Responses to Harvard emails and anti-union arguments

The Harvard administration continues to send us emails about our upcoming union election. Here we have collected their points and our responses so you can get facts, not fear. Check back at this page when you hear from the administration.

Emails sent to date in Spring 2018

Click for Quick Links

Administration’s Emails

The Facts

Petitions for union certification withdrawn and Reelection

…three unions that won elections to represent students at Boston College, Yale University, and the University of Chicago have withdrawn their petitions to serve as the representatives of those students. The United Auto Workers (UAW) at BC, UNITE-HERE at Yale, and Graduate Students United, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) at Chicago, have all asked the NLRB to close their representation cases, meaning that those unions will not be the certified representatives of students at those three campuses, despite having won an election. And just today, the AFT withdrew its petition to represent eligible students at the University of Pennsylvania, in advance of a planned election (Paul Curran, 2/16/2018)
Student workers at these universities decided to withdraw their petitions, because their university administrations have refused to accept their democratic decision to form a union. Instead, administrations at BC, Yale, and UChicago asked an anti-union, Trump-controlled labor board to strip graduate workers of the right to organize. Student workers at these universities are still organizing to have unions (Chicago, Boston College).

While it is disappointing these universities go to Trump to try to stop our nationwide movement, they cannot stop us. Unlike the cases at other universities, Harvard’s appeal did not ask the NLRB to review our status as employees. In Oct. 2016, Harvard signed an election agreement with us indicating that they would bargain in good faith if we won our election.

In the previous election at Harvard, a majority of the approximately 3,000 eligible students who participated cast their votes against unionization. Unless students turn out in high numbers for this election, a minority could make the decision for all. I ask all members of our community to encourage a respectful, robust debate about student unionization. Most importantly, I urge eligible students to mark their calendars and vote. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
The NLRB said Harvard’s omission of hundreds of eligible voters tainted the first election
HGSU-UAW is encouraged that Harvard has included a broader group on the voter list this time and is hopeful for a fair election per the NLRB ruling.
The NLRB ordered a new election based on Harvard’s omission of over 500 eligible voters.
“The employer’s failure to provide a complete voter list interfered with the employees’ exercise of a free and reasoned choice.”
While there are those who are calling this a second election, this is student workers’ first fair chance at a union election.
Second election and war of attrition:

The HGSU-UAW lost the first election with the final tally of 1,526 – 1,396 against unionization (Appendix 2). Ignoring a decision by a majority of graduate students, the group called for a second election based on a legal technicality surrounding the voters’ list. How can we trust an organization that does not respect the decision of a majority? What other decisions would they impose on unwilling students in the future? The union supporters are fighting a war of attrition until they win. That’s not standing up for democracy, just an ugly politics as usual.

(Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)

The NLRB ordered a new election based on Harvard’s omission of over 500 eligible voters.
“The employer’s failure to provide a complete voter list interfered with the employees’ exercise of a free and reasoned choice.”

While there are those who are calling this a second election, this is student workers’ first fair chance at a union election.

Biggest flaw in the first election:
The biggest flaw of the first election was that many of the first year students in the sciences were excluded from voting. The union agreed to this term in their election agreement with the University despite the fact that the first year students are the ones who would be most affected by the outcome of the election. As a result of the hearings that followed the first election, now the first year students in the sciences are eligible to vote. The union could have fought for the voting rights of the first year students before the first election occurred but they did not. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
The NLRB said Harvard’s omission of hundreds of eligible voters tainted the first election
HGSU-UAW is encouraged that Harvard has included a broader group on the voter list this time and is hopeful for a fair election per the NLRB ruling.

List confusion and uncertainty

I understand this may be confusing and frustrating. To help with this process, please be sure to submit all necessary paperwork for your appointment as soon as possible; if you have an hourly appointment, please submit your hours regularly. University staff are working to process appointments and timesheets as quickly as possible (Paul Curran, 2/16/2018)

In every union election, the employer is required to provide an accurate list. Some universities take the extra step to require a FERPA notice, but regardless, all employers must turn over a list. Some employers try to make this seem like something scary, but it is a critical part of the democratic process.

Election will affect you whether or not you vote

Everyone who is eligible to vote should vote, because the election will be decided only by those who cast ballots, just like any political election. This means that if you are in the bargaining unit that the HGSU-UAW proposes to represent, the outcome of this election will affect you whether or not you vote (Paul Curran, 2/5/2018)
I want to make very clear that the result of this election will impact not only the remainder of your time at Harvard, but also the experiences of future students in graduate programs in the Division of Science. (Bloxham, 4/6/2018) (Daley , 4/6/2018)
(Ryan, 4/6/2018) (Elmendorf, 4/9/2018)
The results of this election, however, will impact not only the remainder of your time at Harvard, but also the experiences of future students…. Moreover, all graduate students serving as Course Assistants, Teaching Fellows, or Research Assistants would be affected—whether they support the union or not, and whether they vote or not. Therefore, I encourage you to consider this decision seriously and to delve deeply into the issues it raises. (Ryan, 4/6/2018)  (Mostafavi, 4/9/2018) (Doyle, 4/9/2018) (Williams, 4/9/2018)
If you are a GSAS student engaged in teaching or research, you are facing a consequential decision—whether to vote in favor of union representation or not. This important decision will impact Harvard’s students and faculty, as well as students enrolling in the future.
(McCavana, 4/9/2018)
Part of an anti-union campaign is to differentiate union elections from other democratic elections. In fact, in any election or any democratic process, engaged participants and voters affect outcomes and set the agenda. Language like “this election will affect you whether or not you vote” implies negative consequences, when a Yes vote really means setting up a union in which we vote on priorities, vote on a bargaining committee, and vote on a contract.
The reality is that more than 60 universities across the country have unions were student workers democratically participate to improve their compensation and benefits. . We know the same will be true here at Harvard. The decision we get to make with our election is simple: Should we have an equal voice in future decisions made here that will affect us? If the answer is yes, than a union is the way for us to have a direct voice in these decisions, such as when Harvard cut out pay last year (2017-18). If we had a vote in that decision, it may have been a different outcome.

Robust discussion

As we move forward with a second election, it is critically important to consider again the issues at stake and engage in a robust conversation about the potential impact of unionization. Information is available on the Student Vote section of the Office of the Provost’s website, and a number of student-driven websites, including: Harvard Graduate Students Union–United Auto Workers (HGSU-UAW), Graduate Student Unionization: A Critical Approach, and the Against HGSU-UAW Facebook page (Paul Curran, 2/5/2018).
It’s important to note here: Paul is sending out links to his own information at the Provost’s website and 2 anti-union links from the same group, while only sending 1 pro-union link. This is just one example of them trying to appear neutral while projecting anti-union bias.
He is also injecting himself into a discussion properly between student workers. Neither Paul Curran nor any of the other administrators will have a vote in the election. Only student workers will be voting here, but the administrators feel they need to keep trying to influence our decision, specifically implying our decision may cause harm, regardless of the facts.

Bargaining Unit Scope

This election matters. A majority “yes” vote means that the HGSU-UAW would be the sole channel through which students in covered positions could have a say on wages, benefits, appointments, work hours, and work conditions. The HGSU-UAW would negotiate with the University’s Office of Labor and Employee Relations on behalf of thousands of students in more than 60 distinct academic programs to try to reach a contract in the same way that other unions on campus negotiate. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
For example, if the vote is yes, nearly 5,000 students serving as course assistants, teaching fellows, and research assistants—in the Science Division and in more than 60 programs across the University—would be covered by one contract that the HGSU-UAW would negotiate with the University.
(Bloxham, 4/6/2018) (Daley, 4/6/2018)
We trust ourselves to negotiate effectively and responsibly with Harvard just like tens of thousands of other student workers across the country
Without collective bargaining, Harvard unilaterally cut our typical pay increase in half and increased prescription and dependent health insurance costs.  Like many universities, Harvard has also failed to adequately address instances of sexual harassment of graduate students. We do not fear or distrust Harvard; rather, we believe that, like other unionized student workers, we can accomplish more by sitting down and negotiating as equals over what is most important to us and within relevant constraints at any given time.
At UConn, an institution with far fewer resources than Harvard, Graduate Assistants reversed years of erosion of health benefits, increases in student fees not covered by tuition waivers, and unpredictable wage increases.  They negotiated a nearly 7% annual increase in total compensation (stipend increases plus new fee waivers), as well as dramatically improved health insurance and priceless sexual harassment protections, in their first contract that majority of all GAs voted to approved.

