• Pension Plan (English)
• Pension Plan (Spanish)
• Pension Plan (French)
• Pension Plan (Chinese)

Tracy Parks, a member of the Boston Workers Alliance and Laborers’ Local 151, told me that recently. And, it is not just cranes in the sky, but also shovels in the ground. On a busy street, you no longer just see suits, you notice more hard hats and lunch boxes.   These are pictures of hope, the belief that soon new enterprises will fill buildings, people will be able to enjoy renewed stability, and the city will have a vibrant economy again.

For years the cranes have not been here. Construction in Boston has been devastated by the economic woes of the past four years. This past September, 22,300 (21percent) fewer men and women worked in construction in the Boston area than in September 2007. In other words, there were more construction workers from 2007 who could not find work in the industry in 2011 than all the people living in Mission Hills and the West End combined.

The employees recently notified management that they wanted to form a union. Since then, according to the head of the local hospitality workers union, managers have been meeting with workers to discourage them from organizing.

“They’re snubbing their noses at their workers and they’re snubbing their noses at the community of Boston,’’ said Brian Lang, president of Unite Here Local 26.

The hotel’s parent company, Hilton Worldwide, denied that it was dissuading workers from unionizing.

“Our staff has the right to choose to freely decide if they want a union or not,’’ said spokesman Bruce Rubin. “We will uphold their right to vote in private and cast a secret ballot just the way every single American who goes to the polls [does].’’

Between 50 and 100 people at a time walked the picket line throughout the day yesterday. The Back Bay Hilton workers say they want the same pay and benefits as union employees at the Hilton Boston Logan Airport.

At the airport hotel, housekeepers make about $15.50 an hour, increasing to $17 an hour in a few months, and pay $12 a week for family health insurance, with no copayments or deductibles.

Housekeepers at the Hilton Boston Downtown, on the other hand, make around $12.50 an hour and pay up to $200 a week for health care, with variable copays and deductibles.

Geraldina Texiera, 33, said she has received only a 24-cent raise in the five years she has worked as a housekeeper at the Hilton Boston Downtown, and can’t afford the health insurance premiums.

“I want a union because I can’t pay the insurance here because it’s too expensive,’’ said Texiera, who instead is on MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program for the poor.

Workers at the Harvard Club of Boston lodged a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board last week alleging that the Club threatened workers to prevent them from participating in union activities and illegally surveilled workers participating in such activities.

The Club and its workers are currently involved in another lawsuit, in which workers are claiming that the Club violated the Massachusetts “Tip Law” by charging service charges that the management then failed to distribute to workers. In the midst of these two lawsuits, the Harvard Club of Boston is also in contract negotiations with UNITE HERE! Local 26, the union that represents Harvard Club of Boston workers and Harvard University dining hall workers.

The Harvard Club of Boston is a private business open to Harvard graduates as well as graduates of “selected affiliate colleges and universities,” according to its website. The Club is not associated with Harvard University. Representatives of the Club declined to comment for this article.

Harvard Club workers and union organizers allege that the illegal threatening and surveillance occurred when workers organized a leafletting campaign in which Club workers and union members handed out flyers promoting member and community support for a fair contract negotiation. Club management reportedly issued “threats of reprisals and coercion against bargaining unit members for engaging in protected concerted activity,” according to the official complaint issued by workers. The complaint further claims that the management called the police, told some workers that they were not allowed to go outside, and “overtly repeatedly photograph[ed] bargaining unit members engaged in protected concerted activity.”

One Harvard Club worker, who identified herself as Susanna, said that her manager told her that she was not permitted to go outside and participate in union activity, even on her break.

“My manager told me that I was not allowed to leave and that they were going to call the police,” Susanna said.

Susanna’s co-worker, who identified herself as Norma, said that she felt the Club was holding the workers inside in order to intimidate them.

“They wanted to show that they had all the power, not us,” Norma said. “They were using intimidation to make us believe that we were powerless.”

Union members and workers said they hope the new lawsuit will help make sure that workers are not pressured by their managers. According to Dana Simon, a representative for Local 26, the union is focused on ensuring that the Club does not use “intimidation” to prevent workers from lawfully pursuing their right to a fair contract.

“More than just being illegal, this was just a rotten, unacceptable way to treat decent, hard-working people,” Simon said.  “Management just has to bargain in good faith—they can’t just push that away.”

According to Simon, a “just” contract consists of increased salaries, better health care policies, and maintaining the current number of vacation days.

“Management is proposing no wage increases for six years and, out of 240 workers, less than 90 have health care,” he said. “We are really serious about trying to negotiate a contract that will enable our members to lead full lives.”`

—Staff writer Mercer R. Cook can be reached at mcook@college.harvard.edu.

