Mike Grant would like to thank everyone who has come out in support him and of his disciplinary case. We have also obtained several of the Witness Affidavits collected from the courtyard on the 28th of April. Please continue to share and send our way. We thank each and every one of you for your candid and thorough accounts of the events taking place that day as it relates to both Mike Grant's conduct, and that of Mr. Zaker.

A few facts and initial points of clarification on the article released last night by The Crimson at approximately 2100 hours:

In regards to the physical item - the black weber charcoal grill:

Harvard Building Manager M. Zaker (Leverett Library Building
mohamed_zaker@harvard.edu (617)-495-2277) originally took the grill from students without notice or mention last year. He hid it without concern for who it belonged to. Building managers generally inform the community when they confiscate student property without their knowledge or consent.

For example, in the case of room inspections, where say a candle is found and confiscated, it is logged in triplicate on carbon paper to document the violation and removal of student property.

In this case, when students asked where the grill went after discovering it missing, it was Zaker who lied to students and said he didn't know.

The grill, matching the exact description, was searched for by security on site for weeks last Spring, and reported as stolen after being left to cool in the courtyard and going 'missing' the following day (when it was removed by Zaker).

Fast forward half a year to last December, the grill was discovered by security on site, not by Mike Grant, but by another guard.

A door was left open in a small closet containing shovels and rock salt, and when the guard went to lock it up they discovered the stolen item adjacent to the winter items. They then secured the door which had been left ajar.

The concocted assertion by Zaker that it was 'stored for safekeeping' or that he believed any HoCo on campus have their own grills (a prohibited fire hazard) generally rather than relying on HUDS staff and outside vendors to run barbeques, or especially ROTC recruiting cookouts is odd.

Surely Mr. Zaker must realize this claim makes no sense except to attempt to cover up the fact he originally took the grill, student property, without consent, permission, notice or explanation. 

Worse, Mr. Zaker then lied to students when students came searching for it.

This is a guy you want to trust with the keys and oversight of a Harvard dorm?

Nancy Hodge (nhodge@fas.harvard.edu) keeps hiring and promoting former janitorial supervisors. What a mess this has become, indeed. Maybe it's time to reassess those specific HR processes you can't talk about, Nancy.

ONE party in this case has been talked down to, demeaned, belittled and interrogated. ONE party has done nothing wrong.

The abusive party, Zaker, a Harvard employee, walks around freely and will be smiling during Commencement Week at parents while he continues to order subordinate employees around, in the management style he purportedly also used as a janitorial supervisor. That of a bully. Then he hops in his minivan and drives his partner, a cleaner he supervised, now working at Smith Center, home. 

This is an individual in way over his head as a Harvard Building Manager, who lost his cool on a subordinate employee. He did so in front of students. It's not a mere 'disagreement' between two parties of equal standing as the Crimson purports.

Rather, it is someone leveraging an outsized power dynamic and the privilege of working directly for Harvard leaning on someone they see as lesser and laying blame on a subordinate contractor employee who does not share the luxury of such job security.

It's someone who is very secure in their position on campus feeling it's ok to abuse a subordinate because that person works in a position with comparably less pay, benefits or prestige and this abuse flies in the face of what Harvard University at least claims it stands for. 

Zaker even expressed as much to Mike, on speakerphone, in front of horrified students. Harvard University should not sit idly by.

TUTOR ON CALL REQUEST NOT MENTIONED ON APRIL 28TH - BUT WAS BY SECURITAS MANAGEMENT AT DISCIPLINARY - THE BUILDING MANAGER CAN'T CONTACT THE TUTOR ON CALL DIRECTLY? WHY WOULD THEY NEED THE GUARD TO CALL A NUMBER THEY HAVE ON SPEED DIAL? HMM.

According to witnesses on scene and Grant, at no point in Mr. Zaker's tirade did he mention the tutor on call. Interestingly, this was one of the things asked about more than once at the hearing though, according to the Union Steward on the case Michael A. Nowiszewski in a brief phone interview Monday morning.

Instead, students present in the courtyard claimed they heard Mr. Zaker scream into the phone "Mike, listen to what I tell you to do, take it from them. If they fight you for it or give you any troubles, call HUPD." 

So the Leverett House Building Manager told the guard at Leverett to call HUPD on students regarding using their own property, not any tutor on call, and there were witnesses. Weeks after a swatting took place.

Wouldn't the building manager also have the Tutor on Call on speed dial? 

Ask any Building Manager.

That number is top 3 along with the Resident Dean and Faculty Dean.

Why, a month after the initial incident, is this theory the building manager told the guard to call a number he already had access to even being entertained?

Sounds like a work of fiction desperately cobbled together to try to keep a job.

MISCONDUCT AND INACTION AT LEVERETT HOUSE

It's interesting that although witnesses within earshot of the conversation on speakerphone have provided written Witness Affidavits in this case, no action has been taken by Harvard, Nancy Hodge, or the Leverett House Deans.

You have an allegation by the building manager on the one hand, up against nearly a dozen witnesses, Mike's allegations supported by witness statements plus evidence that backs it up on the other.

It's not about merely 'maintaining his employment', as The Crimson purports. It's about staying at Leverett. The goal is in the title of the petition. Mike Grant did nothing wrong and comes to work every day to serve the Leverett Community. The fact that his job ever came this close to being on the line tells you how tilted the table is at Harvard and shows you what Building Managers think they can get away with. If anyone should go in this case, it should be the abuser, not the victim here.

Thanks for all of the continued support, assistance and well wishes.

We will continue to investigate this issue, and remain committed to fostering an inclusive, kind environment at Harvard that does not allow the Corporation or Harvard Building Managers to prey upon third party contractors and students on campus, who make up some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged members of our community.

HOUSEKEEPING RE: CRIMSON ARTICLE - UNION BUSINESS

After checking, SEIU32BJ does negotiate (sells out) custodial units directly with Harvard

Confirmed today, SEIU32BJ negotiates (sells out) guards with Securitas only, not directly with Harvard. However, all guards we asked stated unequivocally the vast majority of terms and conditions are predetermined by the 'client' aka Harvard University, before surface bargaining and negotiation theater begins to give the appearance of bargaining in good faith, according to them.

For example, they said one deal included a 1 year extension with only a bonus was which locked in and budgeted for prior to the start of negotiations by Harvard.

Then, they mentioned a 4 year deal was locked in and the budget was set prior to bargaining. The experience left them disheartened about the function of their union.

Lastly, they mentioned that no new money was allowed to be discussed during CBA talks despite 6 months of surface bargaining. Just a meager rearranging of sparse musical chairs, according to members of the last bargaining committee. According to those would speak to us, they unanimously did not sign the Collective Bargaining Agreement in protest.

They claim it's collusive, it's joint employment, and it's hurting workers and students alike.

Stay tuned for the next update, as Mike Grant's job at Leverett remains in limbo.

You can read the recent article in the Crimson here:

More Than 1,400 Sign Petition Supporting Harvard Security Guard Mike Grant Following Leverett Dispute 

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/5/22/mike-grant-leverett-dispute/

Let's give The Crimson reason to edit the title to "Over 1,500" signatures and get the ball rolling on regional media outlet coverage by the end of the week.