Relationship with Faculty and Admins

This would represent a significant departure from the way that these issues are handled now, since each school’s dean and other leaders would be legally prohibited from working directly with individual students or with student government on these matters. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
Establishing a union at Harvard would significantly change the way that graduate students interact with <area> staff, faculty, and administrators on a wide range of important issues.
(Bloxham, 4/6/2018)  (Daley , 4/6/2018)  (Elmendorf, 4/9/2018) (Mostafavi, 4/9/2018) (Doyle, 4/9/2018) (Williams, 4/9/2018)
Establishing a union at Harvard could change the way that graduate students interact with staff, faculty, and administrators on a wide range of important issues at HGSE. (Ryan, 4/6/2018)
Collective bargaining would be a “significant departure” from the status quo where Harvard can change our conditions without our consent.
Voting yes means Harvard could no longer make changes without our consent, such as last spring when they cut pay increases and increased healthcare costs for many of the most vulnerable of our colleagues.  We would gain the right to negotiate for concrete improvements like academic workers have won at many other universities with just as many departments as Harvard.  Moreover, the track record of democratic participation in UAW academic contract campaigns makes clear that workers form a wide range of departments can effectively come together, decide on priorities that reflect diverse needs, and make progress for all.

Decision Making

Union governance and loss of agency:
Given that most students are busy, it is very likely that the participation rate in union activities will be low. Ask yourself: “How much time would I be willing to spend participating in union meetings and activities on a week to week basis?” Important decisions will often be made without your inputs by the virtue of your non-participation even though you may strongly disagree with them. As an example of such decisions, a highly controversial resolution against Israel was passed by the UAW affiliated University of California student union with less than 20% of total member votes. There are many Israeli students and faculty within the UC system and here at Harvard who would not support such a resolution. With a union, we will often be associated with and bound to decisions we do not support. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
UAW academic unions have a strong track record of robust democratic participation; and the UAW nationally encourages democracy
In recent campaigns at NYU, UConn, UC and UW, majorities of the entire workforce have voted in each case to approve contracts negotiated by their bargaining committees. These votes provide evidence of not only democratic participation but also of effective bargaining power.
In the case of the boycott vote in California, a member of their local appealed the vote claiming that, among other reasons, the vote exceeded the local’s authority under the democratic structure of the UAW Constitution. Since only about 2,000 members, out of 400,000, have voted to support the boycott, the UAW International Executive Board (IEB) and, subsequently, an independent review board unique to the UAW agreed that the vote exceeded the local’s democratic authority.
Competing interests among students and tyranny of vocal minority:
Due to the low participation rate, there is a high chance that the vocal minority of students will strongly argue for and win benefits for the group at the expense of the majority of student population. For example, different students want different procedures and fees (e.g., wisdom teeth extraction surgery and adult acne surgery) covered under their health insurance policy. Students in certain programs receive less generous support packages as a direct result of insufficient fund raised by the responsible faculty. In order to meet the demands of the vocal minority, the University leaders would often have to compromise on the benefits (including tuition and number of admissions) they offer to the majority of students. The claim that no one will be worse off due to collective bargaining is false; in fact, a great majority of students will be worse off because they will experience lower effective wage increase and the benefits they enjoy now will be compromised by students who have the loudest voice. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Collective bargaining expands our ability to address variant needs of student workers from diverse backgrounds, conditions, departments
First off, there is no example backing the claim that “a great majority of students will be worse off” due to “students who have the loudest voice.  The track record of democratic participation in UAW academic contract campaigns refutes this claim. In fact, Harvard’s changes to pay and health insurance announced last year provide a better example of the irrationality of undemocratic, unilateral decision making. The cuts to health insurance, for example, disproportionately hurt those who need affordable coverage the most, those dependent on prescription drugs and women and families needing affordable dependent coverage.  Neither of these categories correlates in any way with programs that have more or less resources. Harvard made all programs less accessible to families and those with chronic conditions, whereas at other universities, a majority of all workers have approved things like more affordable dependent coverage and there is no evidence that these gains compromised other benefits.  Moreover, Harvard’s unilateral decision to cut the typical pay increase in half was equally irrational.  In departments where research assistants are funded by external grants, citing the endowment performance to arbitrarily impose a 1.5% cut to the pay increase makes no sense and, arguably, undermines those programs’ ability to remain competitive. At UW, the collective bargaining agreement actually preserves the ability of departments with the resources on grants to increase pay rates as much as they want (known as a “departmental increase”) in order to remain competitive.
Undemocratic authorization cards practice:
In order for the UAW to become the exclusive bargaining representative, it had to collect signatures on “authorization cards” from 50% of would-be members of the envisioned bargaining unit. The UAW paid many student organizers to accomplish this task. In many cases, the organizers did not fully inform students of the legal implication of signing the card. Many science students have told me that they signed the cards so that the organizers would stop interrupting them during experiments and other work. A student remarked on my blog: “I was extremely disturbed by union supporters who tried aggressively to get students to sign cards in the dining hall and interrupting our lunches and dinners, without giving both sides of the story. It was very inconsiderate of them and it shows lack of character and respect.” (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Majority of graduate employees signed cards before HGSU-UAW filed for an election.
The NLRB only requires that 30% sign cards to trigger an election. But HGSU-UAW made effort to talk to everyone before filing for an election back in 2016, so that all student workers had an opportunity to learn about and participate in the formative stages if they wanted. Like on other UAW campaigns, a small number of graduate students who wanted to devote the time and energy were paid part-time as part of the grassroots effort. The bottom line is that all eligible voters get to make their own democratic choice in the upcoming election. While we encourage student workers to vote yes, it is ultimately an individual choice.

