College's unions participate in Convocation day strike

Photo courtesy of Sarah Ann Figeuroa ’28
Mount Holyoke College staff and students protested outside the College’s front gates during the SEIU 32BJ and UAW Local 2322 unions’ joint labor strike.

By Karishma Ramkarran ’27

Copy Chief

On Tuesday, Sept. 2 the College celebrated Convocation, an annual tradition that recognizes Mount Holyoke’s students and faculty. Although the theme of sustainability through community marked this year’s Convocation, students did not fail to notice the absence of Mount Holyoke’s essential dining and maintenance workers from the celebration.

As part of a joint demonstration of labor power by the College’s workers’ unions, SEIU 32BJ and UAW Local 2322, Mount Holyoke’s dining hall, facilities staff and housekeepers participated in an unfair labor practice — also known as ULP — strike outside the front gates. In an act of solidarity, the striking workers were joined by students and community members as early as 5 a.m. with picket signs.

The strike followed a series of failed negotiations between the unions and the College that occurred throughout the summer over new contracts, which are agreed upon every three years. It has not been the first time the College’s workers have held rallies in front of the main campus gate; in-between contract meetings, rallies were organized on April 24 and May 13 of this year.

New and returning students on campus began organizing as early as Monday, Sept. 1 to support the strike. The Instagram account Students for Staff Collective Bargaining – @mhcsscb on Instagram – posted a series of action items for students to carry out on Convocation day. These action items included attending a “reverse boycott” wherein students filled up the dining hall before Convocation from 8-10 a.m., boycotting the barbecue on Skinner Green after Convocation, and protesting at the rally at the front gates at 4 p.m. In Blanchard Hall, fliers encouraging student involvement in the strike were posted on community boards and on tables.

At 9:20 a.m. on the day of Convocation, Carl M. Ries, vice president for finance and administration and treasurer, sent the student body an email with the subject line “Update on Campus Operations: Union Strikes.” The email was an official acknowledgement of the strikes from the College. Ries wrote that the College was “committed to minimizing disruptions to [students’] campus experience during the strike” through “developed contingency plans,” which referred to the movement of the Convocation cookout from its original location on Skinner Green to the Dining Commons. The cookout after Convocation was available only to students, many of whom boycotted the event because the College replaced striking dining workers with temporary workers.

Sally Durdan ’81, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, began Convocation by acknowledging Labor Day, which had been celebrated the previous day, Sept. 1. Prior to the College’s official land acknowledgement, Durdan said, “We will open today’s celebration by acknowledging the essential work of our facilities, dining, and housekeeping staff.”

Durdan’s remarks were cut off by the chants of students demanding that the College “pay their workers.” The Board of Trustees, along with President Danielle Holley, stood up for the student protest, with some individuals clapping along. Vic Klapa ’26, who started the Students for Staff Collective Bargaining Instagram account, used a megaphone to amplify their support for the striking staff.

Klapa addressed the Board of Trustees on stage, “Mount Holyoke College, it is shameful that an institution that prides itself on being progressive refuses to do the bare minimum of giving your workers a minimum wage.”

Encouraged by the cheers of fellow students, Klapa continued, “You pride yourself on women’s empowerment, yet you underpay jobs mostly staffed by women. How is that feminist?”

Holley, who had taken the podium, said, “I just wanted to let you know I was just outside with our workers who are striking … and I want to let you know how much the College really does appreciate and care about our workers.”

Holley was met with more shouts from the crowd: “Pay them then,” and “Six months is too long.”

In response, Holley told the students that the College was working assiduously to obtain a fair agreement for the workers’ contracts, especially on the subject of a livable wage. “We will meet all the demands regarding the living wage, that is not a question,” Holley said.

“I am pro-labor myself,” Holley continued, “I have lots of people in my family who are union workers, I’d never imagined it would come to this day.”

“I sincerely want to come to an agreement with all of our unions in a way that respects labor … and I think you will see when we are completed with this process that is exactly what we will do,” Holley said.

At 10 a.m. – the start of Convocation – the SEIU 32BJ and UAW unions held a press conference outside the College’s main gates. Dozens of workers gathered, holding up banners and signs expressing support of the unions. Vehicles passing by the rally honked in solidarity with the workers on strike.

