Harvard Residential Advisers Allege University Administrators Engaged in Union-Busting Tactics

Harvard Union of Residential Advisors organizers allege University administrators have engaged in “captive audience meetings” and anti-union messaging through emails to tutors, proctors, and house aides ahead of HURA’s union recognition elections.

In emails to College residential advisers, Harvard administrators reminded staff of the option to vote against unionization, exploiting existing tensions among members of the proposed unit. According to HURA organizers, University administrators also engaged an anti-union law firm to combat the group’s efforts.

HURA first publicly announced its unionization effort in late February — after having privately organized since May — and filed for recognition with the National Labor Relations Board one week later. The group reached an election agreement with Harvard at the end of March, setting union recognition elections for both of HURA’s proposed units, one for proctors and tutors and one for house aides, on April 19, 23, and 24.

Brandon M. Martinez ’20, a HURA organizer and a tutor in Leverett House, highlighted Harvard’s hiring of Seyfarth Shaw LLP — a Boston law firm specializing in areas including labor and employment.

Harvard’s anti-union behavior includes “hiring anti-union law firms, who will employ similar tactics across industries,” Martinez said. “Seyfarth, from what I understand, is a pretty well known anti-union firm in Boston.”

In an email obtained by The Crimson, a Seyfarth lawyer sent an email to HURA and National Labor Relations Board representatives with the subject line “RE: Harvard / HURA” and a case number.

Harvard spokespeople did not comment on whether they have engaged Seyfarth. The firm did not immediately respond to a Thursday afternoon request for comment.

Some organizers have also pointed to emails from Harvard leadership in advance of the union’s elections this month.

In a Thursday email to undergraduate House tutors, Harvard College Dean of Administration and Finance Sheila Thimba wrote that “we’ve heard concerns that to vote no is a statement against unions. That is not the case.”

“Voting no simply means you do not want this specific union (HURA) to be your exclusive bargaining representative for years potentially,” she wrote.

In the email, Thimba also emphasized that those dissatisfied with — or even unsure about — HURA could vote against unionization under this particular union.

“If HURA is elected as your bargaining representative, it likely will remain so for years to come,” she wrote. “If you are unhappy with HURA representation, it could be up to four years before you could ask for a new election to vote out HURA.”

“On the other hand, if you are not sure whether you want to unionize or you may want to unionize but you are not sure about this specific union, you can vote no tomorrow and a year from now, you can change your mind and petition for a new election regarding this or any other union,” Thimba added. “That is your right.”

Since HURA publicly announced its campaign, the movement has been fraught with tension among members of the proposed unit, with some residential advisers saying that they do not trust the HURA organizers and feel the group has failed to clearly communicate their priorities and actions.

In an email to proctors, tutors, and house aides on Monday, HURA wrote, “What we know for sure, however, is that Harvard has engaged in several ‘union busting’ tactics since our union requested an election.”

“Harvard is doing all this for one reason: to scare us into voting ‘no’ on our election days,” the group continued.

University spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement to The Crimson that “Harvard is committed to the democratic process, respects the individuals’ right to choose whether or not to be represented by a union, and strongly believes that voters should make the choice that is right for them.”

Some HURA organizers also said administrators engaged in anti-union behavior during meetings with residential advisers.

Martinez said that during an April 9 meeting — which “tutors all have an expectation to attend” — Leverett Faculty Deans Daniel G. Deschler and Eileen E. Reynolds ’86 framed the meeting in an anti-union light.

“The conduct of the meeting was not appropriate,” Martinez continued. “The questions they raised incited fear.”

The faculty deans wrote in a statement to The Crimson that after they finished reviewing the meeting’s regular tutor agenda, they told attendees that anyone who did not want to participate in discussions about union election was welcome to leave.

“We care deeply about our community of students, tutors, and staff and have worked to ensure everyone has key factual information about the upcoming election,” they wrote.

But according to Martinez, the faculty deans discussed unionization during the first part of the meeting as well.

“They said they had questions about, for example, whether people would have to face taxation in housing, and whether the role would become less stable,” Martinez said.

“The Faculty Dean said explicitly, ‘You're free to leave during the second half of the meeting, where we will give you all the space to talk about the union and we will leave the room so that you can discuss that,’” Martinez said. “At no point did they ever say during the first half of this meeting, ‘You have the ability and the freedom to leave if you do not feel comfortable with what we are discussing here.’”

Koby D. Ljunggren, a volunteer staff organizer for HURA, said that administrators often use “very scary rhetoric — and in some cases tactics of intimidation, in other cases threatening people’s positions or jobs.”

“It’s really disappointing,” Ljunggren said. “That is a very aggressive anti-union tactic that’s more common in places like manufacturing and other industries.”

Ljunggren compared the current situation with HURA to the unionization process Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers went through, which they called “very adversarial and contentious” in the face of a “really harsh anti-union campaign.”

“It was a whole ordeal — I don’t think HURA quite reaches that magnitude of an anti-union campaign, although the use of captive audience meetings sort of feels very similar,” Ljunggren said.

But, Ljunggren said, the anti-union tactics are often “not direct, like ‘You’re gonna get fired,’ but it’s more indirect.”

“It’s nothing new to me,” Ljunggren said. “But if you’re a worker, and for the first time you’ve experienced this process, that can be a very, very scary thing to read.”

—Staff writer Aran Sonnad-Joshi can be reached at aran.sonnad-joshi@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @asonnadjoshi.

—Staff writer Sheerea X. Yu can be reached at sheerea.yu@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @_shuhree_.