To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

On April 21 there was a meeting in the Kirkland Dining Hall to hear a summary of the main features of the new retirement plan, effective February 1948. In explaining how the new plan will work and the benefits derived, a lot of confusion has arisen in the minds of a great number of employees, especially those close to the compulsory retirement age of 65.

One of the inequalities in the plan is the fact that the new employee will have to work three years before he is eligible to participate in the plan. We consider this unfair. It is a fact that this plan offers more to the employee who has a large number of years to his credit. But it doesn't offer much to the new employee, if he is over the 50 year mark. And if he is over 60 years, he cannot participate.

I will explain case number one. This employee was over 60 years of age when he went to work for Harvard University. He has worked faithfully for six years, but he is forced to retire in June 1948. Therefore, he is going out with no retirement benefits or old age Social Security. If he had employment under Social Security, he would be entitled to $31.50 per month. His wife would be entitled to 40 percent, making a total of $47.25 per month as long as they live.

This example, based on a salary of $2,699 in Class Eight is very misleading, as the largest group comes under Class Six. If I took the time to make a comparison between the new retirement plan and Social Security. Therefore, I fail to see anything in the law to prohibit Harvard University from giving its employees something as good as Social Security. George A. Porter