The speakers at the press conference drew attention to the College’s founding values, which include a commitment to social justice and progressivism, in their demands that Mount Holyoke engage in fair negotiations with their workers. The name Frances Perkins — belonging to a Mount Holyoke alum and former U.S. secretary of labor — was evoked in protest of the College’s labor practices.

According to SEIU 32BJ union, over 40% of its workers at the College don’t make a livable wage, which they calculated using the MIT Living Wage Calculator. The living wage calculator calculates a livable wage for an individual using the location in which they live and their family circumstances. It accounts for the individual’s family expenses, which include food, childcare, medical care, housing and transportation.

The union representatives stated that when workers at the College do receive an increase in pay, they receive more responsibilities as a consequence of underhiring. Patrick Burke, president of UAW Local 2322 which represents around 25 of the College’s housekeepers, said, “Mount Holyoke has $1 billion; workers are asking for 1/1000 of that.” The union alleged that the College had been negotiating contracts in bad faith — particularly by threatening to cease negotiations if workers went on strike — which is against the National Labor Relations Act.

Several political representatives in the area attended the press conference to demonstrate their support of the College’s striking workers. State Senator Adam Gómez spoke about the strike as part of a greater fight for justice and democracy. “It is crucial that we stand together to support the heart of the institution: The worker,” Gómez said.

Rhonda Saletnik, a housekeeper for Pearsons Hall, said, “The College wouldn’t be working if we didn’t work.”

At 4 p.m., students flooded through the front gates to join the rally and express their solidarity with the union workers. Ben Grosscup, an American songwriter and activist from western Massachusetts, performed familiar classics with a pro-union twist for the crowd, including “(Strike) Around the Clock,” “We’re Not Gonna Take It!” and “Fight for Justice.”

Students who attended were given picket signs by union organizers, along with music sheets so they could sing along with Grosscup. The rally frequently erupted in cheers for the unions on strike — SEIU 32BJ and UAW — along with slogans like “Solidarity forever,” “Union strong,” and “The people united will never be defeated.”

In an interview with the Mount Holyoke News, student attendee Maeve McCorry ’28 said, “Students need to understand that these workers are valuable, not just because of the labor they provide for us, but because they are human beings … who deserve dignity.”

In a conversation with Klapa about their motivations behind the protest during convocation, they said, “Labor rights in general is something that has such a personal meaning to me. I was raised by a mom and a grandma who were both immigrants. They worked in factories. English wasn’t their first language. And we grew up working class.”

They continued, “They didn’t work at unionized jobs, so, I have metal fillings in my teeth. And there were times in my life where I wasn’t able to access insurance for certain months because that [wasn’t] allowed in my mom’s contract.”

Among the rally attendees were Mount Holyoke faculty pledging support for their fellow workers at the College. Mary Renda, a professor of history, spoke of being “proud of SEIU and UAW for standing up” and continued the general theme of Frances Perkins by stating that “[Perkins] worked to ensure people had the right to unionize.”

According to Kevin Brown, the executive vice president of SEIU 32BJ, all 200 members of the unions at the College participated in the strike. Brown told the crowd that the College had not believed its workers would strike during Convocation, and the loss of labor had led to a couple managers running the dining hall for the entire day.

Brown spoke against the College’s labor representatives, stating that they did “evil, illegal things” during negotiations. The strike was intentionally held on Convocation day, an annual College tradition, to “give the College a lesson.” After the rally students returned to the Dining Commons in the act of another reverse boycott. A speaker declared that resuming regular work the next day was an act of voluntary labor, which would be taken back if certain conditions weren’t met, or if any striker was fired by the College.

Holley, in an email addressed to the student body, shared more resources and information regarding negotiations between the unions and the College. “Mount Holyoke has been in active negotiations with representatives from both SEIU and UAW and has made offers that include significant wage increases, added holidays, enhanced benefits and new opportunities for professional development,” she wrote.

To further discuss these matters, Holley invited concerned students to attend a community forum in Chapin Hall on Sept. 3 at 4:45 pm.

At the forum, Holley prefaced the conversation with an explanation of how labor negotiations work at the College: the College’s representatives meet with union representatives to discuss various issues for new contracts. The College’s representatives include their labor counsel Joe McCullough, Associate Vice President for HR Jay Toomey, and the Assistant Vice President of Employee and Labor Relations Mary Simeoli. Holley clarified that she is not present at these meetings.

