As Strike Vote Looms, Harvard Counters Graduate Union Wage Demands With Modest Raises

Harvard rejected graduate student workers’ demands for sweeping wage increases at a Tuesday bargaining session, countering with more modest raises and declining to equalize pay between teaching fellows and research assistants.

The proposals come as contract negotiations between Harvard and Harvard Graduate Student Union-United Auto Workers stretch past a year and union members vote in an ongoing strike authorization vote launched last Tuesday.

Last month, HGSU-UAW proposed a plan to close the wage gap between teaching fellows and research assistants, which would raise TF pay by roughly 74 percent — bringing it in line with the equivalent of a 10-month RA salary. The proposal also included a 12 percent increase to base salaries and annual raises of five percent.

Harvard instead offered a 10 percent raise over four years and a nearly 3 percent raise in the first year, amounting to annual raises of roughly 2.5 percent, according to a Harvard spokesperson.

It declined to match TF and RA monthly pay, according to HGSU-UAW president Sara V. Speller.

Speller said the University’s proposal amounted to “the bare minimum.”

“The idea that we are asking for a 74 percent raise does not acknowledge the fact that we are severely underpaying our teaching fellows for just as many hours as research assistants are working,” Speller said. “This contract fight is about closing that gap.”

Under Harvard’s current pay structure, graduate students earn roughly $50,000 annually during the first four years of their program, typically comprising two years of fellowship funding and two years of teaching fellowships supplemented with salary top ups and summer funding.

But those supplements expire after four semesters and summer funding ends after four years. During the remainder of their time at Harvard, many graduate students rely solely on teaching fellowships — which pay roughly $6,500 per section.

HGSU-UAW bargaining committee member Denish K. Jaswal said framing the union’s proposal as a 74 percent raise obscures the reality of current pay levels.

“They were saying, ‘no other union contracts are giving a 74-percent raise; how could you possibly ask for a 74-percent raise?’” she said. “But it’s 74 percent because they’re paying me $26,000.”

“The actual numbers are that I am paid enough to qualify for food stamps in the state. And all of our workers are making substantially below a living wage and below what workers right across the street at MIT are making,” she added.

A Harvard spokesperson did not immediately comment on the union’s criticisms.

HGSU-UAW also introduced a counterproposal on union security, reiterating its demand for an agency shop system in which employees who opt out of the union would still pay agency fees while members pay union dues. Under the current system, only union members pay dues, despite all graduate student workers being covered by the contract.

Jaswal said fair-share fees are necessary to support grievance processes.

“There’s a point where if we don't have enough money coming in, we will be unable to support student workers, and that makes the contract nothing more than a piece of paper,” she said.

Harvard did not present a response to protections for non-citizen workers proposed by the union nine months ago, though the University had previously indicated it would address the issue at Tuesday’s meeting.

Jaswal criticized the University’s lack of engagement on the issue.

“It is incredibly disrespectful and condescending to all of our workers that are tangibly impacted by the lack of protections that we are asking for in this article,” Jaswal said.

Harvard has so far resisted HGSU-UAW’s push for third-party arbitration in grievance processes.

Tuesday’s session included several testimonials from union members who recounted experiences of sexual misconduct and criticized the University’s response as inadequate.

Harvard also introduced two new proposals updating contractual language in articles and job postings. Union representatives dismissed the proposals as “pure housekeeping” and “nothing substantive.”

“It's superficial bargaining,” Jaswal said. “We have been asking them to engage on our issues, and what have they done? Well, they’ve taken a month, they’ve twiddled their thumbs, and they’ve given us two completely useless articles and refused to engage substantively on the things that we have told them and had people testify for caring about the most.”

The strike authorization vote will determine whether the union has sufficient support among members to call a strike if negotiations fail.

“Our membership will not be happy to hear what happened in bargaining today,” Speller said.

“The way that things are standing right now, that strike threat is still what it was yesterday,” she added. “If not maybe more.”

—Staff writer Noah A. Ferris can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @noahaferris.