For 22 days during the month of October 2016, more than 750 cooks, food servers, dishwashers, and cashiers struck Harvard University’s dining halls. This was the first open-ended strike in the 380-year history of the institution. It drew national and international press and inspired many students, faculty, and members of the university community to rally in support of the workers. The strike’s picket lines, marches, acts of civil disobedience, and building occupation became a collective repudiation of the corporate logic of the contemporary American university, one that privileges endowments, budgets, and HR departments over community, humanitarian values, and families. This was summed up in the slogan chanted thousands of times in Harvard Yard: “If we don’t get it, SHUT IT DOWN!” In the end, Harvard lost, badly. On the last day of the strike, the administration was literally under siege: hundreds of students walked out of class and marched on the building where negotiations were taking place. There, they staged an occupation of the lobby while hundreds of striking workers rallied and picketed outside, demanding the administration capitulate. By 2:00 in the morning, Harvard had no choice but to agree to all of the workers’ demands. Events like the dining hall strike at Harvard can seem spontaneous or, at the very least, fortuitous. As one of the elected leaders of UNITE HERE Local 26, the union that represents the workers at Harvard, I hope I can provide some insight into how and why the strike was successful. This article explains the origins of the conflict, the formulation of the strikers’ demands, and the organization and conduct of the strike. It also sheds light on creative tactics that the strikers and the union deployed to create an inclusive rather than divisive strike, welcoming the participation of the entire campus community. At a time when the American labor movement is weak and embattled, it is worth asking: What are the mechanics of a successful worker-led job action? What lessons can be derived from the dining hall workers’ victory? Large-scale strikes have almost disappeared in the United States. The labor movement has suffered from a decades-long assault on labor rights by corporations and the politicians that have supported them. This has led many unions to favor electoral political activity—the effort to get pro-labor, or at least lesser-evil, politicians elected—over worker militancy as their strategy to defend the past century of economic and social gains won by organized labor. In addition to reducing the amount of union funds spent on organizing militant actions, the effect of this decision has been to weaken organized labor’s ability to fulfill its members’ hopes, dreams, and aspirations.

中文翻译：

---

2016年哈佛罢工的教训

在2016年10月的22天内，有750多名厨师，食品服务员，洗碗机和收银员袭击了哈佛大学的食堂。这是该机构380年历史上的第一次无限制罢工。它吸引了国内外媒体的注意，并激发了许多学生，教职员工和大学社区成员的集会来支持工人。罢工的纠察队，游行，公民抗命和建筑占领成为对当代美国大学公司逻辑的集体否定，该大学赋予捐赠，预算和人力资源部门高于社区，人道主义价值观和家庭的特权。哈佛围场高呼数千次的口号概括了这一点：“如果我们不明白，那就把它关掉！” 最后，哈佛惨败。在罢工的最后一天，政府实际上遭到了围困：数百名学生走出课堂，走上了进行谈判的大楼。在那儿，他们占领了大厅，而数百名罢工工人在外面集会和纠察，要求政府屈服。到凌晨2:00，哈佛别无选择，只能同意所有工人的要求。诸如哈佛大学食堂罢工之类的事件似乎是自发的，或者至少是偶然的。作为UNITE的民选领导人HERE当地时间26日的一个，表示在哈佛大学工人工会，我希望我能提供一些洞察走向如何以及为什么是成功的。本文解释了冲突的根源，罢工者要求的制定以及罢工的组织和行为。它还阐明了罢工者和工会部署以创造包容性而非分裂性罢工的创新策略，并欢迎整个校园社区的参与。在美国劳工运动疲软而四面楚歌的时候，值得一提的是：成功的以工人为主导的工作行动的机制是什么？从食堂工人的胜利中可以得到什么教训？在美国，大规模罢工几乎消失了。劳工运动遭受了几十年来公司和支持他们的政客对劳工权利的侵犯。这导致许多工会支持选举政治活动，即争取亲劳工或至少是次要邪恶的努力，政客们选择了-而不是工人的好战-来捍卫上个世纪由有组织的劳动赢得的经济和社会利益的战略。除了减少用于组织好战行动的工会经费之外，这一决定的结果还在于削弱了有组织的劳工实现其成员的希望，梦想和抱负的能力。