After she had spoken about several non-economic offers that the College had offered to the unions, Holley proceeded to address the main point of contention among the student body: the issue of a livable wage.

“The clear compensation structure is that we pay people based on market rates, based on benchmarking,” Holley said.

She continued with an example: “[Kitchen assistants] can be paid in a range of $18 an hour, even though we recently advertised for some at $20 an hour. If you look over at Amherst College, they advertise that same kitchen assistant position for $15-$19 an hour.”

“We pay $18 an hour for those jobs because that is the market rate. We actually believe we pay a little above the market rate for kitchen assistance,” she explained.

Holley continued to detail the wage-related offer the College had made during negotiations, which was an 8.5% raise in contrast to the union’s proposed 11.5% raise, which had been agreed upon during previous negotiations three years ago. She also enumerated the ways in which employees at the College are compensated besides wages, including retirement contributions and healthcare.

Before opening the community forum to a Q&A session, Holley spoke of the college’s deficit of $5 billion, mostly due to employee wages and benefits. “But I also want to be transparent with this community. We are at the end of our fiscal ability,” she said.

Holley continued, “I will take accountability for the fact that we should not be here right now, because I should have insisted that this contract was completed by June 30.”

During the Q&A, Gillian Krugman ’27 addressed the forum, “I refuse to accept the notion that their [the worker’s] rights to a livable wage is not within the economic contours that you posited … The administration negotiated in August with one condition: To not strike. This is a blatant disregard to the law.”

Krugman continued, “Just because conditions are worse under other administrations, doesn’t mean our labor conditions cannot change.”

On Friday, Sept. 5, negotiations between the College and SEIU 32BJ had produced a tentative agreement that includes annual raises that total 11% over the three-year contract for all members, with the lowest paid workers receiving between a 13.5% and 20% increase over the same period. The union also secured access to no-cost legal services for civil matters, such as immigration, and policy improvements for non-economic issues such as sick leave, parental leave and holidays.

The College had negotiated the same day separately with UAW Local 2322. The union has secured their members an increase in wages towards the livable wage calculated by the MIT Living Wage Calculator.

In an email sent to the student body on Tuesday, Sept. 9, Holley wrote, “We anticipate these agreements will be ratified by the respective bargaining units within the next two weeks, at which point they will go into effect as outlined in each contract.”

She continued, “Advocacy has always been a part of Mount Holyoke’s story, and effective advocacy begins with a willingness to listen and learn. We have shown that Mount Holyoke is a place where everyone is valued and heard, and we will continue to uphold these principles as we move forward together.”

Madeleine Diesl ’28 contributed fact-checking.

College creates Child Care Review Group

BY SOLEIL DOERING ’24

STAFF WRITER

Following a public clash over the closure of the Gorse Children’s Center and subsequent contract extension, the College announced the creation of the Child Care Review Group in an email on April 14. The group consists of 12 different faculty members and one student representative, Ananya Singh ’22. The announcement email outlined the group’s mission, stating, “The CCRG will take a broad and forward-looking view of support for working parents — one aligned both with our mission to advance gender equity and the College’s resource constraints — and will make its recommendations no later than June 15, 2021.” 

Gary Gillis, associate dean of faculty, professor of biological sciences and director of the Science Center, and Jennifer Jacoby, associate professor of psychology and education and director of the first-year seminar program, will act as co-chairs of the CCRG. “We will be working for the next eight weeks to gather relevant data, survey members of the broader MHC community and synthesize research on child care options and programs for our final report, which is due on June 15,” Jacoby and Gillis said in a joint email to the Mount Holyoke News. 

The creation of the CCRG is the latest development in Mount Holyoke’s attempts to remedy the harm caused by the Feb. 24 announcement that the Gorse Children’s Center would be closing within a year. The initial statement sparked outrage from the College community, leading to a letter of protest and a petition that gathered hundreds of signatures, as well as a protest at the gates. President of the College Sonya Stephens responded with an email apologizing for the stress caused by this announcement. The College followed up a few days later, announcing an “interim solution” to keep Gorse open past July 2021. 

According to Gillis, the CCRG will develop a community survey “to better understand child care needs and the factors that underlie the choices people make when deciding how to meet those needs.” The group will focus on “the operations, enrollments and costs associated with Gorse” in addition to researching alternative child care resources offered by peer institutions, such as vouchers or scholarships. 

