Leaders of Harvard’s non-tenure-track faculty union quietly called off plans for a spring strike, overriding a membership vote after concluding the walkout risked failing to win approval from the United Auto Workers.

At a Monday general membership meeting attended by roughly 150, workers represented by the Harvard Academic Workers-UAW voted to close an ongoing strike authorization vote on Friday and begin striking as early as next week, according to an attendee. But in an abrupt about-face, the union’s bargaining committee extended the voting timeline the following day — a move that rules out any strike this semester.

In a Tuesday email to Monday meeting attendees, the committee said the combination of low participation and a tight turnaround between the proposed vote closure and strike date created a “substantial” risk that UAW’s international leadership would not authorize its strike in time. Without that approval, workers would be ineligible for strike pay and other union support — and the authorization process would have to start over.

“Because of this, we believe it is best to forgo any strike activity until the SAV participation reaches at least 50% so that we have strong support for our striking members,” organizers wrote in the email, which was obtained by The Crimson.

The move strips HAW-UAW of a key source of leverage this semester as negotiations for its first contract with Harvard stretch into a second year. It also means that the non-tenure-track faculty will not picket alongside Harvard’s graduate student union, which began striking this week.

While the bargaining committee declined to confirm plans for a fall strike, they wrote that a spring strike would have been “logistically unfeasible” in a statement to The Crimson.

“The Bargaining Committee had to make a difficult decision for the protection of all our members,” they wrote. “We continue to hope that the Corporation will address the serious issues still left on the table to avoid any potential work stoppages in the future. But our membership’s patience wears thin.”

Under UAW rules, a strike must be authorized by two-thirds of participating voters. As of Monday, only about 40 percent of the bargaining unit had cast ballots, the attendee said. In consultation with UAW staff, the bargaining committee determined that proceeding on the original timeline could result in the strike either failing to meet authorization thresholds or launching without confirmed backing from the international union.

The committee also warned that the proposed schedule would have required workers to begin striking before knowing whether authorization had been granted — a scenario that could potentially leave participants without financial support.

The decision came after a protracted debate over possible strike timelines. Union members had initially hoped to settle on a timeline at an April 16 organizing committee meeting — open to all members, though not formally advertised via email.

But organizers ultimately tabled the discussion to a Monday general membership meeting, the attendee said.

In the days that followed, the bargaining committee urged members to attend Monday’s meeting, writing that the union was “at a critical moment in our campaign, with several different options on how to proceed.”

“It is important that decisions are made collectively and democratically,” they wrote.

At the Monday meeting, attendees considered three options: closing the authorization vote on Friday and strike during reading period from May 1-4; ending the vote on Friday and beginning an open-ended strike on the last day of classes; or keeping the vote open until a critical mass of represented workers had participated and potentially striking in the fall.

Attendees voted on the motions in order. The first motion received roughly 18 percent of the vote, and the second passed with 53 percent of the vote, according to a statement from the union’s bargaining committee.

That outcome made the committee’s decision to override the vote the next morning particularly striking. In their Tuesday email, leaders acknowledged communication breakdowns and procedural complications, pointing to broader organizational issues within the fledgling union.

“We recognize that our first general membership meeting (GMM) was complicated by procedural confusions, a fast moving timeline, and frustrations over the notification window,” they wrote. “We are committed to a democratic process and improving across the board, so we are forming a committee to formalize how we approach GMMs and such votes in the future.”

The setback highlights the challenges facing the relatively new union as it pushes for a first contract. HAW-UAW began bargaining with Harvard in September 2024 and launched an open-ended strike authorization vote last month.

Among the union’s central demands is stronger job security, including the elimination of “time caps” that limit non-tenure-track faculty appointments to two, three, and eight years.

But as negotiations have dragged on, the union’s ranks have thinned. Some workers have seen their appointments expire with few replacements hired amid a University-wide hiring freeze. Union leaders had hoped a spring strike would bolster their leverage before further attrition.

Delaying the strike may intensify that challenge.

“While we are disappointed and deeply saddened that we will not have this opportunity to show our solidarity with unit members who are timing out this semester due to the harmful time cap policy,” organizers wrote, “we cannot, in good faith, call a strike which will be constrained by the lack of full UAW support.”

—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.