Despite Protests, Labor Talks Begin Positively

Negotiations between the University and the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) over the past year seemed remarkably smooth compared to their previously tumultuous relationship.

In contrast to 1992, the negotiations avoided any major disasters; there were no protests outside President Neil L. Rudenstine's house, no outside mediators and no work without a contract.

And in a surprising August announcement, the union and Harvard struck an agreement which would be ratified by a full HUCTW vote in September.

The relative speed of the agreement and amiability of the joint statement, however, masked deeper tensions, leaving certain larger issues unsettled.

The most controversial issue in the union's contract--the sharply reduced benefits package--was left unresolved under the new agreement between the University and the union.

The contract also delayed the implementation schedule on disputed clauses, including fees for doctor's visits and discrepancies between the benefits for part-time and full-time workers.

Instead, a new committee, the Joint Committee on Benefits (JCB), composed of faculty, administrators and union representatives, was created to "study benefits issues and recommend revisions or new programs." The JCB began meeting in early October.

But before the committee could hold its first meeting, the actual meaning of the words "study" and "recommend" became the subject of a hot debate between the union and the University.

In a letter to its members dated October 5, the union responded to a University memo informing members they needed to choose a benefits plan soon. The union contended that the University's memo had created some "false impressions" about the nature of the benefits controversy.

The union underlined in the letter its understanding that the benefits question was not yet settled.

"The JCB is, in fact, a forum for ongoing deliberations on a number of yet unresolved benefits issues," the letter read. The letter further suggested that changes to the benefits project would likely be made before implementation of the reduced benefits package on January 1.

The University did not, however, share the union's opinion of the status of the benefits question.

In response to the union's letter, Candace R. Corvey, associate vice president for human resources, wrote a memo later that month to those involved in the benefits issue. Corvey's memo objected to the union's characterization of the status of HUCTW benefits as undecided.

Misquoting slightly, Corvey wrote: "Recently, the HUCTW leadership published a letter informing employees that HUCTW benefits issues are 'unresolved' under the new contract and that the existence of the new Joint Committee on Benefits means that 'negotiations are ongoing' with regard to all of the scheduled benefits changes."

"Both statements are totally false," the memo read.

The union leaders have not commented on Corvey's memo.

The tensions still remain largely unresolved. Although the JCB has proposed a compromise on co-payments for office visits, it has not been able to propose or successfully promote major changes to the benefits section of the contract.

The union continues to hold old-fashioned rallies and candlelight vigils as the July 1 implementation date for the new pension plan approaches.

And in about six months, the most contentious and expensive change will go into effect: the cuts in benefits for part-timers. That's the same interval that was originally required to negotiate the 1992 contract after it expired.

As conflict flares on Yale's campus over contract disputes, the scene for similar discord at Harvard has been set with continued debate over the issue of benefits.