Union Costs Attributed To Salaries, Benefits

Although the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) settled its contract with the University more than a year ago, the first public mention of the costs of unionization came just last week.

University representatives said yesterday that the $2 million union costs cited by Acting Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Henry Rosovsky in his annual budget letter could be attributed to higher salaries and expanded benefits which were negotiated in the June 1989 contract, but not fully anticipated in the 1990 budget plan.

Donene Williams, president of HUCTW, said that she was surprised to find the union settlement mentioned in the FAS budget letter. "The improvements that we made were made University wide," she said. "This is the first we've heard from any school or department claiming a deficit based on negotiated improvements."

According to Robert A. Rotner, an FAS administrative dean, University and union officials had not yet reached a contract agreement when the initial 1990 budget was being prepared, and the settlement's salaries and benefits were more generous than the University had anticipated.

"We did the best we could to project how much it would cost," said Rotner. "But no one at Harvard knew what the settlement was going to be."

Rotner added that a later evaluation of the budget took the contract into account, but "the revision was...based on what was specifically stated in the contract."

The increased costs, according to Rotner, camein part from "a range of more ambiguous issues"that were difficult to calculate, including thecosts of setting up several joint union-Universitygroups and the subsequent University decision toextend many of the union-won benefits and salaryincreases to non-unionized staff members.

Rotner said that the entire University wasunder "enormous financial strain," and he addedthat while the union settlement wasUniversity-wide, because FAS is larger than otherschools, "the impact on us is much larger than onanyone else."

And the contract-related expenses whichRosovsky mentioned in his budget report formedonly a part of the $11 million FAS budget deficitwhich included costs carried over from earlieryears and expenses from renovations and increasedfaculty recruitment as well.

Although HUCTW representatives did say theywere surprised to find union costs mentioned inthe budget letter, they did not refute thosecosts. However, there was some question about theactual costs of instituting the jointunion-University problem-solving and policy teams.

According to labor experts and Universityofficials, the creation of these local networkswas one of the most significant provisions of theunion contract. Because they modeled the union noton a conflict-oriented relationship with theUniversity, but on a non-hierarchical cooperativeone, they broke with the traditional model ofunion-management relations. And at the time,neither the union nor the University anticipatedthat these committees would incur any significantcosts.

Although Rotner yesterday mentioned these newcommittees as being one of several unforseenexpenses, HUCTW organizer Bill Jaeger said thatthe relief time negotiated for council membersparticipating in these teams was "minimal, acouple of hours a month."

"We don't know of any direct costs that arerelated to the setting up of the joint councils,"said Jaeger. "Not for the FAS, not for anydepartment that we know of."

Contract History

HUCTW was elected to represent Harvard supportstaff in 1988, following a 17 year organizingcampaign marked by conflict with the University.Union leaders estimate they represent 3500 workersdivided among the different schools andadministrative departments at Harvard.

After a brief dispute over certification, theunion became the official staff representative inNovember 1988, and the contract--which washeralded by many in the organized labor movementas a model for future unions--went into effect in1989.

HUCTW's contract called for structural salaryincreases of 16 percent over three years as wellas smaller merit and progression-based raises.Less expensive health care plans and an improvedpension system were also among the benefits hailedby workers.

After the contract was settled, the Universitydecided to extend the salary and benefitimprovements to its non-union administrativestaff, further increasing University expenses