Harvard's Quest For Cheap Labor

Last week, Harvard's union of custodial workers, Local 254, approved a new three-year contract with the University. Both the contract and its approval process raise troubling questions about Harvard's unions and their future relationships with the University. The approval of the new contract also demonstrates how in an era of downsizing and corporate cost-cutting, it is increasingly difficult for unions to secure living wages for their members.

The new contract provides few advantages for the members of Local 254. It freezes wages for the first 20 months of its duration. It also cuts vacation time and slashes sick pay. The new pact does offer employees a short-term disability plan, and upgrades benefits for part-time employees. But while current union members will not see their pay decrease, new employees will be hired at significantly lower wages. New full-time custodians and supply room employees will only earn $8.57 per hour.

The approval process for this contract has generated many complaints from Local 254 members. Some union members claimed that they were only given 45 minutes to read and discuss a four-page summary of the contract before they were forced to vacate Science Center B to accommodate a Harvard class. Many said that negotiations had been conducted without their input and that the union had failed to give them enough information about the contract before they had to vote on it. In fact, some workers are so disgruntled that they plan to file a grievance against Local 254 with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that the union did not represent them in good faith.

It appears that Local 254 may not have represented its members very well. However, an even larger problem is that the union probably did not have much leverage to use in bargaining with the University. Timothy R. Manning, Harvard's director of labor relations, claimed that the new contract is intended to bring Harvard's custodial workers in line with market prices. Outside contractors have been competing with Harvard's unionized custodians, and in the past several years, many individual schools and departments within the University have hired outside companies. Competition with outside contractors pressured Local 254 to accept wage decreases for new employees. Manning claimed that the new contract was an attempt to "treat people fairly as an alternative to hiring outside people."

Harvard's labor practices are especially important because the University is the fourth largest employer in Massachusetts and the largest employer in Cambridge. And while we appreciate the University's attempts to control costs in an era of exponentially exploding tuition prices, we wonder about the ramifications of current trends in the job market. As the power and influence of unions wanes in the face of competition with cheap labor at home and abroad, many workers are forced to accept increasingly less generous contracts. As in the new Local 254 contract, older workers are offered more attractive early retirement plans to make room for new employees who will be paid far less? It's no wonder that income inequality is steadily increasing in America, and that many hard-working people are forced to work harder for less pay and benefits.

Most Harvard students, however, are on the other side of this equation. The education and skills they acquire here will give them access to jobs offering astronomical salaries and exceptional job security. Yet, they should not forget about the millions of underpaid Americans who often facilitate their success. Harvard students should not only insist that the University pay a living wage to all of its employees; when they leave the ivory tower, they should strive to become the kind of managers and employers who value the living standards of their employees more than remaining slavishly devoted to the bottom line.