Negotiating Over Dinner

When it comes to negotiations, old ideas obscure reality. Contract negotiations, no matter how small, how unique, how private, never affect only the two parties doing the negotiating. The reality is that the negotiations between Harvard Food Service Workers. Local 26, and Harvard University, affects a long list of people, including Harvard students, faculty, the Cambridge community. Food Service Workers, other unions and other institutions. Open negotiations are the only form of parley which provides the opportunity for the interests of all these groups to be addressed.

Every one of these groups and many I have not listed should be able to observe and have imput into the process which leads to a contract. The Food Service Workers, Local 26, and the University will have the final say as to the contract, but it can only be based on the knowledge and experience of the open negotiations process.

What is it that scares the University and has caused Harvard's chief negotiator Edward Powers to run from "open negotiations" and to use the bully tactics?

That fear, in Powers' heart, is the knowledge that in open negotiations he will have to justify University policy of denying Food Service Workers their basic rights and workers' dignity.

How can the University justify keeping language on sexual harassment, and rights for homosexual and for the handicapped out of the non-discrimination clause?

How can the University justify its policy of using Food Service Workers in higher skilled jobs, but refusing to promote or pay them?

How can the University justify its policy of not clearly communicating workers' rights, regulations, discipline policy, and benefits to those whose native language is not English?

How can the University justify its policy of refusing to address a backlog of grievances, when both parties understand that the principle of justice delayed means justice denied?

How can the University justify such tactics as threatening loyal, proud, hard-working, long-time workers with the possibility of replacing them with students because they have stated that they are going to stand up for their rights and for human dignity?

I could go on, but I believe I have made my point. From the point of view of the University, open negotiations are a threat to the system of might makes right. The University has not responded in any reasonable fashion to our contract proposals sent in to the University in late March.

The University has made two statements which I feel show their lack of respect for the Food Service Workers and for human dignity Powers was quoted in The Harvard Independent as saying "he could not live and raise a family on the weekly salary of Food Service Workers." These are the workers he threatened with student replacement--because they are standing up for decent wages. Harvard University has a moral obligation to pay wages that are supportive of life and family. The University should have the morality to end that disgrace, not gloat about it.

Powers also asserted that "Food Service Workers abuse their health insurance by getting sick too often." This exemplifies a contemptible attitude which cannot be dignified with any answer.

On behalf of the Harvard Food Service Workers. Local 26, I invite all interested parties to become part of the negotiating process. You are welcome to observe and comment, as well as advise and help.

There are 522 Harvard Food Service Workers. We have a contract committee of 70 and a negotiating committee of 31 workers.

Harvard must negotiate with us at the table or in the street. Once they have made up their mind as to where and when, you will be welcomed by Local 26.

I appeal to the Harvard community. Your support for human dignity will make the difference.

Domenic M. Bozzotto is the president of the Hotel, Restaurant. Institutional Employees and Bartenders Union. Local 26-A.F.I. C I O which represents Harvard's dining hall workers. The workers' contract expires on June 19.