We do not believe that the desire for standardization is a valid argument against increased worker protections.
- The University also rejected our proposal for Harvard to provide financial assistance to students to hire attorneys when pursuing a sexual harassment claim. In doing so, they claimed that a student could be equally able to afford an attorney as a highly paid faculty member.
Article 20: Compensation
- For salaried workers, we proposed an initial increase of 9.74% across all classifications, and then a 3% increase in future contract years depending on the duration of the contract. We noted the significant disparity between student worker salaries at Harvard and those of MIT, a peer institution in the same city with the same cost of living.
- For hourly workers, we proposed an increase in the minimum rate to $23/hour for all hourly positions in the bargaining unit. We also proposed eliminating the differential that places hourly research positions at a lower minimum wage ($16/hour) than instructional positions ($17/hour). Our request is based on the fact that Massachusetts’ minimum wage will be $15/hour by 2023, making the current hourly rates barely above minimum wage; and also based on significant disparities with Harvard’s other union research positions in the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW), where the most junior research assistants are paid a minimum of approximately $25/hour.
- We also proposed that student workers be paid no less frequently than once per month.
- We proposed a linear structure of top-ups, in which a top-up will be paid per section rather than only conditional on teaching two sections. Moreover, we proposed that top-up payments will be in place whenever the student worker is working to ensure the same pay for upper G years.
Article 22: Child Care Fund
- We proposed moving from a “reimbursement fund,” under which workers must spend money first and apply for a reimbursement, to a “subsidy fund” under which qualified workers may apply for an $8,000 per year child care benefit before incurring child care expenses. We believe that this is an important step toward equity because it reduces the administrative burden of processing requests, and ensures equity in access and distribution. The University asked some follow-up questions about how many people this would affect, but we reminded them that they have not responded to our information request that would help to answer that question.
- This fund would NOT replace parental accommodations given by GSAS.
- The University also asked a number of follow-up questions about how much this would cost. However, we estimate this to be a single-digit percentage increase that Harvard can easily afford.
Article 23: Family Friendly Benefits
- We proposed expanding access to Care.com to all student workers. The University did not have any follow-up questions.
Article 24: Leave Provisions
- We proposed bringing the duration of paid leave for student workers in line with state-mandated paid leave allowances for other workers in Massachusetts: 20 weeks of paid medical leave, and 12 weeks of family leave. We also recognize that support systems look different based on circumstances and culture, and proposed a wider definition of “family.”
Article 26: Parking and Transit
- We proposed two major changes. First, we proposed that instead of receiving discounted MBTA passes, student workers should receive MBTA passes at no cost to them. Second, we proposed lifting the requirement for student workers to be active employees through submission deadlines for transit benefits, because this was an issue during implementation.
- The University expressed concern that this might lead to students working very few hours and becoming eligible for thousands of dollars in transit benefits for expensive Commuter Rail passes. We will look at this matter further, but we do not believe that this change would result in a massive run on Commuter Rail passes.
Article 28: Emergency Grant
- We asked the University to improve student worker awareness of the emergency grant fund–for example, by including it regularly in emails to students about emergency resources or the University’s response to crises. We also asked for unspent funds to roll over year to year contingent on a longer contract.
Article 29: Employee Assistance Program
- We proposed including all student workers, not just salaried student workers, in the employee assistance program.
At this point, we have almost all of our proposals on the table. We could easily have a contract that improves our working conditions and quality of life soon if the University’s team is willing to listen to your demands. Thus, we are eager to receive University responses to our proposals. In the meantime, we encourage you to come to our next bargaining session and invite your friends and colleagues to come as well.
In solidarity,
Vicki