Dues

Will I have to pay union dues if students vote for the UAW?
Yes. The United Auto Workers requires dues of 1.44% from its membership, and approximately 60% of the dues and fees collected will go directly to the international UAW union—not to local Harvard students—to support strike pay and organizing activity at other locations. In aggregate, Harvard students will likely pay more than $1,400,000 in union dues and fees per year (calculated based on 2017 pay, at a rate of 1.44%.)  At NYU and Columbia, where students are represented by the UAW, the rate of dues is 2%.
The University cannot, by law, pay union dues on behalf of students.
Dues are typically deducted directly from paychecks. In fact, this is often the first clause in a labor contract. You cannot opt out of representation or out of dues or fees payment. (Curran, 4/15/2018)
Furthermore, the outcome of this election would be binding on all students in covered positions, now and in the years to come. Once a contract is negotiated, all members of the bargaining unit will pay union dues or an equivalent fee, which will be directly deducted from student paychecks. According to information from the UAW, between 40% and 50% of the dues collected would stay with the local union, with the remaining 50% to 60% going to the UAW Strike and Defense Fund and the International UAW organization. There is no “opting out” and incoming students would not have an opportunity to vote for or against union representation. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
Dues enable fair and effective representation

We will not begin paying dues until after we vote to accept a contract. This means, we must be willing to accept the terms of our work proposed in our contract before paying anything. This is why student worker contracts have raised standards for student workers for decades.

