The HCECP Report:

The HCECP Report:

What's There, What's Missing
WAGES
What's There?

One-Time Wage Boost. The HCECP recommends that Harvard reopen contracts with dining hall workers and security guards, in addition to janitors who already won a reopener through last spring's sit-in. In negotiations, the HCECP "recommends and expects" that the lowest wages will increase at least to the range $10.83 to $11.30.
Permanent Wage Parity Between Directly-Hired and Outsourced Workers. The HCECP recommends that Harvard require contractors to pay their workers the same wages as those the university pays directly-hired, unionized workers in the same sector.
Fair Bargaining Provision. The HCECP's recommendation B(1)(F) states that Harvard must not refuse to negotiate a contract in order to erode real wages or fight a union. In particular, if a new contract is not negotiated within a year of the previous contract's expiration, Harvard must annually adjust wages for increases in the cost of living until a new contract is settled.

What's Missing?

A Permanent Living Wage Floor. Harvard can be relied on to erode a one-time wage boost over time. Parity provides no protection against erosion: a powerful employer can still bargain workers into poverty if they are not protected by a living wage floor. The HCECP's parity recommendation must be supplemented by a living wage floor, or it is all too likely that Harvard workers will again be struggling to make ends meet in the near future. Eight committee members, including the majority of worker and student members, wrote separate statements advocating a floor.
Wages Reflecting The Local Cost of Living. The HCECP's research showed that wages much higher than $10.83 or $11.30 are needed to live in the Boston area: the National Low-Income Housing Commission reported that a wage of more than $15 per hour was needed to afford an average two-bedroom apartment in the Boston area, and the Economic Policy Institute found that two workers supporting two children in our area each needed to earn $13.47 per hour. $10.83 and $11.30 do not even compare to wages that Harvard paid a decade ago, when entry-level janitors earned $12 per hour and the median wage for guards was $14.31. And the HCECP's recommended wages fall far below the $15.26 per hour that Wellesley College janitors earn.

BENEFITS
What's There?

Permanent Benefits Parity Between Directly-Hired and Outsourced Workers. The HCECP recommends that Harvard require contractors to provide benefits comparable to university benefits in the same sector, or comparable to industry standards.
A Vague Call For Lower Co-Payments. The HCECP recommends that Harvard renegotiate service workers' health benefit co-payments to make them more affordable.

What's Missing?

Specified Co-Payment Reductions. To provide meaning to its vague call for lower co-payments, the HCECP should have recommended an acceptable co-payment range. We endorse co-payments of 0% to 5% for workers earning less than $30,000 per year.
Reduced Hours Requirements. Currently, employees must work at least 16 hours per week in order to qualify for benefits. The HCECP's research shows that Harvard purposely lowers workers' hours just below this level to deny them benefits. For instance, janitors at the Graduate School of Education all work just 12 hours per week. The only way to stop this exploitative manipulation is to lower the hours requirement for benefits to 5 hours per week or 20 hours per month.

WORKERS' RIGHT TO ORGANIZE
What's There?

Union Access To Speak With Campus Workers. The HCECP recommends that Harvard provide union organizers access to worksites during an organizing drive, and that its contractors comply with this access policy.
No Threats To Terminate Contracts. The HCECP recommends that outsourced workers never be threatened that if they organize a union, Harvard will terminate their contract and seek another firm to provide services.

What's Missing?

Employer Neutrality During Organizing. An employer which respects workers' right to organize agrees to remain neutral during organizing drives-it agrees not to run an anti-union campaign. This means that the employer will not hold coercive captive audience meetings to threaten and intimidate workers, it will not threaten to call the INS when immigrant workers organize, and it will not retaliate against worker organizers. Employer neutrality is absolutely necessary to guarantee workers a genuine choice in selecting or rejecting representation.
Card-Check Procedure For Union Certification. Harvard must adopt a card-check agreement, stating that it will recognize a union once a majority of workers has signed cards stating their desire to unionize. Card-check procedures are recommended by both Human Rights Watch and a federal commission chaired by HCECP senior advisor Prof. John Dunlop under President Clinton as excellent ways to de-escalate the fear, delays, and acrimony of NLRB union elections, honoring workers' legal right to timely, uncoerced choices about union representation.

MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
What's There?

Annual Data Release on Low-Wage Work. The HCECP recommends that Harvard annually release data on wages, benefits, hours, and quality of work-life for directly-hired and outsourced workers. The release must include real wage changes over time, and comparisons to other employers.
New Administrative Unit For Monitoring And Implementation. The HCECP recommends that Harvard create a new administrative unit to implement policy changes and conduct ongoing monitoring of low-wage work. The unit will choose implementation deadlines and procedures.
Periodic Assessment By A Representative University-Wide Committee. The HCECP recommends that Harvard periodically convene committees like the HCECP to re-evaluate the conditions of low-wage workers, collect new data, and assess Harvard's employment and contracting policies.

What's Missing?

Community Participation And Oversight. Harvard's labor policies have slowly begun to improve over the last three years because workers, students, faculty, and the community have exposed administrative policies and demanded a voice in changing them. To now entrust oversight and implementation to the very administration which, according to HCECP research, has destroyed working conditions on campus and failed to implement even university-mandated improvements is utterly irresponsible. University-wide committees convened as infrequently as the administration likes are not enough to correct the bad faith and incompetence that will characterize the daily oversight of administrative officials. Permanent monitoring and oversight must be entrusted to a standing committee, not appointed by the administration, consisting of workers, students, faculty, and administrators. Eight committee members wrote separate statements advocating more inclusive implementation and monitoring procedures.