Boss Harvard

Several years out from the worst economic crisis in a generation, Harvard and the unions that represent workers on campus have struggled through some of the longest negotiations in the unions’ history as they attempt to define a new era of labor relations.

Members and supporters of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers—which represents more than 4,600 members of Harvard’s non-faculty staff—stood out in front of Massachusetts Hall twice a week beginning in January to advance their cause, and the union held its first rally ever in Memorial Church in March.

Although both HUCTW and the University eventually expressed satisfaction with the settlement they reached in March, union leaders said that there are significant issues like health care that remain unresolved.

In the wake of these difficult discussions, University employees have raised concerns over the nature of Harvard’s approach to labor relations after the financial crisis.

GOOD, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Despite difficult negotiations, workers seem generally satisfied with Harvard as an employer. In an employee engagement survey administered by the University at the end of 2011, all of Harvard’s schools scored at or above the “best employer” range, according to Marilyn Hausammann, vice president for human resources.

And Harvard Labor Relations Director Bill Murphy said that the University provides benefits that cannot be found elsewhere.

“For our lowest wage earners working together with the unions we have healthcare benefits available for people with 16 hours of employment. There’s no employer in the area that matches that threshold,” Murphy said. He also said that Harvard is the top-paying employer of campus police in the area.

Hausammann added that in terms of salaries, Harvard compensates close to or more than local universities, other Ivy League universities, and local employers, and during HUCTW negotiations, University officials cited the fact that Harvard ranked in the 75th percentile for the average compensation for those workers compared to large employers in the Northeast.

But HUCTW director Bill Jaeger criticized the University’s standards.

“[HUCTW workers] said, ‘Show me one other measurement in which Harvard would be happy to be at the 75th percentile compared to other universities. Any measure—literally anything,’” Jaeger said. “Education doesn’t work right and research doesn’t work right in our experience unless we have a terrific staff, better than the 75 percentile in terms of skills and effort.”

And while University employees make near or above market wages, union officials said that these rates do not provide workers with appropriate financial security.

“$40,000 is not a lifestyle that encourages people to be home with their families,” said Wayne M. Langley, director of higher education for SEIU Local 615, the union that represents Harvard custodial workers. “It’s a low enough salary that there is hardship, and the question is if Harvard has the wherewithal to eliminate that hardship.”

AN UNCERTAIN RECOVERY

When the financial crisis struck in 2008, Harvard’s endowment dropped by $11 billion between June 2008 and June 2009.

Jaeger said that HUCTW’s 2010 negotiations immediately following the recession were fairly straightforward. “At that point I think everybody was struggling in the most basic ways of how are we going to cope with the huge loss of value in the endowment,” he said.

Last year’s negotiations, however, “turned out to be much harder,” Jaeger said. He attributed the difficulty in part to what he called “a mixed economic picture.”

This uncertainty lay at the heart of the negotiations as the administration and unions disputed the extent to which Harvard is still recovering from the recession.

Jaeger recalled one of the more difficult meetings of the year, in which he said the phrases “terrified” and “scared to death” were used in descriptions of the University’s economic future.

“We just thought that was hyperbolic,” Jaeger said. “Yes it’s a more complex time and more volatile than six or seven years ago but the University is making bold confident plans with regard to a number of key challenging areas and the University can make a confident plan with regard to the employee part of the model also.”

According to John T. Trumpbour, research director at the Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program, although Harvard lost money during the recession, the University has since recovered.

On the other hand, S. Paul Reville, former Massachusetts Secretary of Education and a professor at the Graduate School of Education, said that Harvard is not alone among universities in striving to keep costs down in the current economic climate.

“Higher education continues to struggle against rising costs and an inflation for the cost of education that tends to exceed the cost of living generally,” he said. “The institutions are number one, coping with the recession still and, number two, trying to control costs and not trying to pass along burden to students.”

Murphy said that not only has the endowment suffered under a volatile market, but other revenue sources have shrunk as well, including tuition, for-profit executive education program revenues, and government funding.

“It felt like we were unconstrained financially [before the recession] and then the bottom fell out around the world,” Hausammann said. “That has made us alert to the fact that we have to make choices, make investments, and make trade offs.”

Yet despite the more complicated financial picture, Murphy maintained that Harvard is a “very progressive employer.” According to Murphy, the typical wage increase in the area in the current economic environment is 2.5 percent, and the University has consistently negotiated raises of between 2.5 to three percent.

HUCTW’s recently negotiated contract includes a first year 3.4 percent retroactive wage increase for the typical HUCTW employee with at least one year of service.

MAXIMIZING THE MISSION

But even with Harvard’s above-market compensation, some argue that Harvard’s status as a tax-exempt non-profit requires that it be held to a higher labor standard.

“When an institution does get a tax break...they do have a little bit more of a community obligation than a corporation,” Trumpbour said. “The danger is when a university becomes dismissive of its community obligations.”

Daniel Meagher, the president of the Harvard University Security, Parking, and Museum Guard Union said that the tension Harvard is experiencing—between the corporate model and its progressive, liberal identity—is one that is currently playing out all across the country.

Meagher argued that while the University frequently cites the standards set by the market during negotiations, it is the “social, political, and economic environment of Harvard,” specifically, that matters.

Referencing the health care benefits requested by the unions, Jaeger said that the University has a responsibility to be an innovative employer.

“We’re well aware, eyes wide open, that we’re asking Harvard in the health care area to do things that are really unusually progressive and innovative. And we think that’s exactly right,” Jaeger said.

Still, Hausammann said that the University’s non-profit status does not make it immune to consideration of the financial implications of its decisions.

“Considering economic factors isn’t at odds with being a non-profit,” she said. “We are fortunate not to be limited by quarterly results or shareholder demands, and that means that we need to be focusing on maintaining our ability to provide education, research, etc. for the years to come.”

Others agreed that the need to fund cutting-edge research and maintain a high quality of scholarship is just as important an element of Harvard’s financial commitment as supporting its staff. “I think we’re maximizing our ability to fulfill [Harvard’s] mission,” Murphy said. “Every dollar that goes towards the lab might be [toward] that lab that cures cancer.”

A NEW NORMAL?

After the lengthy and difficult negotiations with HUCTW this year, many unions have voiced concerns that future labor relations at Harvard will prove just as difficult.

“The big question at stake in our 2012 issues, or one of them that’s still being played out in other negotiations going on right now, is what is the new normal really going to be?” Jaeger said.

For Langley, the new normal promises contention. He stressed that Harvard’s progressive labor practices emerged only after concentrated effort from unions and the wider Harvard community. “In the future, we will have to fight harder to maintain those standards,” he said.

Jaeger said that during the negotiations, it became clear that uncertainty about Harvard’s future as an employer is rooted within the administration itself.

“I think there’s at least some confusion in senior administrative circles about what sort of employer Harvard is trying to be,” he said.

Yet Murphy maintained that although the two sides may disagree, the administration and the union leaders have strong, longstanding relationships that will enable them to deal with the difficult problems that need to be resolved.

—Staff writer Christine Y. Cahill can be reached at christinecahill@college.harvard.edu. Follow her on Twitter @cycahill16.

—Staff writer Dev A. Patel can be reached at devpatel@college.harvard.edu. Follow him on Twitter @dev_a_patel.