On the first day of classes this fall, students were met by members of the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters protesting outside the Joyce Cummings Center over alleged labor violations connected to the construction of new upperclassmen housing building, Pachyderm Place.
For nearly two years, the NASRCC, which is not involved in the construction of the dorm and does not represent university employees, has been organizing protests over what it alleges are exploitative labor practices connected to construction projects at Tufts.
The NASRCC has accused Tufts of wage theft, tax fraud, insurance fraud and worker abuse on its recent construction projects, including the construction of Pachyderm Place.
The NASRCC protestors distributed flyers with their accusations, including a claim that workers on the site were promised a rate of $23 per hour but only received $20. They also claimed that workers have been paid under the table, denied overtime pay for work done on Saturdays and that some workers are still owed past wages.
On their webpage, the NASRCC explains their demands, calling on Tufts to adopt “Responsible Contracting Standards” to ensure that all hired contractors treat workers fairly.
“Institutions like Tufts, who hold tremendous wealth and have significant resources at their disposal, can avoid contributing to wage [theft], if they choose. We hope they will,” the website reads. “Tufts has the power to demand accountability.”
Recently, members of the NASRCC have been protesting outside of the JCC, and other locations on campus, against Erland Construction, the general contractor for Pachyderm Place.
Tufts claims that the NASRCC’s accusations are completely baseless, instead placing full responsibility for construction and contractor selection on the property’s developers.
According to Patrick Collins, executive director of media relations at Tufts, the university has no part in paying the tradespeople working on the new residence hall.
“The developer of the residence hall project is solely responsible for the construction and operation of the property, including selection of contractors to perform the work,” Collins wrote in a statement to the Daily.
The university has not had any contact with the NASRCC relating to the Boston Ave. developments, and does not have a labor relationship with the Union.
“The North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters did not submit a bid for the project, does not represent any university employees, and the university is not a party to any collective bargaining agreements with this union,” Collins wrote.
The other object of the NASRCC’s protests on campus, Erland Construction, also claims limited responsibility for the NASRCC’s accusations. Erland Construction does not directly hire tradespeople, but instead provides both union and non-union subcontractors an opportunity to bid on their projects.
According to a statement to the Daily by Eric Greene, vice president and residential group manager at Erland Construction, they use an established subcontractor evaluation process that evaluates potential subcontractors on “experience, financial stability, overall performance, and their ability to meet project requirements.”
They added that they expect all subcontractors to remain fully compliant with all federal, state and local laws.
In their statement, Erland Construction explained that “Erland takes allegations of unlawful or unethical practices seriously and has established procedures to review and address any concerns involving our company or our subcontractors. We remain committed to fair and responsible business practices, the safety and well-being of everyone working on our jobsites, and our responsibility to Capstone Development Partners, Tufts University, and the surrounding community.”
Update: This article was updated to clarify the connection between the NASRCC and the construction of Pachyderm Place.
Correction: A previous version of this article implied that NASRCC workers were currently working for Tufts on the Pachyderm Place construction project, which is incorrect. The article has been updated to reflect this change.