As the student representative of the CCRG, Singh said that the group is currently in the initial stages of development. “We have divided into subgroups and also started to discuss some of the large issues that need to be addressed,” Singh said. “The current subgroups include a survey group; a group looking at contracts, finances and things of that nature; and finally one that is looking at other institutions and how they offer child care assistance.”

Assistant Professor of Politics Ali Aslam, who was personally affected by the announcement of Gorse’s closure, took part in the ensuing protest. Based on his knowledge that the CCRG has met only once as of April 18, Aslam said, “I thought the urgency of our demand would have translated in[to] faster action in the form of more frequent meetings.”

“We know that Gorse, as an institution, resource and community of people, has touched the lives of so many at MHC,” Gillis and Jacoby said. “We know that all of these people want updates on the work of the committee. The committee recognizes this and has committed to providing periodic updates to the broader community on our work. We have not yet decided what form those updates will take, but we anticipate providing monthly reports to the broader MHC community.” 

SGA holds ad hoc senate meeting about tuition increase

BY LIZ LEWIS ’22

NEWS EDITOR & PUBLISHER

Concerned members of the Mount Holyoke community gathered at the open senate meeting this week seeking clarification on the tuition increase for the 2021-2022 academic year. On Thursday, April 15, the Student Government Association called a special ad hoc senate meeting to address the decision to raise the comprehensive fee. The meeting, a Q&A session with several members of the administration including College President Sonya Stephens, was open to the entire Mount Holyoke community. 

Since early April, a petition to reverse the College’s decision to raise the comprehensive fee to $73,098 has been circulating within the Mount Holyoke community. The petition, which was written by Ailey Rivkin FP ’22 and Gaby Barber ’23, demands that the College lower the comprehensive fee to match that of the 2019-2020 academic year at $67,578. If the administration is unable to comply, the petition requests a detailed statement explaining how the College plans to use the additional funding accumulated as a result of the rise in tuition. 

As part of this mobilization effort, Barber, Rivkin and the SGA executive board arranged an open senate meeting to address the concerns of the student body. The meeting was coordinated and organized by Chair of Senate Jane Kvederas ’22 and moderated by Chair of Halls Phoebe Murtagh ’21. Stephens, Vice President for Finance and Administration Shannon Gurek and Vice President for Enrollment Management Robin Randall served as panelists. A couple dozen students were in attendance, as well as several other members of the administration. 

The meeting functioned largely as a Q&A session. Murtagh presented the panel with questions which had been submitted by students through an open form on Embark prior to the event. The questions concerned the comprehensive fee increase of over $5,000 from the 2019-2020 academic year, including how the administration arrived at that decision, whether or not the student body was consulted or considered in the process and what factors made this decision financially necessary for the College. 

Gurek came prepared with a series of PowerPoint slides about the College budget. The charts she presented detailed the College’s sources of revenue, expenses and endowment. 

“Gurek and … Stephens certainly came to the meeting with all of the pertinent technical information prepared,” SGA President Maya Sopory ’22 said. “I had concerns about how the increase in the comprehensive fee would affect low-income students, international students and students whose financial situation has been significantly impacted by the pandemic, all of which were addressed by Gurek and Stephens. However, despite their specific acknowledgment of the impact on these groups, I still walked away from the meeting feeling confused and worried for my friends and peers.”

According to Gurek, while need-based aid will be adjusted on a case-by-case basis, merit-based scholarships will not be. Gurek encouraged students to reapply for need-based aid if their financial capabilities have changed significantly during the pandemic. Randall noted that, because of the pandemic, the College has not been enforcing the typical financial aid application deadlines, meaning that students should apply as needed. 

Furthermore, the panelists indicated during the meeting that there is significant pressure on Mount Holyoke to remain in competitive standing with other private liberal arts colleges and that this may have played a role in the decision to increase the comprehensive fee. 

“I found their claim that tuition was raised partly because other colleges have done the same to keep MHC in a competitive position particularly problematic since Mount Holyoke prides itself on promoting diversity when this decision will make Mount Holyoke more exclusive and therefore less diverse,” Kvederas said. “Such decisions should not be made on the basis of what other institutions are doing.”