Dues create the resources (staff, office, materials, legal assistance, etc) to engage in effective representation at a large, wealthy institution like Harvard. For a good example of how dues enable a strong, active union, that can make real improvements, read “Dues in Action” from the academic workers union at UW or read about how grad workers at UConn have successfully helped members address sexual harassment.
Most union contracts include a provision where non-members pay a required “fair share” fee comparable to dues so that the cost of representation is shared equally.  Like other aspects of the contract, this provision only goes into effect after a democratic vote to approve it.
Union dues and penalty for non-payment:
According to the Article 16 of the UAW constitution, union members are required to pay minimum dues of 1.44% of their paychecks. Local unions usually collect additional dues to support its local operation such as providing stipend to union members who serve as union representatives. For example, the New York University (NYU) student union requires its members to pay 2% of their paychecks as dues.  Refusal to pay dues will most likely to result in termination from any position covered by the union contract. For research assistants in the sciences, this may put the students in poor academic standing and eventual termination from their respective programs. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Some students would cycle in and out of union representation, but others—such as most science PhD students—would be dues-paying union members for the entire duration of their student careers. At a 1.44% dues rate, science PhD students would collectively pay more than $1,000,000 in dues and agency fees each year, more than two-thirds of the estimated total. (Curran, 4/15/2018)
Dues enable fair and effective representation
Dues create the resources (staff, office, materials, legal assistance, etc) to engage in effective representation at a large, wealthy institution like Harvard.  For a good example of how dues enable a strong, active union, that can make real improvements, read “Dues in Action” from the academic workers union at UW or read about how grad workers at UConn have successfully helped members address sexual harassment..
UAW membership dues, which only start after a democratic vote approving the first contract, are 1.44% of pay, per the UAW Constitution, though members in a very small number of local unions (including the one at NYU) have voted to raise their dues beyond that rate. Most union contracts include a provision where non-members pay a required “fair share” fee comparable to dues so that the cost of representation is shared equally.
Since everyone pays the same dues (1.44%), one could just as easily argue that lower-paid student workers would be subsidizing the bargaining of higher-paid student workers. For example, if we negotiated, hypothetically, a 4% raise, the higher paid workers would receive more real dollars. This is why dues are set as a percentage of gross income, to spread the “cost” of representation equally. Moreover, since we pay dues when we work and are protected by the contract, including things like sexual harassment protections, “working” more semesters in one program versus another just means we would enjoy the various rights and protections more regularly.
But looking at the union this way defeats the real purpose of it, which is: by joining together we have more power to make improvements in all areas. Some areas directly benefit everyone, such as health insurance or across-the-board pay increases. Others may not directly benefit everyone, but may have widespread democratic support, such as more affordable dependent health insurance premiums.

Dues vs. Wage Increases

Effective net decrease in wages:
NYU students who are part of their student union are currently experiencing effective net decrease in wages due to the union dues mentioned above. In addition, the NYU contract stipulates that annual wage increase for union members to be 2.25% to 2.5%, much lower than 3% Harvard has been providing in the past eight out of nine years. The HGSU-UAW organizers claim that this loss has been offset by the initial wage increase of more than 3% but this is false. The NYU union members received one time payment of $250-$750 from the University during the first year of the current contract, the exact amount varying according to position held. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
NYU graduate employee pay has increased by 189% since unionization in 2000-2001
Graduate employees at NYU have raised national standards since first unionizing in 2000 and winning a 38% increase to stipend minimums. After years of organizing and bargaining, including being paid on top of stipends for teaching work, a typical PhD student who teaches two semesters at NYU now earns roughly $10,000 more than their peers at Columbia University for the same amount of work and 189% more than what they would have earned in 2001 ($13,000 versus $37,607 in 2016-17).
In 2015, after winning back union recognition, a majority of NYU grad employees voted overwhelmingly to approve their second contract, expressing great confidence in the wide array of improvements: up to $750 bonus plus 12% increase for the highest paid PhD workers; up to $1500 bonus plus doubling of wages for the lowest paid Masters workers; 90% subsidy for hundreds of workers who had to pay their own healthcare previously; fully-paid dental coverage for all workers; a newly established childcare subsidy program; a newly established fund to subsidize dependent health insurance premiums.
Collective cost to the community:

Given the size of the potential bargaining unit and a conservative estimate of $500 union dues paid per member, the Harvard graduate student community will be paying the UAW $2.2M annually and $11M over the course of a five-year contract. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)

Dues ensure effective representation for all
At UConn, for example, the average GA will receive a nearly 7% annual increase in total compensation, significantly improved health benefits for no extra premium cost, a 50% reduction in parking costs, and newly-established child care subsidies of roughly $1300 per year, while paying a little over 1% in dues (dues are slightly lower for locals that do not have the right to strike), all major reasons why a majority of all GAs voted to ratify their contract. In addition to these concrete economic gains for all GAs, dues resources have enabled the Union to helped GAs successfully address sexual harassment and negotiate a waiver of a new international student fee of $700 per year that the university created mid-contract.

International Students

In discussions about unionization, it has become clear that some members of our community are not fully aware of the ways that Harvard supports its students today. For example:
  • The Harvard International Office supports international students and scholars at Harvard. If you have questions about visas, they can help. When the US Federal government introduced travel bans for people from certain countries, this group took immediate action, providing assistance 24 hours a day over the telephone and contacting affected students individually.
We can do better by joining together
We appreciate the international office at Harvard. We also know that when we join together, we can get Harvard to be even more responsive. After Trump issued the travel ban last year, the HGSU-UAW International Scholar Working Group (ISWG) came together and generated hundreds of petition signatures, after which Harvard established a hotline and access to legal assistance for those affected.
In addition, with a union, international student will have a stronger political voice around these kinds of issues. For example, the UAW has fought back against the travel ban, helped defeat the grad tax, and protected the OPT.

