Imagine the heart of one of America's most prestigious universities grinding to a halt—not from academic debates or groundbreaking research, but from the very workers who keep it all running. Harvard's custodians have taken a bold stand, striking for fair pay and recognition. But here's where it gets controversial: In an era of soaring living costs and a massive endowment, is demanding better wages from a world-renowned institution a fair ask, or a drain on resources needed elsewhere? Let's dive into the details and see what most people miss—the human stories behind the headlines.
On the iconic Harvard Yard, a group of dedicated custodians marched with purpose, their voices echoing chants like 'What do we want? Contracts! When do we want them? Now!' They carried signs proudly proclaiming, 'Harvard works because we do,' underscoring the essential role these behind-the-scenes heroes play in maintaining the university's pristine environment. This action wasn't impulsive; it stemmed from a pivotal moment in contract talks that unraveled on Thursday. According to the union, 30 representatives from the custodial bargaining committee—essentially a team of worker advocates who negotiate on behalf of the group—abruptly exited the final planned meeting with Harvard after exhausting all efforts to reach an agreement.
The breakdown happened after lengthy, unproductive discussions aimed at securing substantial wage hikes to counter the relentless rise in everyday costs since the pandemic began. The union representatives described their departure as a response to hours of futile attempts to persuade the university to propose increases that truly addressed the economic pressures facing hardworking families. To put this in perspective for beginners, think of cost-of-living adjustments as a way to keep up with inflation—prices for groceries, rent, and gas keep climbing, so salaries need to match or workers fall behind. But Harvard's offers fell short, offering what the union called mere 'bonus signing money' alongside average yearly raises of just 2.2%, which doesn't come close to the typical inflation rates we've seen, let alone the extra boosts needed to help people thrive amid today's affordability crisis.
These talks weren't new; they gained momentum in early October when union members pushed for stronger protections for immigrant workers and improved retirement benefits. For about a month, negotiations continued until the existing contract lapsed just this past Saturday, explained Franklin Soults, the regional communications manager for 32BJ SEIU, the union representing these workers. Kevin Brown, the chapter's executive vice-president, voiced strong disappointment, noting that the university's proposals didn't account for the broader challenges. 'Aside from some bonus signing money, Harvard and its contractors only offered average annual increases of 2.2 percent per year—far below regular cost-of-living increases, and even farther below what it will take to get ahead in these times of working people’s affordability crisis,' Brown stated. It's a stark reminder that while the world moves forward, some wages aren't keeping pace, leaving families struggling to make ends meet.
Harvard, however, painted a different picture through its spokesperson, Jason Newton. In a statement to the Globe, Newton emphasized that the university remains committed, saying they are 'actively engaging union leadership and have offered additional meeting times' to forge a deal that's 'beneficial to all.' He highlighted the custodians as 'valued members of our community who enable teaching and research in critical ways,' acknowledging their importance. Yet, amid ongoing financial uncertainties, Harvard proposed two options for compensation: a short-term contract extension paired with a bonus, or a longer-term agreement mixing bonuses with modest, market-based wage increases locked in for future years. It's an attempt to balance immediate needs with long-term stability, but does it truly address the workers' calls for more?
Union leaders like Elena Lavarreda, the janitorial division director for SEIU's New England district, argue passionately for better recognition of the custodians' contributions. 'There was a time where there was a recognition of their labor, but we’re not seeing that in what Harvard has put across the table in this round of bargaining, which is extremely disappointing for an institution that’s endowment has grown $4 billion in the past year, which is larger than many of the surrounding colleges,' Lavarreda shared in an interview. For context, an endowment is like a massive savings fund for the university, growing through donations and investments, and critics question why it isn't tapped more generously here.
Personal stories add depth to the strike. Take Newton Christian Dejesus, a 59-year-old crew chief overseeing a team of five at Harvard for 13 years. As a union member, he joined the strike to secure a better future for his family. 'We have to fight because we need more money, because we have a family. So I have a wife, I have a daughter, 11 years old. I work hard to support my family,' Dejesus explained. 'If we do not fight, who would fight for us? Nobody.' His words capture the raw emotion of workers who feel unseen, fighting not just for paychecks but for dignity and security.
And this is the part most people miss—the wider backdrop of Harvard's finances. The contract impasse follows months of economic pressures, with President Alan Garber warning in July that cuts in federal funding and a looming endowment tax could cost the university nearly $1 billion yearly. Despite this, Harvard's endowment stands at about $50 billion, a figure Lavarreda points to as evidence of ample resources for significant raises. Yet, a campus-wide hiring freeze has exacerbated issues, leaving custodians and security staff to handle more work with fewer hands—reports estimate 40 to 50 vacant positions, forcing overworked teams to stretch thin. Some employees, including graduate student union members, advocate using the university's 'substantial reserves' and unallocated endowment funds to shield workers from potential layoffs. Brown echoed this frustration: 'Now that our members so desperately need to catch up, Harvard has pleaded poverty despite seeing its endowment grow from $50 billion to $57 billion in this first year of the new Trump presidency.'
Here's the controversy that sparks debate: Should a wealthy institution like Harvard prioritize massive wage boosts for custodial staff when facing financial uncertainties, or should it conserve funds for research, scholarships, and long-term sustainability? Is the endowment a shared resource for all, or does prioritizing workers' immediate needs risk the university's future viability? What do you think—does Harvard owe its essential workers more, given its vast wealth, or is there wisdom in cautious budgeting during uncertain times? Share your thoughts in the comments; we'd love to hear agreements, disagreements, or fresh perspectives on balancing fairness with fiscal responsibility.
Claire Thornton can be reached at claire.thornton@globe.com. Follow Claire on X @clairethornto (https://www.twitter.com/clairethornto). Katarina Schmeiszer can be reached at katarina.schmeiszer@globe.com. Follow her on X at @katschmeiszer (https://www.twitter.com/katschmeiszer).