Another issue that came up during the meeting was the $10 million donation the College added to its endowment in January 2021. According to the panelists, gifts to the endowment do not go directly to the operating budget for that year, and much of the endowment will be allocated to COVID-19-related expenses in the coming academic year. 

According to Sopory, this is where a lot of confusion tends to arise. “The endowment doesn’t function like a pot of money that the College or specific members of administration can pull from as they see fit. It is more like a collection of different funds and assets that together have an approximate value,” Sopory clarified after the meeting. “Therefore, while MHC’s endowment technically stands at $789 million, 90 percent of it is restricted, meaning it cannot be used freely.”

Throughout the meeting, panelists were asked to provide transparency about the decision-making process that led them to raise the comprehensive fee. According to the panelists, student input was factored into this process through the Financial Review Group, a small committee created out of necessity in the wake of the COVID-19 shutdown, which includes several students. The FRG has not met since February. 

To Sopory, who attended the meeting both as SGA president and as a concerned student, the administration’s approach to student questions seemed to miss the point. 

“I had hoped that this meeting would function more like a listening session or a dialogue, rather than a tennis match,” Sopory said. “Most of the panelists’ energy was focused on the explanation and defense of the fee increase decision rather than opening up a conversation to discuss a root problem: students feeling like they don’t have a say in the financial process that is a massive determinant of their educational career.”

Kvederas had a similar outlook. “I personally felt that the panelists’ responses to students’ genuine and serious concerns regarding the comprehensive fee increases were very bureaucratic and did not properly address the real human impact of this decision,” Kvederas said.

“Looking at these concerns at the macro level does not provide an accurate picture of how this increase will affect students, especially international students and first-gen low-income students,” Kvederas continued.

“I felt that a lot of things were being talked about in circles,” Rivkin said. “I felt like we were going around a fish bowl,” she said, making a twirling motion with her finger. 

As SGA president, Sopory is no stranger to open meetings such as this one. Thursday’s ad hoc senate meeting was the third of its kind in Sopory’s three years of involvement with the SGA. After three years of watching these meetings come and go, Sopory feels that the administration and the student body are on two different pages when it comes to financial decision-making, and that this “dissonance” comes down to different understandings of the Mount Holyoke experience and how funds should be allocated to preserve and improve it.

“Students view Mount Holyoke as an interconnected community anchored by education, and the sense that at least I get is that [Financial and Administrative Services] treat it solely as a business transaction,” Sopory said. “Don’t get me wrong, I know that this is a business and students are paying money in exchange for goods and services, but that relationship seems to be understood differently by students, [Financial and Administrative Services] and other offices of the College.” 

Thursday’s meeting, to Sopory and others, was another example in a long list of interactions with the College that left them confused and frustrated. “Every year, it seems like the same things happen over and over,” Sopory said. “Students are upset about a financial decision [or] aspect of the College, we come to senate with questions and arguments prepared, we hear the College’s responses, and yet we walk away feeling like nothing has changed.”

Italian lecturer’s contract is renewed

BY KATIE GOSS ’23

STAFF WRITER

On April 11, the College announced it would renew Visiting Lecturer in Classics and Italian Martino Lovato’s contract. Lovato will remain at Mount Holyoke in his current faculty position.

“[This] means that his position is as vulnerable as it was before,” Ombretta Frau, chair of Romance languages and cultures and a professor of Italian, said. 

This decision also means that the Italian department will not have to shut down its major and minor programs, a possibility that the department was worried about when they were originally told a few weeks ago that Lovato’s contract would not be renewed. 

Three faculty members — Lovato, Frau and Lecturer in Italian Morena Svaldi — make up the Italian department. Lovato’s dismissal would mean that the Italian program would no longer be able to sustain itself, as a department requires three full-time faculty members. From that point, the program would phase out, as the College had not filled the position. Following the announcement, the three faculty members in the department advocated that Lovato’s contract be renewed to the dean of faculty. 

Frau expressed how happy the decision has made the department. “We can use the time to start working to create a path forward and to engage with new conversations with the dean of faculty’s office,” Frau said.

Frau also noted that the support from the Mount Holyoke community played a huge role in the decision.

“This is the most amazing part for us,” Frau said. “I am sure that without the students and without many faculty members’ support, this would not have happened. We asked for help and the community responded.”