Healthcare

Harvard University Health Services provides physical and mental health support to students. President Faust’s response to the Report of the Presidential Task Force on Inclusion and Belonging underscored the University’s commitment to mental health services, which have recently been restructured to provide improved services even as a strategic planning process is underway. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
We know that with collective bargaining we can negotiate improvements for our benefits.
At the University of Connecticut, the grad workers sat down and bargained for significant improvements without having to pay higher premiums, while maintaining or even decreasing the costs of their plan for the university.

Sexual Harassment

The Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response can provide all members of the Harvard community with a confidential space to discuss experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault. In addition, the University Title IX Office and more than 50 Title IX coordinators across our schools are prepared to support students, faculty, and staff in identifying ways to ensure all members of our community can thrive. The Office for Dispute Resolution investigates formal complaints of sexual harassment and sexual assault. All three of these offices have grown and received increased funding in recent years. (Garber, 4/5/2018)
UAW academic unions have taken on sexual harassment with increasing success
Collective bargaining enables negotiation of avenues of recourse that do not currently exist—like a grievance procedure with the option of getting a ruling from a neutral arbitrator rather than a university official. Given the widespread failure of the existing university systems of recourse, addressing sexual harassment has become one of the central reasons thousands of graduate employees and postdocs have formed unions in recent years.  While most union contracts also ensure due process for those accused of sexual harassment (part of the “duty of fair representation”), this protections has not allowed perpetrators of sexual harassment avoid discipline and/or dismissal from universities for their actions.
The UAW cannot guarantee a greater protection against sexual harassment and racial discrimination:

The HGSU-UAW claims that unionizing with the UAW would provide a greater protection in these areas. However, given that most complaints brought by students are against other students and that the union must represent both victims and perpetrators during grievance proceedings in such cases, the union may make it easier for the perpetrators to get away with their wrongdoings. Having a union is not an automatic guarantee of progress in these areas as evidenced in cases referred in the previous point. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)

UAW academic unions have taken on sexual harassment with increasing success
Collective bargaining enables negotiation of avenues of recourse that do not currently exist—like a grievance procedure with the option of getting a ruling from a neutral arbitrator rather than a university official. Given the widespread failure of the existing university systems of recourse, addressing sexual harassment has become one of the central reasons thousands of graduate employees and postdocs have formed unions in recent years.  While most union contracts also ensure due process for those accused of sexual harassment (part of the “duty of fair representation”), this protections has not allowed perpetrators of sexual harassment avoid discipline and/or dismissal from universities for their actions.

Political Voice

In addition, Harvard’s Federal Relations team works tirelessly, often behind the scenes, with legislators on Capitol Hill to advocate for students. Their recent efforts focused on the potential tax on graduate student tuition proposed in the House tax plan, DACA, and various travel bans. Working with the Federal Relations team, President Faust makes frequent trips to Washington to meet with legislators on behalf of Harvard and its students.(Garber, 4/5/2018)

Political activism should not be the reason for forming a union:
As with many other unions, the HGSU-UAW lobby for various political causes including increase in federal research funding for sciences, international student rights, and taxes on graduate student tuition reimbursement. Though I applaud the efforts of students involved in these activities, these political advocacy efforts can be made without a union and just as effectively so.(Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Joining the UAW enables a stronger political voice on issues that matter to us at Harvard
We have already benefited from joining together with tens of thousands of other academic workers in the UAW.  The infrastructure of coordination among the nearly 13,000 graduate workers on UAW organizing campaigns in the Northeast gave us a stronger voice last fall when we mobilized against the tax on tuition waivers.  Through HGSU-UAW coordination, we set up phone banks to legislators, rallied and wrote opinion pieces that helped defeat the tax. Similarly, when we formed our International Scholars Working Group last year to take on the effects of the travel ban, we joined our voice with similar groups at Columbia and elsewhere and ultimately with the national UAW as it filed an amicus brief in the court case against the ban.