Harvard Local 26 chief steward Ed Childs and Harvard Law leader Alice Brown

On December 2, Restaurant Associates / Compass workers at Harvard Law School became the newest members of UNITE HERE Local 26.

“It’s been a long time coming,” said RA Union committee leader Willie Moore. “And now, if you take one of us on, you take all of us on.”

The Law School workers organized throughout the summer with the help of Harvard Food Service shop stewards and several volunteer Harvard student organizers.

The victory rode the wave of excitement from the successful contract campaign by the 550 workers at Harvard University who were already part of the union, who recently won a landmark new agreement with Harvard. The new contract brought about more than just wages and benefits, but also an ongoing Joint Best Practices Committee – modeled after the efforts of Local 34 and 35 at Yale – charged with finding solutions to sustainable foods, sustainable jobs and year-round employment.

Harvard Law School workers had started attending Harvard food service shop steward meetings even before their union recognition. With this victory, the last non-union group of service workers at Harvard University has joined with their sisters and brothers. Says Harvard Local 26 chief shop steward Ed Childs, “This is just the beginning. Now we’re going to be helping campus food service workers all around Boston to become part of the Union.”

The Harvard Club of Boston is being sued by its waitstaff for alleged violations of the Massachusetts tips law. At the request of three employees, attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan ’90, J.D. ’96, filed a class-action lawsuit against the club on November 10; she has won numerous such cases in the past, including suits against Hilltop Steak House, Starbucks, and Northeastern University (a case in which the workers earned high base salaries).

At issue is the distribution of the proceeds from a surcharge the club levies on its members “in lieu of a gratuity” for meals and functions, as well as the sharing of a holiday gift fund to which club members make voluntary contributions. None of the surcharge has ever been given to employees; the club says it helps pay the club’s operating expenses. (The club, which operates from a main clubhouse on Commonwealth Avenue and a second location in the downtown financial district, is completely separate from Harvard University, but by charter, its members must be Harvard alumni. Graduates of certain other institutions may become associate members.)

According to the club, the surcharge acts as a usage-based fee to fund general operations, complementing member dues, and its staff are told when hired that the club is a no-tipping establishment, so they have no expectation of receiving gratuities.

Massachusetts law, however, turns on the expectations of the customer, rather than the employee. In an article about the lawsuit that appeared in the Boston Globe, all three club members quoted were under the impression that the surcharge they had been paying for years went to workers. A Globe editorial stated: “It’s one thing if a restaurant, bar, or swanky club charges a fixed service fee to keep its waiters and bartenders from being stiffed by stingy tippers. It’s quite another if the good will customers feel toward their servers…benefits someone else.”

State law does allow employers to impose a house or administrative fee, such as a “usage” fee, but only by written description that “informs the patron that the fee does not represent a tip or service charge for wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders.”

Liss-Riordan, who represents the plaintiffs, points out that the club’s member handbook refers to the surcharge as “in lieu of a gratuity.” The amount of the surcharge, 17 percent (20 percent for banquets), further adds to the impression that it is in lieu of a tip, she asserts.

The second point of contention raised by the lawsuit concerns the club’s holiday gift fund, which, according to the lawsuit, is shared with hourly staff at a rate of $60 per year of service. At least some non-hourly staff also share in the gift fund, according to the club, but the formula for that distribution has not been divulged and has been a point of contention in the club’s negotiations with the union that represents club workers; months before the current lawsuit alleged that some of the gift fund is divided among club managers (which, if true, would be a clear violation of the state’s tipping law), the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel had filed a federal complaint against the club for bad-faith bargaining, in part over its refusal to reveal either the amount or disposition of those member-donated gifts.

Beyond the legal dimension of the conflict is the question of whether the employees are fairly compensated. In a November 16 letter to members, club president Nicholas J. Iselin ’87 made the case that they are: “[W]e offer servers higher wages ($16-$20 per hour) than are the norm in the hospitality industry, as well as health insurance, paid holidays, sick leave and vacation time, retirement benefits, and a stable work schedule.” Commenting through a spokesperson, the club said that workers receive two to four weeks of paid vacation, 10 or more paid holidays, and three weeks of sick leave.

