Reconstructing Harvard's Labor Relations

A few years ago, in the depths of the recession, Harvard was faced with the prospect of a massive, complicated project: renovating all 16 first-year dorms.

The project was long overdue, as the dorms, though livable, were in serious need of improvements to resolve structural and aesthetic problems. Given only the summer months during which no students inhabited the dorms, the time constraints were formidable.

"Harvard had to do the renovations on a very tight time schedule," says Lamont University Professor Emeritus John T. Dunlop, who mediated the agreement. "You can't have trouble on the job and have the freshman class camped out for a week."

At the same time, the bottom had fallen out of the Massachusetts construction business in the late 1980s with the crash of the real estate market. Construction workers, who had thrived with the real estate boom, were suddenly unemployed in massive numbers.

Harvard needed a way to meet both the construction unions' desire for a good job and the University's desire for fast, quality work at a decent price for an institution also feeling the pinch of the recession.

Enter the $80 million Project Labor Agreement of 1992. The agreement set a standard for the Yard renovations that satisfied the needs of both labor and management.

However, on projects outside the Yard, even just across Massachusetts Avenue, labor unions charge, Harvard has chosen not to follow the spirit of the agreement. To some extent, the University's essentially autonomous schools continue their policies of usually taking the lowest bid, union label or no, the unions charge.

Area unions accuse Harvard of neglecting its responsibility to the community by hiring substandard labor at cheap prices. Planning officials, on the other hand, say that they want to encourage savings and they don't want to interfere with various schools' hiring policies.

Across the University, a loose framework for hiring, justified by a pursuit for "efficiency," has irked these union workers, who thought they had turned the corner in negotiating jobs with the University.

Under the Project Labor Agreement, Harvard agreed that all work done on the dorms (and on Holyoke Center) would be done by union labor.

In return, Harvard asked for several concessions: The unions forfeit their right to strike or protest the work; union workers also give up the increase in wages usually paid on night shifts; and, among other concessions, workers take a 10 percent pay cut on all renovation work covered by the pact.

The agreement has few detractors on either side. "It brings jobs in with more certain savings," says Kristen S. Demong, head of Harvard Real Estate, which is managing the renovation of Holyoke Center. "It's nice to have balancing partnerships."

David P. Tamborella, a member of the Carpenters' Union Local 40, says the benefits go both ways. "Harvard gets a good deal. So do we, because it keeps us working. We have to keep working--times are tough right now."

The differences between labor and management stem, however, from one key phrase frequently repeated in the document: "work covered by this agreement."

To date, five additional renovation jobs and one construction job, the new Hillel building, have been tacked on to the agreement one by one. But no attempt has been made to expand the agreement University-wide to establish a set of stricter hiring standards.

"Harvard promised some time ago that the Project Labor Agreement would be the precursor to a larger discussion of University-wide discretion on the hiring process," says Mark L. Ehrlich, business manager of Local 40. "To date, that hasn't really happened."

"We signed the Project Labor Agreement...because we were eager to get the freshman dorms," says Joe Power, a member of Local 40. "Many of us thought we were signing for all of the work done at Harvard."

Currently, Harvard Real Estate, the central administration departments, affiliated institutions such as museums and each of the ten separate schools of the University all set independent guidelines for hiring labor. Only projects costing $50,000 or above must file paperwork with the University's central planning office.

Most, though do not attempt to set up a comprehensive set of standards required of contractors that goes beyond the law. As long as each school follows the letter of the law and obtains the approval of the budget office and in cases of debt-financed projects or work above a certain price, the approval of the Corporation, they are allowed a great deal of leeway in the manner in which they obtain construction work.

Robert W. Gewecke, director of fiscal and administrative services for the Graduate School of Education, says his school does not look at whether a contracting firm is union or non-union when considering bids.

"We put out to bid everything over $5,000," he says. "The low bidder always gets it, except in some extenuating circumstances--if the low bidder did a poor job last time, for example."

Methods at the Kennedy School of Government are a bit different, according to Steven R. Singer, the school's director of communications and public affairs.

"Our priorities are quality and price. We don't automatically take the lowest bid," Singer says. "Major stuff tends to be union."

The Medical School's system is more complex. A small number of pre-screened contractors are usually used for small jobs, says Ann L. Schwind, associate dean for planning and corporate relations.

Larger jobs are put out to bid, she says. "Price is important but I wouldn't say that price is all-important," she says. "Whenever possible, we try to bid it because the market condition is so good--there's almost no construction work."

Both Harvard and area unions are acutely aware of this last fact. The recession that has made the labor market attractive to Harvard has also tightened construction budgets. Harvard administrators and union leaders are all watching their wallets.

"I think Harvard is seeing an opportunity and is getting some quality work out of it," says Claude J. LeBlanc, general supervisor for construction on the new Hillel building. "I don't think Harvard is being hurt by it."

Administrators contend, however, that even without any set of hard and fast regulations, the construction labor used by the University is very frequently from unions. "Ninety percent of our total dollar volume is spent on union labor," says David A. Zewinski senior vice president for property operations and construction.

Many union members, however, feel the University is taking advantage of the high unemployment in the Massachusetts construction industry to make the unions bow to the will of Harvard.

Some say that Harvard is noticeably hiring more non-union labor to do jobs, such as the rewiring of the Biological Laboratories.

"We feel like we're doing our part with the Project Labor Agreement," Power says. "It's kind of rubbing our face in it to have non-union labor working close to us."