Removing the union / Decertification

Forming a union is a virtually irreversible event:
In order to decertify an existing union, 30% of members must file a petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to call for a “decertification election” whose result decides whether the union can continue as the exclusive bargaining representative. [0]  Given the estimated size of 4,400 member bargaining unit, this would be a logistically impossible task for almost any students to undertake without distracting them severely from their studies. In addition, the process can take place only after three years into a contract. Given the irreversibility, the decision to form a union should be made with a great degree of conservatism. The HGSU-UAW has not made a proposal convincing enough to win our votes as I will illustrate in this document.  (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Unionization is not irreversible, but UAW academic workers have maintained support
If just 30% of workers sign a petition, the NLRB will hold a “decertification” election.  According to NLRB rules, “Unless a majority of the votes cast in the election are in favor of union representation, the union will be decertified.”[1]

Decertification elections have not happened in UAW academic units because majorities of workers have continued to affirmatively support and participate their unions. Since 2015, for example, majorities of the entire workforce have voted to approve contracts at the University of Washington, University of California, NYU and University of Connecticut.

Job Stability and Security

Institutional trust and security of contract: 
One tactic used by the HGSU-UAW organizers to gain support is to instill a sense of distrust and fear against the University. The group argues that the University leaders can unilaterally decide to make things worse for students and that’s why students need a union and the security of contract. Not only is this view  not supported by a historical increase in financial aid over the past two decades (see below), but also this is not a fair assessment of the intentions of the University leaders I have encountered throughout my study. The leaders I have met always had the best interest of students in mind and make their best efforts to balance the various and sometimes competing needs of the diverse student population. Though I am sure that the leaders do not get everything right, I trust them to faithfully fulfill their duties as the stewards of the University. In addition, the above argument does not consider the cost of public distrust, the $11M paid in dues. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
We trust ourselves to negotiate effectively and responsibly as equals with Harvard
Without collective bargaining, Harvard unilaterally cut our typical pay increase in half and increased prescription and dependent health insurance costs.  Like many universities, Harvard has also failed to adequately address instances of sexual harassment of graduate students. We do not fear or distrust Harvard; rather, we believe that, like other unionized student workers, we can accomplish more by sitting down and negotiating as equals over what is most important to us and within relevant constraints at any given time.

At UConn, an institution with far fewer resources than Harvard, Graduate Assistants reversed years of erosion of health benefits, increases in student fees not covered by tuition waivers, and unpredictable wage increases.  They negotiated a nearly 7% annual increase in total compensation (stipend increases plus new fee waivers), as well as dramatically improved health insurance and priceless sexual harassment protections, in their first contract that majority of all GAs voted to approved.

Compromising

Compromises are necessary: 
The HGSU-UAW organizers often argue that given the large size of Harvard’s endowment, the University should be able to compensate students more. This ignores the fact that the University operates in a financially constrained environment as explained in the next two points. Increase in wages or benefits will come at the expense of other benefits, rise in tuition for college and various professional programs, or fewer admissions to the University. The last two consequences should be of concern to anyone who cares about the socioeconomic diversity of student population.  (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
There is no evidence that collective bargaining has produced the “compromises” Against HGSU-UAW says “will” happen.

In decades of successful collective bargaining between gradate workers and more than 60 universities, no one has shown evidence that unionization has caused fewer admissions, elimination of programs, or tuition increases. In fact, some evidence shows the opposite, such as at UC where the UAW Local 2865 unit that was 9,000 in 1999 when the union was certified has now grown to 17,000.

Endowment

History of financial aid and importance of Harvard’s endowment: 
Less than 20 years ago, many PhD programs at Harvard required students to pay tuition and fees, and did not have the financial means to provide free health insurance and other benefits that students today enjoy as part of their financial aid package. The former students had to pay out of pocket or borrow loans for various expenses. The large increase in aid has become possible due to the increase in Harvard’s endowment, of which the graduate student population is one of the primary beneficiaries. The endowment hence should be considered as a precious common good that each generation of the University community should use wisely and preserve for the benefits of the future generations. We must not view the endowment as a free resource from which we should take as much as we can.  (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)

Facts about the endowment: 
A common misconception is that the endowment is like a checking account and Harvard can use its funds however it pleases. In reality, over 80% of the endowment is restricted, meaning various funds that constitute the endowment can only be used for the specific purposes specified by donors. If used outside the specified purposes, the donors can take back their money. In addition, it is only the return on the investment of the funds that can be generally used, not the principal.  (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Collective bargaining enables us to reach fairest balance between available resources and the value of the vital work we perform at Harvard
In both public and private universities, there can be constraints that limit the increases we negotiate. However, the administration can currently make these determinations unilaterally.