But Dana Simon, organizing director of Local 26 of UNITE HERE, the union that represents the club’s 240 hospitality workers, disputes that picture; he says most workers earn between $16 and $18 an hour. (In a separate interview, Liss-Riordan said that amount is less than hospitality workers earn at comparable employers in Boston and Cambridge, once gratuities are included.) The highest wage the club pays is $18.78 per hour for a second cook, says Simon, “which is usually someone with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree from a cooking college.” Eighty-two of the club’s workers are ineligible for paid sick days, paid holidays, vacations, pension, and other benefits, according to Simon; a larger number are excluded from health benefits. Healthcare coverage for 57 of the club’s employees (with 76 dependents among them) is taxpayer-subsidized under the state’s mandatory insurance law, according to 2009 state records of employers who have 50 or more employees using public assistance (appendix five). More than 100 of the employees earn less than $10,000 a year. Of the remainder, most earn more than $10,000 but less than $40,000, so even for higher earning, longer-service employees, says Simon, the $2,500 annual family deductible for health insurance offered through the club is a significant proportion of income. Furthermore, there is no paid sick leave in the first year; it rises to five days after one year of service and 10 days after two years.

In negotiations with the union, says Simon, management has proposed freezing hourly wages for the next six years; eliminating the retirement plan after June 2011 and replacing it with a worker-funded 401(k) plan with no employer contribution; and taking away three paid holidays for current workers, as well as six paid holidays (including Columbus Day, Veterans Day, and the day after Thanksgiving) for future employees. “Tell people what they are,” says Simon, “if you are proud of your benefits.” He also disputes the assertion that the club offers a more stable schedule to its workers. A week’s schedule that begins on Monday is posted the previous Friday, he says.

Whatever the outcome of the labor negotiations, the stakes of the lawsuit are high. Since 2008, any violation of the state’s wage and hour laws, including those covering tips, mandates payment of triple damages as well as costs and attorney fees in successful cases. Previously, state judges exercised discretion over the awards, typically assessing treble damages only in cases of willful violation.

It’s one thing if a restaurant, bar, or swanky club charges a fixed service fee to keep its waiters and bartenders from being stiffed by stingy tippers. It’s quite another if the good will customers feel toward their servers becomes an excuse for a surcharge that benefits someone else. But that’s what happened at the Harvard Club of Boston, according to employees who are suing in Suffolk Superior Court over a 17-percent food and beverage surcharge “in lieu of a gratuity’’ – a surcharge that workers say they didn’t receive.

To its credit, the Harvard Club of Boston, which is independent from the university, pays its servers well and offers them health care coverage to boot. But the 17-percent surcharge described in the suit surely plays on the habits of customers who are accustomed to tipping waiters a similar percentage. In doing so, it appears to violate a Massachusetts law under which the “total proceeds’’ of charges that look like gratuities must go to wait staff and other service workers. If it looks like a gratuity, it has to actually be one.

If an establishment explicitly raised its prices as a way of providing employees a living wage while upholding a no-tips policy, its customers might well applaud. As it stands, some Harvard Club members were misled by a service fee that wasn’t going to servers. Club workers deserve a tip for speaking up.

According to a lawsuit filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, members of the private alumni club pay a 17 percent surcharge on food and beverage bills (20 percent for banquets), which the club states is collected “in lieu of a gratuity.’’ But workers say they do not get a cent of that money.

“The rich, the famous, and the powerful go there to be wined and dined and waited on by a very dedicated workforce who happen to largely be immigrants,’’ said Brian Lang, president of Unite Here Local 26, the hospitality workers’ union that represents the Harvard Club servers. “The club members are being duped, and I would assume that they would be as outraged as any of the rest of us are about this practice.’’

Harvard Club member Mac Caplan, a 28-year-old high school English teacher in Weston who uses the club mainly to play squash, said he was surprised the staff was not sharing in the surcharge.

“Because it says ‘in lieu of gratuity,’ I assumed part of it was gratuity going to the workers who were serving at the time,’’ he said. “Certainly [the club] could be more transparent with the membership about where that club charge goes.’’

The club has a no-tipping policy, but member Francis J. Connolly said he thought that meant a gratuity was included in the bill.

“If I was there for dinner I thought the tip’s taken care of,’’ said Connolly, a 54-year-old analyst at the Boston public opinion research firm Kiley & Co. who held his wedding reception at the club nine years ago.

The Harvard Club, which has 250 employees, has two locations, in the Back Bay and the Financial District. Its 5,000 members – alumni from Harvard, Yale, and other elite schools – pay as much as $165 a month and an initiation fee of up to $2,000 to belong. General manager Eric Gillberg declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The club is not affiliated with Harvard University.

The Massachusetts tips law states that any service charge a customer would “reasonably expect’’ to be given to a server in lieu of a tip must be given to the employee.

Dozens of establishments have been sued for violating this law, including a Berkshires resort that last month reached a combined $7 million settlement with some 700 current and former workers. Dunkin’ Donuts is facing a class-action suit because supervisors and managers share in tips – a case being brought by lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, who is also representing the Harvard Club workers.

