HUCTW Criticizes Benefits Group

A newly formed University-wide committee charged with reviewing Harvard's system of employee benefits is drawing criticism from the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers for including only administrators as members.

The union will release a letter to the community today detailing its complaints with the University committee, but the union's primary concern is with the committee's makeup, according to union President Donene M. Williams.

"We heard something about the group [being formed], but we never knew the composition of it," William's said yesterday. "Our problem with the task force is that it's very, very narrow."

The committee, which will be chaired by Provost Jerry R. Green, was announced on October 29. The group will examine benefits provided to faculty and staff in an attempt to cut costs and to deal with national health care reform.

Committee members will include: Green; David M. Bray, executive dean for administration at the Medical School; Candace Corvey, associate dean for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); Linda S. Doyle, associate dean for administration at the business school; Elizabeth Huidekoper, director of the office of budgets, Margaret H. Marshall, vice president and general counsel; Diane B. Patrick '76, director of the office of human resources; Polly Price, associate dean for human resources in FAS; David S. Rosenthal '59, director University Health Services; Robert H. Scott, vice president for finance; and Sally H. Zeckhauser, vice president for administration.

Williams said the union sent another letter last week to Green and each committee member detailing its concern about the makeup of the group.

"In our view it is highly inappropriate and nearly impractical for a group composed entirely of top administrators to conduct the kind of review you announced," said the letter, obtained from a source who requested anonymity. "Questions about 'what value we attach to different elements of the benefits package' will not be well considered when thousands of us are not represented in the room."

Green would not comment on the issue yesterday. But Jane H. Corlette, acting vice president for government, community and public affairs, said that three or four advisory committees made upof faculty and staff members will also be formedto provide input for the main committee.

There will be one committee representingfaculty, one representing staff exempt from unionsand one or two representing non-exempt staff, bothunion and non-union members, Corlette said.

"There will be no changes in benefits in anycontracts," she said. "We thought these advisorycommittees would be fairly comprehensive...Itseemed a more efficient way to solicit people'sviews."

But Bill Jaeger, union director, said the unionhas heard very little about any possible advisorycommittees.

"That concept raises another question--how isstudying and decision making going to be sharedwith the provost's task force?" Jaeger said."Hearing the concept this week, after theprovost's letter was mailed, makes it feel like anafterthought."

Corlette said although the advisory committeeshave been part of the plan for the benefits reviewfrom the start, the communication on the issue mayhave been faulty.

"In retrospect, maybe we should have spelled itout in more detail how the process is going towork," she said. "It just wasn't well described in[Green's] letter."

Jaeger said, however, that although the unionhas some concerns about the committee itself, itsupports reviewing Harvard's benefit structure.

The major concern about a review itself, hesaid, is the chance that staff members will behurt by benefit cuts.

"We're strongly in favor of good, thoughtfuljoint work in order to control benefit costs,"Jaeger said. "We think there are ways that arevery likely to control costs without hurtingpeople...We're reacting negatively to theexclusive focus of the group that the provost'sletter was referring to.

There will be one committee representingfaculty, one representing staff exempt from unionsand one or two representing non-exempt staff, bothunion and non-union members, Corlette said.

"There will be no changes in benefits in anycontracts," she said. "We thought these advisorycommittees would be fairly comprehensive...Itseemed a more efficient way to solicit people'sviews."

But Bill Jaeger, union director, said the unionhas heard very little about any possible advisorycommittees.

"That concept raises another question--how isstudying and decision making going to be sharedwith the provost's task force?" Jaeger said."Hearing the concept this week, after theprovost's letter was mailed, makes it feel like anafterthought."

Corlette said although the advisory committeeshave been part of the plan for the benefits reviewfrom the start, the communication on the issue mayhave been faulty.

"In retrospect, maybe we should have spelled itout in more detail how the process is going towork," she said. "It just wasn't well described in[Green's] letter."

Jaeger said, however, that although the unionhas some concerns about the committee itself, itsupports reviewing Harvard's benefit structure.

The major concern about a review itself, hesaid, is the chance that staff members will behurt by benefit cuts.

"We're strongly in favor of good, thoughtfuljoint work in order to control benefit costs,"Jaeger said. "We think there are ways that arevery likely to control costs without hurtingpeople...We're reacting negatively to theexclusive focus of the group that the provost'sletter was referring to.