Drive to Unionize: Issues Without Answers

When many pro-union support staff at Harvard are asked what complaints they have with the University, they say they have none. They want a union because it would give them a voice, making them an integral part of decision-making on campus.

"I believe in democracy," says one worker, who started organizing for unionization in the 1970's. "It makes people feel better if they can participate in the decisions that affect their lives. If they feel better, they work better."

Throughout its campaign to organize Harvard's 4000 support staff, the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) has focused on employee self-representation, instead of organizing around specific economic complaints. Union leaders say the particular issues pale in comparison with the broader quest for worker empowerment.

But the union drive has its 17-year-old roots in issues, and the rallying points of the early seventies--child care, pensions, medical benefits, pay equity and salaries--are still drawing support staff to the union today.

In interviews with 120 support staff members, most workers said they are not satisfied with the benefits the University gives them, and even those who do not support the union think HUCTW might be able to solve some of their problems.

"If women's work--clerical work--is unionized it will be better for women," said one employee, who asked not to be identified. "Discrimination against women has an economic base, and to change the economic situation here we need a union."

Yet administrators say this worker dissatisfaction is unfounded. When the University pay scale and benefits are measured against other employers, Harvard does measure up. Workers opposed to the union say that they haven't found any evidence that the union would improve their material benefits.

Pay Equity

HUCTW contends that women in support staff positions at Harvard are not paid as much as men in comparable positions. Jobs traditionally held by men, in maintenance and other areas, are considered comparable to jobs held by women when the work requires a similar amount of knowledge and level of experience.

On a national level, the National Commission on Working Women reports that "in 1983 male clerical workers earned an average of $113 more per week than female clerical workers."

But the local union does not have any figures to prove that Harvard discriminates against women. "We can't prove anything until we see the exact numbers, and Harvard won't give us those," says Rondeau.

Ronald Petti, the University's director of Human Resources, says that support staff at Harvard are not subject to pay inequities. The average male support staff at Harvard earns a slightly higher salary than a woman staff member, Petti admits. But that does not prove discrimination, he says, since the average male worker has been on the job longer than the average woman.

And, among support staff who work a 35-hour week, women earn more than men, Petti says. In that category, women have been working at Harvard longer, on average, than men have.

Administrators say they are working on a report, which will be distributed to support staff later this spring, proving that salaries are equitable.

Pay More

Even workers who have not found a pay equity problem at Harvard charge that the University pay scale is unfair. "Harvard needs not to pay equally, but to pay more," one worker says.

"I can't live on the salary they give me here," says an employee who works in one of Harvard's libraries. He is searching for other jobs but plans on staying if the union wins the election.

The average salary for support staff workers at the beginning of 1988 was about $18,900, says Petti.

"I know that I could make more working somewhere else, but there are no jobs open. When the union gets voted in I hope we get a good raise," says another worker, who says she has continued looking for a better paying job since she started working on campus two years ago.

However, the average support staff salary at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) approximately matches the average Harvard salary. Clerical and technical employees at MIT, which competes in the same labor market as Harvard, earn between $12,500 and $27,200.

But most pro-union employees say they expect to receive higher salaries if the union wins its election.

Supporters trust the union will push for higher wages in collective bargaining with the administration. The list of national statistics that the union shows employees says "women who belong to unions earn 27.5 percent more than women who are not union members."

Merit Pay

Many support staff criticize the merit pay system, which gives bigger raises to employees commended in evaluations by their supervisors. They question whether budget constraints limited the number of employees eligible for the highest level of pay raise.

But Petti says that supervisor evaluations represent average satisfaction with worker performance, in the pattern of a bell curve. Support staff get the raises they deserve, Petti asserts.

However, many employees do not feel their raises reflect their efforts.

"Your bosses tell you that you are doing a good job, but if Harvard's money isn't backing that, what's the point? I can't live on my supervisor's praise," says one library employee.

"I first supported the union for older employees. I had no personal complaints," says another employee. "But when I got my first pay raise, I was joining the union for me. At the time you should feel best about your job, when you are getting a raise, you just feel disregarded."

Pension Plans

While many employees are concerned with salary inequities, the economic problem which most workers and HUCTW organizers emphasize is the pension plan.

