5/8/23
1,000+! Nearing 1,500 in support of Mike Grant... Thank you to all who are supporting by signing or sharing and especially to those who came out to 342 Broadway prior to Mike's disciplinary hearing On Friday. Mike's Union, SEIU32BJ, could not send a rep because of 'short notice' but he appreciates the support of the Harvard community at large as he continues to go to work everyday in an environment in which he was verbally abused and belittled by the building manager.
During his disciplinary meeting Mike Grant was treated as a suspect rather than a victim, with the two managers interrogating him line by line on a draft statement he submitted to his account manager, without being told providing such a statement could lead to his own discipline - he thought he was providing a victim impact statement but they turned it around on him. He provided the statement to the account manager as well as Leverett's Resident Dean upon request. It was then then shared widely without permission or consent.
At the start of the hearing, Mike was asked why he thought he felt uncomfortable with following orders and taking student property in the first place, despite orders directly from his account manager Robert M. Sabater not to touch the grill. He was asked if it was his signature on a generic Securitas handbook which is superseded by a Collective Bargaining Agreement at Harvard and further questioned on if he received an employee handbook and understood it.
He was asked probing questions about his own group of witnesses while being provided no access to a single page of evidence or witness testimony against him other than Mr. Zaker's own allegations that Mike Grant did not follow his orders to take the grill. As a result Mike will not be sharing his group of witnesses or their respective statements at this time. Out of respect for a number of them who also have exams this week, he will not share any information they have provided or names until after the close of exam period.
Mike Grant was then informed the purpose of the meeting was to 'find just cause' by Alonzo B. Herring, Director of Labor Relations.
As you may know, just cause is a legal construct used by employers to shield them from liability in civil suits stemming from wrongful termination, wrongful discipline, EEOC and MA Dept. of Labor Cases, and generally allows employers to avoid the costs associated with having to pay unemployment benefits after terminating an employee. Just cause is most often cited in cases of egregious employee misconduct.
Mike Grant's case doesn't pass a single of 7 tests for a finding of just cause in Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, Mike just 'keeping his job' isn't sufficient. Something needs to be done about the abusive building manager at Leverett House as evidence piles up, for the Lev community's sake. The guy with no witnesses except his wife, a Harvard janitor who could be heard laughing in the background according to witness statements as Mr. Zaker drove his vehicle home from Leverett, and yelled at Mike. The one with dozens of complaints, who even is drawing the ire of a number of concerned parents at this point.
Lastly, Regarding a recent email distributed to the Leverett community which seems to claim knowledge of the outcome of Mike's disciplinary hearing (still pending, both decision and documents) please know the following regarding anyone having 'personally spoken to supervisors' about Mike's case:
Securitas road supervisory staff, or Quality Control Supervisors, do not have any actual information regarding the status of disciplinary cases other than their own personal opinion, nor are they generally involved in the HR related processes surrounding those cases. They may at times be summoned to provide a statement or give testimony, but even then they aren't privy to all the details of the case.
There is a strong mandate to push a 'nothing to see here, it's all ok' narrative on Harvard's campus, especially as it pertains to safety and security. Don't spook the students with ghost stories, or their parents about the actual risks, or neglect of maintenance at the dorms on campus - that has always been the rule.
Guards are taught by observation to keep calm and carry on, and by experience not to speak unless spoken to. Depending on the circumstance and involved parties, sweep certain things under the rug, or even to cover for them as they occur. If something goes wrong they are considered disposable by Securitas and Harvard University alike.
It is therefore disappointing to see Mike's case relegated to that of someone who 'isn't one of us' because he isn't 'employed by Harvard' by the Interim Dean in an e-mail update sent out on a Sunday afternoon.
Harvard administrators love to throw up their hands and say 'it's not our domain', 'it's not our call', 'it's the contracting company' rather than show leadership in situations like these and take a stand.
However, as the one paying the bills, they are the customer, and frankly co-employer (exerting vast control over hours of work, hiring, working conditions, and pay rate), rather than a 'direct' one. Harvard University, in fact, retains more power and influence over outcomes in cases like Mike Grant's because of their relationship with Securitas, not less. Under new NLRB rules, they serve as a clear co-employer with control over the employee's work at multiple levels.
Securitas' motto is 'the customer is always right'.
Want a guard on the moon? They'll make it happen, at the right price.
It is the same line of thinking here, where leaders continually pass the buck and don't stand on the right side of history. From the following: (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/12/2/elsayed-lear-zhou-custodial-staff-contract/
"Harvard tends to absolve itself of any responsibility for security guards’ complaints and grievances because they fall under the purview of a third-party contractor, Securitas. Under this technical job classification, Harvard is able to claim guards are not Harvard personnel and look the other way when it comes to the majority of their outstanding concerns."
"If the administration or Harvard community at large were to weigh in on any one of the guards’ demands, Securitas would have no choice but to listen to their client. The University’s attempts to shirk its duty to speak up make their position clear: They would prefer to let Securitas do the dirty work and bargain away wage increases or decent healthcare for guards, knowing their bottom line can only be improved by their silence"
The details of this case will be printed in the Crimson and elsewhere soon enough, and the parties who should be ashamed of their conduct will of course decline to comment. In the meantime, Mike's situation is not novel. There's many cases like this at Harvard University - here are a few of the most recent witch hunts plaguing guards on campus in addition to Mike Grant's ongoing fight - please continue to sign and share today!
And a call for a pivot towards a real union that is fighting Amazon, and UPS: