Harvard Takes Less than Casual Approach to Its Casual Labor Abuses

Back in the spring of 1998, Bill Jaeger, director of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW), was worried.

Jaeger had always heard stories about "casual" employees--workers theoretically hired to work on a part-time basis for a three-month stint--actually working as full-time employees. They kept their "casual" status and received low wages and no benefits.

When the number of HUCTW members coming to union leaders with stories about abuses of the "casual" system increased, Jaeger, along with other HUCTW officials, decided to push the issue with the University.

Nearly a year and a half later, the University has done something somewhat out of line with typical Harvard protocol--they admitted they made a mistake in their handling of casual workers.

While the details of a final agreement between the University and HUCTW are being pounded out, a deal appears imminent where the University will agree to convert 400 to 500 current casual employees onto its full-time payroll.

Identifying the Problem

A casual employee is classified as any employee who works less than 17.5 hours a week or for less than three months. They typically receive no benefits, lesser pay and have little job security.

In July, Harvard made the first indication that it was trying to fix past errors when it issued a joint statement with HUCTW.

While the language was carefully worded, the University admitted that mistakes had been made on its application of the casual-worker policy. The unprecedented statement used words such as "inadvertently," "errors" and "correction."

HUCTW, which issued its own statement the next week, was a little more blunt in taking on the moral repurcussions of Harvard's "errors."

"Some members of the Harvard community are being treated unfairly," it read. "We cannot look the other way without perpetuating the problem of working poverty."

At the time, 41 former casual employees had already been converted over to the regular payroll.

Making a Deal

Throughout the summer, negotiations between the two sides occurred on a weekly basis.

"A key group of University leaders awoke from a slumber about this issue.

We were a little frustrated that we had to tap them on the shoulder for more than a year to rouse them," Jaeger says.

"But at the same time, it's gratifying that our discussions are going so well."

"This is some of the best progress we have ever had in terms of working together well and facing a problem squarely," Jaeger says.

Harvard's General Counsel Anne Taylor took a prominent role in the negotiations when Director of Labor Relations Kim A. Roberts '78 was forced to take a medical leave of absence over the summer.

While Taylor was cautious about commenting during negotiations, she wrote in a recent e-mail message that she is hopeful that a resolution will be reached soon.

Even President Neil L. Rudenstine took the unusual step of writing personal letters to the heads of Harvard's individual schools asking them to comply to University guidelines and cut short any personal obligations to attend the high-level meetings.

Reasons for Action

Ultimately, several factors seem to have forced the University into action.

While the Living Wage Campaign was not directly advocating for casual employees, their mantra of $10-an-hour for all Harvard employees and their very public Mass. Hall rallies helped put the spotlight on Harvard's often overlooked workers.

And HUCTW's influence likely also put pressure on the University. With 3,600 workers organized, union officials say it is a powerful force on campus.

"We have a long history of raising serious issues and continuing to

raise them until the discussions start and are resolved and not giving

up," says Donene M. Williams, HUCTW treasurer.

Finally, Rudenstine's actions may have something to do with the fear of the unfriendly public spotlight and all-too friendly litigation lawyers that could fall on Harvard if the problem gets worse. HUCTW officials say they used these points to influence the University.

"There are some philosophical and moral questions imbedded in it which any reasonable person would care a lot about, but also it's an area where the University has some vulnerability to being sued and being shamed," Jaeger says.

Deal Near

Since negotiations have accelerated over the summer months, both HUCTW and University officials have been optimistic about reaching an agreement this fall. And while a deal seems likely to come in the next few weeks, there are some large obstacles still in the way.

The largest concern right now is the idea of retroactive compensation for the casual workers who will be transferred to the full-time payroll and exactly what their financial compensation should be for past wages and benefits, Jaeger says.

Other roadblocks include the fact that despite the University's attempts at centralization, the employment records of many of Harvard's schools still aren't well coordinated, union and University officials say.

"There are thousands of people whose casual employment records have to be reviewed and, by definition, their casual employment is erratic," Jaeger says.

Yet, even now as HUCTW and Harvard pound out the details of a final agreement, there still remain questions for the union on the exact role of casual employment.

Jaeger says he feels the union will still have to keep a careful eye on the various schools and whether they continue to remain kosher on casual guidelines. Yet, Jaeger even questions the nature of the casual payroll and its potential for injustice.

"Somebody could be on the casual payroll for 15 hours a week for 20 years

in some very regular role. That's not a violation of long-term University

policy," he says. "But it's absolutely horrible from our point of view and it's a really hideous employment practice."