“I am appalled that a club associated with my alma mater would be playing these games with its employees,’’ said Liss-Riordan, who earned her undergraduate and law degrees at Harvard. “An employer like the Harvard Club, they should know better.’’

Bartender Andy Bertrand, one of the plaintiffs, knew he would not get tips when he started working at the Harvard Club six years ago, but he said the health care benefits and not having to deal with rowdy barrooms made it worth it. But Bertrand is drawing the line at what he says is a misleading practice.

“It’s like the management is tricking us and tricking the members,’’ said Bertrand, who makes $18 an hour.

The Local 26 hospitality workers’ union, which encouraged the workers to bring the lawsuit, is in the midst of contentious contract negotiations with the club. Several months into negotiations, the Harvard Club sent the union a $2,344 bill for using the meeting room at the club, retroactive to the first bargaining session in May.

The club said it has rescinded the bill; the union said it has not been notified.

Along with the bill, the club suggested that the bargaining committee, made up of workers, order from the club’s catering menu during negotiating sessions, and attached a menu. Among the options: a $48 lunch combination of warm lobster and mushroom strudel, fondue finished with hollandaise, grilled petit filet mignon, mango cheesecake, and coffee.

The lawsuit also raises questions about the annual holiday gift, bonuses paid to employees from money donated by members. A portion of the collection is given to employees – $60 for every year of service, Bertrand said – but the rest goes to management, according to the lawsuit.

Club member Bob Whelan, a Boston financial consultant, likes the idea of the holiday gift to reward the employees, but said he thought all the money went to the workers.

“I didn’t think anything would go to management,’’ he said.

As for the surcharge, Whelan, who eats in the club’s Grill Bar with his wife, said he was told the gratuity was included.

“I never questioned it,’’ he said. “Maybe I will from now on.’’

The Harvard Club of Boston, an alumni organization independent from the University, recently came under fire for its behavior during contract discussions with its workers.

On Oct. 3, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Club for negotiating “in bad faith” with its service staff—including cooks, cleaners and servers.

The complaint serves as a warning to the Harvard Club, and a failure on their part to amend their bargaining strategies could lead to a national law suit and steep fine, according to Brian Lang, president of UNITE HERE! Local 26.

On Wednesday, a student division of the Occupy Boston movement protested in front of the alumni organization’s downtown clubhouse about its poor labor practices.

Lang, president of the union which represents the Harvard Club’s workers as well as Harvard’s dining hall workers, said that the complaint from the National Labor Relations Board and the Occupy demonstration were a result of the Club’s failure to provide basic rights to their workers.

Lang said that the Club and the union had been negotiating their contract since the summer, but the Club’s management refused to negotiate the basic tenets of the contract, including benefits and hourly wages.

According to Lang, the Club’s management proposed no wage increases for six years as well as an expensive health care plan and the elimination of pension plans for new workers.

“They are making proposals that ensure that workers at the Harvard Club will be driven to live a life of poverty,” Lang said.

Karen A. Narefsky ’11, a member of the Student Labor Action Movement and one of the student demonstrators in the Occupy movement, said that the negotiations were “appalling.”

“The workers, they’re not trying to be unreasonable. They’re just trying to make enough money to see their families,” said Narefsky, who was present at several of the bargaining sessions between the Club and the union.

Narefsky added that that the negotiations were “embarrassing.”

“It’s not something I want to be associated with the name of Harvard,” she said.

The demonstration by students as part of the Occupy Boston movement hinted at greater class tensions present in the negotiations, according to Lang.

“The membership [of the Harvard Club] is the elite of Boston—the rich, the famous, the powerful,” Lang said. “They go to the Harvard Club to wine and dine and relax and be waited on and taken care of. The folks who do that [service] work are working class new immigrants to this country.”

Students echoed the idea of a class struggle present in the negotiations.

“The Harvard elite are having these fancy meals and wonderful events, and meanwhile the workers are really suffering,” said SLAM member William P. Whitham ’14. “It’s disturbing that this is a club that I could potentially join.”

Narefsky said that even with the added pressure from the National Labor Relations Board, it seems little change has occurred in the Club’s negotiation strategy.

“I had hoped the complaint would make the negotiations go more smoothly,” Narefsky said, “but … [the Club] continues to bargain aggressively, taking proposals off the table which they have previously offered, and they haven’t stopped offering unacceptable proposals. I think there’s going to have to be a lot of public pressure.”

The Harvard Club of Boston declined to comment.

—Staff writer Mercer R. Cook can be reached at mcook@college.harvard.edu.