HUCTW Criticizes Change in Benefits

The Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) yesterday released to The Crimson a letter criticizing the impending changes in the University's fringe benefits program which will affect part-time employees.

The letter will be mailed to administrators, faculty and union members next week, and could be a preview of the arguments the union will make this spring when they negotiate with the University for a new contract.

Although HUCTW members are not immediately affected, we are concerned about this particular change, and the thousands of Harvard family members who will be touched by it," the letter says.

HUCTW is the University's largest labor organization. According to the letter, one-sixth of the support staff are part-time employees, and most of these workers make under $15,000 a year.

The statement is the first in a series of letters the union plans to release analyzing and commenting on the benefits changes.

A University task fore spent much of last year reviewing Harvard's benefits structures. Their final report was released Thursday.

Faculty, non-union staff and members of the Service Employees International Union and the Hotel Restaurant Institutional Employees Union will be affected by the changes.

Other union members are still working under their contracts, which expire next year.

Part-time workers currently contribute 15 percent of the cost of their health care premiums. Under the new program, part-time employees will pay 30 percent or more of those costs, depending on their salaries.

"As an example, an employee who now pays $68 per month for the [Harvard Community Health] family plan will see her payment rise to $103 in 1995, and rise further after a 'phase-in' period ends," the letter says. "This is a dramatic change for many members of our community."

The union says that these increases could force employees to choose less expensive child care, increase their work hours, go uninsured or even leave the University.

"The Harvard family will lose many talented individuals if it forces, with a crude tool of economic incentive, a choice between our commitment to our families or health, and our commitment to this University," the letter says.

The University decided to make the benefits changes in the face of a $52 million cumulative deficit and a $10 million annual deficit.

The changes will reduce benefits costs by $10.1 million, and thus eliminate the structural deficit.

"Harvard administrators had the kernel of a good idea when they set on the path of talking and thinking about employee benefits," the letter says. "But those managers lost their way somewhere along that path, arriving at a poorly-conceived and potentially cruel plan...."

This is not the first time the union and the University have clashed over the benefits changes.

Throughout the review process, union leaders Bill Jaeger and Donene Williams waged an ongoing battle with former Provost Jerry R. Green, then-chair of the task force, over the extent of HUCTW's participation.

Jaeger and Williams wanted membership on the task force. The administration restricted union members to forming an advisory group, which Green called an offer of "full partnership."

But in February, Williams said the advisory groups were playing little more than a token role in the process.

"The process that [Green] describes is not one that includes any sort of respectful partnership," Williams said at the time.

President Neil L. Rudenstine and Vice President for Administration Sally H. Zeckhauser could not be reached for comment

Part-time workers currently contribute 15 percent of the cost of their health care premiums. Under the new program, part-time employees will pay 30 percent or more of those costs, depending on their salaries.

"As an example, an employee who now pays $68 per month for the [Harvard Community Health] family plan will see her payment rise to $103 in 1995, and rise further after a 'phase-in' period ends," the letter says. "This is a dramatic change for many members of our community."

The union says that these increases could force employees to choose less expensive child care, increase their work hours, go uninsured or even leave the University.

"The Harvard family will lose many talented individuals if it forces, with a crude tool of economic incentive, a choice between our commitment to our families or health, and our commitment to this University," the letter says.

The University decided to make the benefits changes in the face of a $52 million cumulative deficit and a $10 million annual deficit.

The changes will reduce benefits costs by $10.1 million, and thus eliminate the structural deficit.

"Harvard administrators had the kernel of a good idea when they set on the path of talking and thinking about employee benefits," the letter says. "But those managers lost their way somewhere along that path, arriving at a poorly-conceived and potentially cruel plan...."

This is not the first time the union and the University have clashed over the benefits changes.

Throughout the review process, union leaders Bill Jaeger and Donene Williams waged an ongoing battle with former Provost Jerry R. Green, then-chair of the task force, over the extent of HUCTW's participation.

Jaeger and Williams wanted membership on the task force. The administration restricted union members to forming an advisory group, which Green called an offer of "full partnership."

But in February, Williams said the advisory groups were playing little more than a token role in the process.

"The process that [Green] describes is not one that includes any sort of respectful partnership," Williams said at the time.

President Neil L. Rudenstine and Vice President for Administration Sally H. Zeckhauser could not be reached for comment