A New Model for Labor

While the outcome of the first contract negotiations between the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) and the University are anxiously awaited, labor experts and union organizers point to the organization of the contract negotiating process as yet another area in which the support staff union has created a new model for the labor movement.

After a long organizing campaign which polarized the clerical workers and engendered animosity between the pro-union employees and Harvard's administration, the contract talks--which will likely set the tone of future labor relations on campus--have been characterized by all involved as "friendly."

Union organizers and administrators attribute this shift in attitude to the earliest part of the contract negotiations.

Rather than move immediately into specific negotiations, HUCTW leader Kris Rondeau says she set up "transition meetings" to iron out any leftover animosities from the long and often bitter campaign and to "give the administration and union supporters an opportunity to understand where everyone is coming from."

And even after the official transition meetings were over and negotiations had begun, those involved with the contract talks say that the spirit of the transition meetings remained.

"Negotiations have been far from the classic situation," says Nona Strauss, a University negotiator on health care issues. "It wasn't the old smoke-filled room with the two sides arguing at a table," she says.

Only two of the contract meetings were formal, full-team meetings. Early in February, the University and the union held these full meetings to lay the groundwork for the negotiating process which would continue through the next three months.

After that, the bulk of the negotiations took place in eight small "tables"--each one charged with addressing a specific concern.

The tables, which met two or three times a week all spring, dealt with pensions; health, dental and disability insurance; dependent care; career development, training and tuition assistance; salary structure and administration; support staff involvement in decision making; the new personnel manual, and health, safety and affirmative action.

Negotiators in each of these tables say that for the first couple of months discussions did not focus on specific issues, but addressed instead the attitude which the University should adopt toward the issues.

In the past several weeks, however, negotiators say the tables began more complete discussions of the costs of implementing new programs. At this stage, those involved say, the discussions became more like formal contract negotiations, as each side submitted proposals and counter-proposals.

At some point late in May, the University's chief negotiator John T. Dunlop announced a deadline of yesterday at noon for each table to complete some form of tentative agreement. The University and union teams held another full meeting on May 24.

Despite the deadline, most of the teams did not reach a full agreement yesterday. Although negotiators are not absolutely certain where the negotiations are going now, many say that they understand that the proposals--some completed, some not--have been sent to Rondeau and Dunlop, who will hammer out the final terms.