When Harvard virology student Lindsey E. Adams opened her July 1 paycheck, she found something amiss. Her research stipend was no longer classified as a union stipend, and no union dues were deducted. But nothing else about her daily work had altered — not her hours, her boss, the lab, or the work she did.
Adams is among over 900 graduate students on stipends based on research who were taken out of the Harvard Graduate Student Union-United Automobile Workers' (HGSU-UAW) bargaining unit shortly after the union's second contract with the University ended in June, according to The Harvard Crimson. Without the union, these students are no longer entitled to contract protections like benefits, access to union funds, and the pay raises now being bargained in the union's third contract.
Comprehending the University's reasoning
The removals have raised issues regarding Harvard's standards for removing students from the class of those who the University deems not to be employees. Over a month since the change, the HGSU-UAW is still attempting to ascertain whether a way to appeal the decision exists, per coverage by The Harvard Crimson.
While unions would under other circumstances challenge such actions by filing an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the political makeup of the board makes things more difficult. Michael C. Harper, emeritus professor of labor law at Boston University, told The Harvard Crimson that under the Trump administration's forthcoming appointments to the NLRB, "a case involving student workers could be used to take away students' right to unionize. Such a decision would be a near certainty."
In the meantime, the union is following through on the grievance process in its contract. On July 21, officials grieved Harvard, and on July 30, they requested information, The Harvard Crimson reported. The grievance cites several provisions of the contract that were supposedly violated, such as the composition of the bargaining unit and classifications of workers. The removal also violates the union security clause, which allows for automatic deduction of dues from paychecks.
As per HGSU-UAW financial secretary Simon A. Warchol, a student of Computer Science Ph.D., the union stands a chance of losing "anywhere from 25 to 40% of the dues Harvard automatically takes out of workers' paychecks each month," he said in an interview with The Harvard Crimson.
A unilateral interpretation
HGSU-UAW vice president Sudipta Saha explained to The Harvard Crimson, "We think that this contravenes not only the unit definition we have in the contract, but the union definition that we have been working on since we've had the very first elections whose outcomes were certified by the NLRB. They quite clearly state that all research assistants are encompassed, irrespective of source of funding, and the University has just decided to sort of unilaterally alter their interpretation."
Harvard, on the other hand, asserts that the excluded students are not contract-covered employees. The University has contended that stipended students' research is not employment since it aids their academic pursuit towards a degree and is not for doing something specific for pay.
Harvard Law School faculty members Sharon Block, Benjamin I. Sachs, and Laura M. Weinrib '00, in OnLabor, described this argument as "implausible" and pointed out that it "runs contrary to recent experience in the law and at Harvard." They cited a 2024 MIT ruling excluding stipended fellows from union coverage but contended that it does not necessarily validate Harvard's move. The professors summed up to The Harvard Crimson, "It would be surprising, that is, if no Harvard graduate student who receives a stipend does any work that is controlled by Harvard."
Navigating grievance procedures
The union also sat down with Harvard officials on August 4 under Step One of the grievance process. In his formal reply, Director of Labor and Employment Relations Brian Magner addressed the union that "the University finds no contractual violation has occurred and therefore the grievance is denied," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson.
In the event that the grievance goes to Step Two and Harvard rejects it once more, arbitration can be sought. The University is, however, expected to argue that the dispute is not arbitrable on grounds that the student removals happened after the union contract had expired on June 30. The union contends that since pay stubs on July 1 already showed changes in union representation, the case could well be arbitrable, The Harvard Crimson reports.
Disparate impact across schools
More than half of the affected students are part of Harvard Medical School’s Division of Medical Sciences. First- and second-year Ph.D. students, typically funded by the division or by National Institutes of Health grants, were heavily impacted. For third-year students and beyond, funding streams can be more complex, and removals are less uniform.
Laila B. Norford, a union steward and third-year Ph.D. candidate in biomedical informatics, said in an interview with The Harvard Crimson that "most students in hospital-based or hospital-affiliated labs have been removed, as have those fully funded on fellowships." Adams would probably have been excluded because her principal investigator, Daniel Lingwood, has a secondary appointment at Mass General Hospital's Ragon Institute.
Norford reported further confusion for students subsidized by more than one source: "Some employees have been partially extracted from the union — union fees have been automatically taken out of only their non-stipended income," she said to The Harvard Crimson.
Student concerns and uncertainty
Albert T. Chen, a fourth-year Ph.D. student and HGSU-UAW bargaining committee member, called the process "very arbitrary" to The Harvard Crimson: "There's some workers that are doing the same work, in the same labs, in the same program. Some are being carved out, some aren't."
The University has kept students in the loop via emails but clarity is only scant. DMS executive director Samantha Reed restated July 2 updates to students in a July 25 email, explaining that unionized students would get paid every other week without salary increases from last year because negotiations are still underway, The Harvard Crimson reports. Pay periods have also been used by students to determine if they are still part of the union.
Norford summarized the broader impact of the uncertainty: “It’s just kicking the scientists while we’re down. We’re already suffering and struggling so much because of what the federal government is doing, but also because of how Harvard’s responding to it. And now what they’re doing in this moment is trying to make it harder for all of us,” as she told The Harvard Crimson.
The path ahead
While the grievance proceedings are ongoing, students and union officials are demanding transparency from the University as to how the University reached its classification decisions. The case questions what academic institutions mean by employment and what protections graduate student workers deserve.
For Adams and her contemporaries, the stakes are direct. Unionization dictates wages, benefits, and job security, and Harvard's action represents a dramatic change in the way the University defines research-based graduate student work.