Members say they feel betrayed by Harvard in some ways. "The Project Labor Agreement assures us more work and gives them a better price," says James M. Sharp, carpenter steward at the Hillel construction site.. "We try to bargain faithfully--I don't see it as so faithful on Harvard's part."

Union members further charge that equating union work with non-union work in terms of bidding price is deceptive. The additional wages paid to union members, they say, translate into better work and more efficient workplaces due to greater training by the union contractors.

"They will get better quality if they just hire union workers," says Bernadette Dixon, another member of Local 40. "I think they get less quality if they hire non-union workers. There are problems in the long run."

Some administrators disagree, saying that Harvard usually hires unions for jobs requiring more experience.

"I can't really tell you I've noticed any difference between union and non-union labor," says Zewinski. "Harvard hires contractors who know what they're doing."

Zewinski's first opinion is not borne out by an extensive nationwide study of union labor and productivity published in 1987.

The report's author, Steven G. Allen, a professor of economics at North Carolina State University, says that on private sector projects of more than 100,000 square feet, the productivity of union labor was 30 per cent higher than non-union labor, and productivity published in 1987.

It's hard to pin down the precise some of this--but if you talk to the people in the industry, they'll tell you it's the training of workers," he says.

Therefore, union members say, asking unions to compete on a perfectly equal basis with non-union firms for bids does not take the whole picture into account.

University officials, though, says that the unions can be more competitive in their pricing and must realize that management as well as unions are feeling a financial pinch.

"I think there have been some signal sent by some of the contractors in the area that they need to have a more progressive attitude in the unions toward competition Zewinski says.

"We want the flexibility of bidding with union and non-union firms," Demong why. "We make sure we get quality balanced with savings."

Union leaders say that kind of bidding process is unfair.

"Because non-union contractors by and large do not pay the same kind of benefits other people pay, we don't have a level playing field," says Power.

"Non-union firms [typically] offer very little in terms of benefits," says Sharp. "The working conditions are unsafe and, depending on how closely they are supervised they'll go as far as non-payment of wages.

Union members say they can understand Harvard's attempt to save money in a time where are tight. They say, however that Harvard does not act in a vacuum. As major supplier of construction and renovation work and as the nation's most well-known university, Harvard, they say must realize that it sets a precedent for others to follow.

"The perception of a lot of members is that here's Harvard, the richest University in the world, getting 90 percent of going wages and still using non-union labor," says Ehrlich.

Administrators respond that Harvard must also consider the needs of its community to keep down prices and use smaller contractors. "We have a responsibility to the community and to small businesses." Zewinski says, arguing that Harvard should try to at least look for the lowest bid.

In fact, say administrators, using non-union labor often means supporting newer area contractors who are struggling to get on their feet. And a number of the smaller firms are minority-owned, administrators say, though union members contend that affirmative action programs are a benefit of union labor. "There are good non-union firms and employers out there," Demong says.

Thomas E. Vautin, director of facilities maintenance for the University, says Harvard will most likely never hire 100 percent union labor. "Many projects the University does are small jobs, which are often performed better by small firms sometimes minority-owned businesses," he says.

Harvard officials charge that often the call for standards is, in actuality, a call for exclusion of non-union labor, not one for tougher requirements.

After all, say administrators, the first priority of unions is to procure work for their members. "The unions...try to get as many people hired as possible," says Zewinski. "We're a big target we're highly visible, so it's easy to get their point across."

Union members deny the charge. Administrators are being extremely vague themselves, they say, in mentioning often that Harvard could benefit from more coordinated standards without taking any action.

The Cambridge Jobs Policy Commission has endorsed certain minimum standards for construction projects in the area: Aside from the legally required wage rate, workers compensation rates and employee classification, the commission also wants contractors to provide health insurance for their employees and to be affiliated with a state certified apprenticeship training program.

Most union members question the ability of non-union companies to provide these benefits and still command prices significantly lower than the ones offered by the unions. But it firms can follow these guidelines union leaders, then they can live with the results.

"It seems like a reasonably minimum set of standards. It non-union contractors can do these and can still outbid unions, then they're not the devil. I would prefer to see everything union, but I would like to see standards," says Ehrlich.

Many administrators admit, as Acting Director of the Office of Physical Resource in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael N. Pichterr does, that Harvard could profit form analyzing and judging the standards used for contracting and hiring on campus.

"It probably would be good to have a set of guidelines," says Lichten. "The problem is getting them so they can be applied everywhere."

Zewinski says he has considered taking a more critical view of the companies hired by his department. "I think there is a greater need of review of some firm's business practice," he says.

Provost Jerry R. Green says the University should be a role model, but not Big Brother.

As a practical matter, we really can't be involved in the labor practices of our own vendors," he says. "We'd be micro-managing other companies."

Dunlop says he doubts extending standards would result in micro-management.

In fact, Dunlop, who has a long history of dealing with labor affairs for both Harvard and national administrations, says he supports some type of University-wide policy.

"I've been advocating that for a long time," he says. "The idea is coming to be recognized in some businesses--I have often suggested to the University when they have asked me."

Dunlop says the University is quite capable of instituting standards. "There are all kinds of University standards. They must comply with federal standards for health and safety in the workplace. The IRS has standards."

And if the University does not take some action on the matter, says Dunlop, the matter may be taken out of its hands--especially under a national administration with a labor-sympathetic secretary of labor.

"All contracts say the contractor must agree to comply with all labor laws," he says. "The question is whether the University wishes to impose further standards on others where not required by statute. Failure to do so voluntarily will encourage more government standards."

'We try to bargain faithfully--I don't see it as so faithful on Harvard's part.' JAMES M. SHARP CARPENTERS UNION