Have Pity on the Working Man

On a beautiful spring afternoon this May, a handful of student activists colored a banner proclaiming "Contract Now" while the security guards they were fighting for watched from the crowd.

Although their rally was organized by the Living Wage Campaign, the demonstrators did not call for a $10 minimum wage--most security guards already earn more than $10 an hour--but instead focused on the issue of the University's negotiating tactics with its unions.

Unions charge that with the University's $13 billion and growing endowment, workers should share the wealth as members of the Harvard community. The world's richest university has a "moral obligation" to its employees, according to Steve G. McCombe, president of the Harvard University Security, Parking and Museum Guards Union.

The security guards and several other unions charge that Harvard has failed this moral test, using the threat of outsourcing jobs to weaken workers' bargaining power and force them to accept reduced benefits.

But University officials counter that their behavior is dictated by economic realities and hardly unusual. Labor experts agree--Harvard's accustomed tactics are legal and even typical for a business of its size.

And so those who still condemn Harvard's negotiating tactics say that the University should be held to an even higher standard As a non-profit organization, as a research University, as a gateway to the company of educated men and women, they say it has a responsibility to do more than is required by law or the economy.

254 Down the Drain

Nearly three years after signing a contract with Harvard, Local 254 of the Service Employees International Union, which includes much of Harvard's janitorial staff, remains bitter about the results.

In the 1996 contract, the union lost vacation time, lost seventh day double pay, lost the security that comes with seniority, and saw many of its other benefits reduced.

Local 254 officials and Harvard negotiators would not speak publicly about the negotiation process. Allegations abounded that the union's leadership was too disorganized to negotiate effectively or was too cozy with the Harvard administration.

But other Harvard unions speculate that 254 accepted such a bargain because the alternative was losing their jobs due to outsourcing.

"We went into this meeting [in September 1996, after a period of unsuccessful negotiations], and the union told us that we could all be out of jobs," says a long-time 254 employee. "The University has been threatening to outsource jobs for years."

And now workers say they are stuck with a deal no one likes.

"We used to have 15 sick days, the University took five days off, now we only have 10," a 254 worker in the Science Center says. "I know some custodians who used to take a month off. Now they have two weeks."

Sold Down the River

McCombe's security guards union split from 254 before the deal was signed. The break was due to problems with union certification, but guards say they were glad to avoid 254's cuts in benefits.

"I still got the benefits I had three years ago. If I had stayed with 254, I wouldn't have anything," says security guard Ernie Duarte. "[254] got sold down the river."

The guards have been operating without a contract for the past three years. They last signed a contract in 1992, which expired in 1995 and was renewed for one year. Since then, they have been operating with the same wages and benefits package.

McCombe, who wears a black Russian hat with an off-kilter security guard emblem, says he believes that the University has been unreasonably slow in its negotiating tactics. He jokes, but only partially, that the "S" on his hat stands for security and not slave.

Duarte, who is 32, has been working for Harvard for about ten years. He makes $11.97 an hour, which he says forces him to "live week to week."

"We've had the same benefits since 1992," says Joe Beck, a security guard. "We haven't gained, we haven't lost."

But compared to 254, the guards say they still consider this a victory.

Size Matters

The Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) with 3,700 members, dwarfs Local 254 along with every other union on campus.

McCombe's union has 130 members, and 254 has about 300.

While HUCTW now stands as a shining example of how Harvard has successfully negotiated with its unions so that both people on each side of the bargaining table are happy, its current negotiating success, in many ways, can be attributed to its size which gives it great negotiating leverage.

"It's easier for us to deal with the University because it's harder for them to threaten to outsource all its clerical and technical workers," says Donene M. Williams, past president for nine years and current treasurer of HUCTW.

HUCTW's negotiating advantages were apparent during a 1996 fight over health benefits. The University tried to make part-time workers pay double what they had for the same health benefits.

HUCTW struck back with a fall of constant demonstrations, beginning with an Oct. 30 Halloween "spooky" rally where members wore masks of then University Provost Albert Carnesale.

Their protests continued with a candle-light vigil outside of University President Neil L. Rudenstine's house around Christmas. In the end, HUCTW won, and the University was forced to give the same benefits to all of Harvard's other unions.

"I have watched other negotiations and seen other negotiators be threatened to have their jobs contracted out," says Williams. "That's why we try to stick together; they try to push unions around."

It's the Economy

Harvard counters the unions' charges by pointing out that Harvard workers are, in fact, treated very well compared to similarly skilled workers outside of the University.

"We're looking at 1999," says University spokesperson Joe Wrinn. "Attempts are being made to bring the unions more into line with economic reality in the ballpark of what the market is willing to pay for these services."

Furthermore, Wrinn says, by signing the contract a union acknowledges that Harvard negotiated in good faith.

"Through collective bargaining agreements the unions have agreed to contracts they have," he says. "We assume that's a symbol of fairness and equity in negotiations."

Wrinn says Harvard cannot allow worker demands to override the mission of the University.

"Harvard regards employees as support for the mission of the University," he says. "There's a balance that goes on between the mission of the University in teaching and education and the support services that go into that."