Workers charge that the plan does not provide adequate income for retired employees and that it is constricted by an overreliance on social security benefits.

Administrators counter that since Harvard improved the plan in response to a 1986 employee survey, those concerns have been addressed.

"Most plans take social security into account. Before 1986, the Harvard pension was calculated and then 80 percent of an employee's social security was deducted. Now we take a lesser cut of social security," said Joan Bruce, who is in charge of employee benefits. Bruce adds that Harvard's social security plan is viewed by other employers in the Boston area as "generous."

HUCTW organizers argue that unionization will improve pension benefits, using the Yale contract agreement as a case in point.

The Yale contract improved pensions by approximately 10 percent, according to Richard Silva, Yale director of benefits and records. The contract assured that pension benefits would be calculated independent of social security benefits.

Although pensions at Yale improved, they may not be as generous as at Harvard. Under Harvard's current pension plan, an employee who worked at the University for 20 years and left with a $20,000 final salary would garner an annual retirement benefit of $5,650. Yale's plan, as described by Silva, would give the same employee $4,450 each year.

However, union organizers point out that regardless of the numbers, employees are concerned about their pensions and their needs must be addressed. "You can't get by the reality that people are scared, and don't think they can survive on their pensions," says Rondeau.

Medical Benefits

Indeed, benefits are an issue that electrifies virtually all support staff. Ninety percent of the workers interviewed said they need better medical benefits; their main demand was that Harvard pay the full cost of health insurance premiums.

Harvard currently offers employees a choice of nine health insurance plans. The University donates $78 each month to the health insurance company on behalf of each individual worker, or $195 for each family plan, while the employee pays the remainder.

All of the workers who are dissatisfied with the medical plan say it ranks below the Yale benefit plan. Medical coverage available to employees at Yale and Harvard is equivalent. Yet Yale pays 100 percent of the premium on the in-house health plan, or spends the same dollar amount on another plan held by the employee.

The most common complaint about the medical plan is that Harvard does not offer an adequate dental program. Until 1986 the University did not offer a dental plan at all. Now employees pay $3.20 a month for individual dental care or $9.80 for family coverage.

Employees again point to Yale's dental plan as a paragon. Yale pays for the entire cost of diagnostic and preventive dental work and 80 percent of the fees for fillings or extractions. In effect, Harvard's program funds only two-thirds of the cost of these services.

Child Care

Another benefit that Harvard support staff find lacking is child care.

Harvard has seven child care centers--but employees say that they are neither accessible nor affordable. One month at one of these centers costs an average of $700, or almost half of the average support staff salary. The centers also have two-to-three year waiting lists.

"I know someone in my office who is not going to get pregnant if she keeps working here, because she would just have to quit anyway," says one worker.

"We can't afford the expense of child care here or the time it takes to get care somewhere else," said one employee, whose child attends a day care center off-campus.

Harvard has a child care adviser and recently established a parental counseling office, but support staff members say they want services more than counseling.

It Ain't Broke

Despite these qualms with the Harvard pay and benefit system, many workers are satisfied. Employees who do not support the union say that HUCTW has not substantiated its complaints against the University compensation system.

"We get good benefits here," says one worker, who has declined to consider arguments on either side of the union issue. "A union might improve things a little, but I believe, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'"

Not all pro-union employees think there is something that Harvard needs to fix, either.

"If I was joining the union because I had specific complaints, I probably wouldn't have joined," said an employee, who is one of the most vocal union backers in her office. "I joined because I want a voice. There may be things in the future which should be changed, and I want to know that if I have a complaint, [the administration] will hear it." Union Survey 120 support staff workers polled

Composition Women:  82 percent Men:  18 percent Pro-union:  61 percent Anti-union:  19 percent Undecided:  20 percent Have looked at the University's briefing booklet:  35 percent Said Harvard should not be allowed to stage an anti-union campaign:  38 percent Mentioned Yale University's support staff union:  100 percent

What workers Want

(respondents were permitted to list more than one issue, so the total is higher than 100 percent) Self-representation  95 percent Better medical benefits  90 percent Improved pensions  86 percent Improved child care  88 percent Pay equity  59 percent --between different campus areas  37 percent --between women and men  23 percent To take more than one Harvard course  26 percent