With a union, we will sit across the table from the admins and negotiate over these changes, while taking into consideration details such as the performance of the endowment. Having a union simply gives us a direct voice in these decisions, which has led to improvements at many other universities across the country with similar fluctuating constraints.

Bargaining can also enable us to ensure that Harvard does not irrationally impose limits in places where it is unnecessary.  For example, last year when Harvard cut the PhD worker pay increase in half due to endowment performance, it applied the lower pay increase even to STEM RAs whose funding has no connection to the endowment.  At UW, by contrast, the contract ensures the flexibility for academic units with sufficient grant funding to increase pay as much as they want – the “departmental increase” – in order to remain competitive.

Union Effectiveness and Voice on Campus

Low chance of effective strikes and weak union:
Though individual students can choose whether or not to participate in a strike, most students will not because of many potential significant negative consequences to them. First, the affected PI or course instructor is free to hire permanent replacements (such as undergraduate students, other graduate students, and teaching adjuncts) for students who are striking, in which case the students will no longer have their jobs after the strike. Second, the University may stop paying wages and other benefits such as healthcare and tuition reimbursement to striking students. Third, in a prolonged strike, research assistants in the sciences may be put in poor academic standing, which may eventually lead to termination from their academic programs. Due to these reasons, almost all students are not likely to participate in a strike which leaves the union powerless at the negotiating table, which then calls into question why we should have a union in the first place. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
UAW academic workers have negotiated strong contracts through a variety of campaign tactics
In addition, with a union, international student will have a stronger political voice around these kinds of issues. For example, the UAW has fought back against the travel ban, helped defeat the grad tax, and protected the OPT.
In recent contract campaigns by graduate workers at UW and NYU, as well as postdocs at UC, majority strike authorization votes and strike preparations clearly helped reach agreement on strong contracts. But even at UConn, where it is unlawful to strike, graduate workers used a variety of methods—community pressure, creative bargaining strategies and direct action like sit-ins—to negotiate major improvements in their first contract in 2015. At all three of these institutions, a majority of the entire workforce voted to approve the final contract.
We have also seen here at Harvard that we can accomplish a lot through methods other than striking, such as our successful work on the travel ban and tuition tax.
Institutional progress and changes are possible through traditional means of student advocacy:
During my study at the University, I have witnessed many instances where the traditional means of student advocacy accomplished much that improved the lives of students. For example, as a member of Physics Graduate Student Council, I contributed to creating a maternity room in my department and increasing awareness of and addressing mental health issues by conducting surveys, identifying actionable items, and presenting the results to the faculty. I have more faith in an incremental approach to complex problems that relies on community consensus building and careful consideration of various elements of the problems than the HGSU-UAW’s political economic approach of painting the University as an enemy from whom we should seek justice through a union. (Against HGSU-UAW, 3/31/2018)
Having a union and collective bargaining provides more power and stability and does not presume Harvard is an “enemy”
While we can achieve some gains without a union, collective bargaining provides a more consistently democratic process and the unique power to negotiate a binding agreement that Harvard cannot change without our consent.  At other UAW academic institutions, all of which had non-union advocacy previously, majorities of graduate workers and postdocs have approved important gains in numerous areas ranging from compensation and benefits to workplace rights that were only achieved through collective bargaining. Collective bargaining also enables access to critical information that can help negotiate improvements without costing extra money.  At UConn, for example, the union used detailed data and close work with UAW experts to negotiate dramatically-improved health insurance coverage without increasing premium costs after years of University unilateral administration leading to higher premiums and reduced benefits.

Read More

Contact us

  • (617) 475-0677
  • general@hgsu.org
  • 552 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 209 Cambridge, MA 02139

Useful links

Newsletter

Social Media

Twitter Instagram Facebook-f Tiktok
Copyright © 2021 HGSU-UAW. All rights reserved.