Striking a Deal

UPDATED: Oct. 31, 2016, at 10:11 a.m.

Over the course of 22 days, Harvard’s dining hall workers staged an historic strike in order to demand increased wages and a more affordable health care plan than the University initially proposed. The strike itself was the culmination of a months-long ordeal during which the administration and the dining staff’s representative union, UNITE HERE Local 26, negotiated a new contract that would fulfill several specific demands from the dining hall employees. The final deal provided summer stipends—bringing full-time employees willing to work year round to an annual salary of at least $35,000—and no immediate healthcare changes.

An unprecedented mobilization of the dining staff, the strike affected campus life in myriad ways. In the absence of the dining hall workers, the administration was forced to cobble together provisional food services with limited resources. Meanwhile, half of the undergraduate dining halls—and thus, social hubs—closed. The College saw its House communities flounder and many students struggled with the disruption to their routine. Dividing on-campus community and inciting students and professors alike to take a stance on the issue, the strike reverberated beyond Harvard’s gates, garnering national attention as well.

Finally, the strike has come to a close—and, it seems, on HUDS workers’ terms. In light of the their nearly-unanimous vote to accept the University's contract proposal, it appears that HUDS workers are largely in favor of the deal. Despite the dogged back-and-forth between Local 26 and the University Administration, we recognize that the strike was truly the HUDS workers’ movement—one that many students enthusiastically supported, but did not threaten their own livelihoods. Given this distinction, it is important to note that any students’ opinion on the contract is a triviality. If the workers are happy with it, so too are we.

Despite this qualification, many of the details of the contract that have surfaced bode well for the workers. As mentioned, the full-time workers willing to work year round will now take home a minimum of $35,000 annually, will not immediately pay more for healthcare copays, and will receive a baseline summer compensation. All of these improvements will surely make their condition of employment more livable.

Nevertheless, many nuances of the contract remain opaque. As of yet, neither the administration nor the union has published the details of the contract, a point which gives us pause. We urge both parties to be forthcoming with details of the contract in the coming weeks. Not only is it important that both parties maintain transparency, but the details of the contract would prove useful for the students and faculty who supported the strike, who certainly deserve to know the eventual outcome.

Meanwhile, we encourage Harvard administrators to make sure that, going forward, contingency plans improve in the case of an anticipated strike. It has been clear in the past three weeks that Harvard did not adequately prepare for the strike, and given the success of this strike, it seems plausible that other unions representing campus workers will be emboldened to strike in the future. To avoid the hefty costs that this strike imposed on workers and students alike, we urge Harvard to structure contingency plans in the future with more care, urgency, and proactivity.

Above all, though, we are comforted that this strike has put an end to workers' dissatisfaction and that our community is whole again. With workers back in the dining halls and students returning to their House communities for meals, we are proud to say that we supported a strike that ended as a success.

CORRECTION: Oct. 31, 2016
The editorial was updated to clarify the fact that the final deal between Harvard and Local 26 provides summer stipends that bring full-time dining services employees willing to work year-round past a salary $35,000.