Under Investigation

Still, to answer complaints about the lack of a $10 "living wage" for all Harvard employees, the University recently appointed an ad hoc Faculty committee which could examine the tactic of using outsourcing as a way to leverage small unions.

"We are concerned with the casual payroll, living wage issue and its context," says committee chair D. Quinn Mills, who is the Weatherhead professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School. "We are looking at the casual payroll in context of the overall University payroll, so I assume the answer is yes [the committee will examine the unions]."

The charge to the committee is sufficiently broad to include investigations of Harvard's unions and their relation to outside economic forces.

"The charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on Employment Policies is to review the University's current policies with regard to this contingent workforce, and to make recommendations as necessary," the official University mandate reads. "The focus will be on data and analysis including demographics, total compensation, and types of jobs in light of Harvard's existing policies and the relevant external markets."

The committee, however, is still in its earliest stages and has not yet met with the union representatives.

"We are starting to arrange meeting with one of the unions, but that has not yet occurred," Mills says.

The Law

According to Scott F. Burson, a supervisory attorney of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of Boston, it is very difficult for unions to prove legally that Harvard has negotiated in "bad faith," the standard for government intervention.

"The same law applies to the University as applies to other employers," Burson says. "They're not held to higher standard, and not held to a lower standard either."

Burson, who handles complaints filed against Harvard, says three charges have recently been levied against Harvard, two by the guard union in April and May of this year, and one by HUCTW in April.

He says Harvard's claims that the market justifies the terms of their agreement with unions hold up well to legal scrutiny.

"Very few proposals, just on their face, would be indicative of bad faith," Burson-says. "Any proposal for which there is a strong economic justification [is] extremely unlikely [to be] in bad faith."

Outsourcing, or hiring sub-contracted workers for less money, is an economically justified tactic, according to Burson.

"An employer can tell a union that they can accomplish the same job with less money; they can use it as a bargaining tool," he says. "They are empowered; they can then go implement [outsourcing]."

Furthermore, Burson says negotiations do not necessarily have to involve a give-and-take process--it is possible for one party to refuse to alter its demands.

"The law explicitly says one party can refuse to make concessions and still be bargaining in good faith," he says.

In addition to the three charges filed against Harvard in recent months, Burson has records of seven other charges, extending back to 1994, which have either been resolved or deferred to arbitration.

Burson says this number is not unusual for any large business.

"This is not atypical of the sorts of cases we see of any large organized employer," he says.

Ask the Experts

Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations (SILS) is perhaps the nation's premier center for the study of labor relations. SILS Professor of American Labor History Clete E. Daniel says universities as a whole conduct their relationship with their employees on a hypocritical level.

"Universities have a sense of being special as employers, but their conduct belies that idea," he says. "Universities don't take it very easy in bargaining. They bargain in a very hard-nosed way."

Ultimately universities see themselves as business operations, according to Clete, which threatens the ideal conception of the university as a community based on unified educational and humanitarian ideals. "These universities increasingly take on the feeling of corporations," Clete says. "There is not a hell of a lot of evidence that forms a difference between a university and an employer."

Clete says Harvard is no exception to this trend. He says he is not surprised by Harvard's attempts to try to bring Local 254 contract more into "market" value or alter HUCTW's health benefits.

However, he does say he was surprised by Harvard's decision to finally stop fighting after HUCTW refused to accept the new contract.

"Harvard will try to get away with it but will back away when the cost becomes too high," he says.

A Higher Standard?

James A. Gross, a colleague of Clete's at SILS who recently wrote a four-volume history chronicling labor relationships stemming from the 1935 Wagner Act, says the issue is larger than if Harvard is merely playing within the legal boundaries.

"They should be held to a higher standard than GM or Bethlehem Steel," he says. "It's supposed to be an organization which is not profit-motivated."

And for Gross, Harvard's tendency to see itself simply as an employer, although entirely legal, is a moral failure for the greater goals of the University.

"My point is that even if they're operating within the boundaries...it's lawful, but it's immoral," he says. "Is that what Harvard is about?"

Many Harvard workers agree, saying they see no reason why those who worked for the University should be excluded form its prosperity.

"I don't think it treats us fairly at all," Duarte says. "Upper management makes extremely big salaries and they're the same people that are telling us we're making too much an hour. Harvard is a bunch of hypocrites."

"You can't force Harvard to move," he adds. "It moves when it wants to, which is a damn shame. Because when it wants you to move, you hup-to."

Beck says Harvard is to be blamed for the guards' stalled contract negotiations, not the union.

"It's not the unions that are apathetic. It's Harvard that's apathetic in dealing with the unions," he says. "Harvard has no sense of urgency. It moves on its own time."

With contract negotiations at an impasse, members of the guard union say they are worried about the threat of outsourcing, as several graduate schools have recently turned to sub-contracted security guards.

"We're wondering what Harvard's next move will be," McCombe says. "These guys are worried about their jobs."

And union members say that this "typical" situation should not be permitted at a university with the money and moral stature of Harvard.

"Obviously, Harvard exists as a teaching and research institution and it wasn't founded to merely create jobs in Cambridge. But if you take one of the many spokes of the wheel out, it would not be as effective," Williams says. "We can't just say Harvard exists purely as a teaching and research organization, but also as an employer, a landlord and a neighbor."