For transparency, the author of this piece would like to disclose that she has been working with Smith USLAC to advocate for SEIU 211. The Sophian reached out to many different parties in the writing of this story and accessed all available information to avoid bias wherever possible.
“If they see me talking to you, I’ll be fired,” said a housekeeper who, along with another housekeeper, spoke to The Sophian in a house hallway. They both expressed concern about the housekeeping department’s recent change in management. “They do not care for women,” said the other. “We get treated like crap.” The two shared a common grievance among housekeepers belonging to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 211—the new uniform policy. The Sophian spoke with six housekeepers, all of whom asked to be kept anonymous out of concern for their job security.
The housekeepers explained that, under their previous management, they could purchase and be reimbursed for their own uniform pants as long as they had no embroidery or rips. This year, they’re being issued pants from one specific supplier that was picked out by the college. “They’re saying that the other policy was just temporary,” said one housekeeper. “That was never said before.”
At the start of the semester, housekeepers were called to the facilities department to try on the new uniform pants. “I left crying,” said one housekeeper. “The women’s sizes didn’t fit me. I had to wear the men’s pants and they still wouldn’t button.” She gestured to the housekeeper next to her. “She and I were in a closet with no mirror, trying pants on.” According to the housekeeper, when they complained that none of the pants fit, a housekeeping manager said, “This is what you’re getting and this is what you’ll wear. You’re gonna be fine, you’ll find something.”
Another housekeeper said, “I had to go five or six sizes up. They buttoned under my breast, I couldn’t bend over and the legs looked like elephant legs. I stayed down there for over an hour trying on clothes, and nothing fit.” She said that when she expressed her concerns to management, “One walked out of the room, and the other basically ignored me. It was a very demeaning experience.”
“It was a fiasco, to say the least,” said another. “It’s not a glamorous job, and I think the least we could have is a feeling of comfort.”
Another housekeeper said, “There are 32 of us, and the pants didn’t fit any of us. They’re making everyone feel very self-conscious about our bodies.” She continued, referring to the housekeeping manager, “He doesn’t care, and he doesn’t want to hear it. Management has just said, ‘You’ll wear it, and you’ll like it, or you’ll be sent home.’”
The Sophian spoke with Jim Gray, Associate Vice President for Facilities and Operation, who said that the former $30 reimbursement policy was a temporary solution while the college found a new uniform supplier. Smith had ceased buying uniforms from the previous supplier due to their limited options. “We’re asking everybody to go back to what the contract says, which is to wear the uniforms that we provide.”
According to the contract, the college will provide uniforms at the start of the fall semester. Uniforms have yet to be provided.
Sam Masinter, Associate Vice President for College Relations, said, “Uniforms have been purchased. However, due to the worldwide supply chain issues, deliveries have been delayed. Uniforms will be distributed as soon as they arrive.”
“I hope they don’t order them and let us be,” said one housekeeper. She said that they were given no explanation as to why the college switched from allowing people to buy their own pants to mandating that they use a single supplier. “They basically said, ‘This is it. This is your one choice.’”
All six housekeepers who were interviewed by The Sophian expressed that they had been under the impression that the policy allowing them to buy their own pants would be permanent.
Masinter said, “By 2019, so many employees had issues with our previous vendor that we began searching for a new uniform supplier. Due to the pandemic, that process was not completed until 2021.” Based on his and Gray’s explanation of the policy change, it was a temporary solution in place for only a couple of years. According to multiple housekeepers, the policy was in place for about eight years.
The new management has also, according to several housekeepers, told them that they can no longer wear capris during the summer as many have reported they’ve done for years. Instead, they will either have to wear pants or shorts. Employees have taken issue with this, several expressing that they feel uncomfortable wearing shorts. At a meeting, one housekeeper reported that a manager had pointed to her while she was wearing capris and said, “You can’t wear those anymore.” The explanation that he gave was that capris are not in the contract. “I think he’s just trying to control us,” she said.
In response to this claim, Masinter said, “Employees were always welcomed to wear any length of pants that met the uniform requirements. Capris were always approved.”
“We want our staff to look uniform and professional at all times while they’re performing their duties on campus,” said Gray. “We’ll do alterations necessary to ensure that people fit into the uniform. We are committed to everyone being able to wear clothes that make them comfortable enough to do their duty while they’re on their shift.”
“They never told us we could have them altered,” said a housekeeper.
“I’ve been in housekeeping for about eight years, and I have always been able to buy my own pants,” said another. “When I went for the uniform try-on, it was the most humiliating thing I had ever done.” After trying on multiple pairs of pants and being unable to find one that fit well, she said, “I left in tears and didn’t get any pants.” After walking out of the try-on feeling embarrassed, she was called back to facilities to work with management to pick out uniform pants. She described the pants as “paper thin and scratchy as hell” and the process of telling management about her sizing issues as “really uncomfortable,” especially because the managers present were all men. After her experience, she sent a letter to the SEIU 211 manager stating her concerns. “From what I understand, he compiled that along with other letters from housekeepers and sent them to facilities management.”
Gray said that he had not heard of any concerns until student emails started coming in, as a result of email templates that were circulated by a newly-formed, student-run group, Smith College United Student Labor Action Coalition (USLAC). The group posted to social media, explaining the change in policy and encouraging students to send emails to people like Gray and Kathleen McCartney, President of the College, to get the policy changed back.
Amelia Wesley ’25, who formed USLAC and has been guiding students based on her meetings with the union leaders and members of the dining and housekeeping union, said that USLAC would like to see more public displays of student support for workers. “We have a few things we’re working on in regard to that,” she said. The group hopes that this will gain the college’s attention. “We want Smith to know that students are on the workers’ side,” said Wesley.
“It’s brought up morale,” said one housekeeper about Smith USLAC and student organizing. “We’re happy that someone is sticking up for us.”
Arthur Usher, Assistant Manager for Facilities Services, said, “To date, there’s no specific complaint from a housekeeper.” He added, “There’s always somebody complaining about the uniforms. No one is always happy.”
“Every one of us has voiced our concerns,” said one housekeeper about attempting to talk to management. “But he didn’t want to hear it.”
Another said, “We have new management and it just seems more, for lack of a better word, hostile. I don’t think they’re doing a great job. It used to be much kinder, gentler, more open communication when I started. Now it seems more corporate and a lot more harsh.” Of her uniform try-on experience, she said, “Nothing fit. It was absolutely horrendous.”
Two housekeepers who spoke to The Sophian reported that the uniforms were just one example of an increased level of scrutiny that housekeepers have been subject to under the new management. One worker said that managers have gone into the houses checking for dust in places like the top of the fire alarms and behind the toilets, writing workers up if they missed any spots.
She also said, “We’re not allowed to be seen outside the houses except to get lunch. Sometimes you just want some fresh air because we’re in houses all day.” She told a story about one housekeeper with breathing problems who was taking a quick mask break outside when a manager came by and said, “You’re not allowed a break. Get back inside.”
Another housekeeper referenced this same issue, saying that that manager has been reprimanding workers for taking too long on lunch breaks. “The lines for meals can get really long,” she said. “I don’t count my break until I sit down.”
Responding to claims that breaks were being heavily monitored, Masinter said, “This is not the case—nor has it ever been. Employees may take authorized breaks and lunches wherever they like, including outdoors.”
“When you have women crying trying on clothes, wouldn’t you take that to heart?” said one housekeeper of the enforcement of new uniforms. “They would never do that to the faculty. They would never do that to the office women. But you can do that to the housekeepers.”
