As the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) and the University hammer out the final details of their first contract, representatives from both sides say that there was never substantial disagreement over the fact that Harvard needs to do more to give its workers affordable child care.

Indeed, most of the union's demands are identical to those suggested in a report written more than two years ago by the University's current child care negotiator, Simone Reagor. But the negotiating team which has been trying for the past four months to reach a specific agreement on child care terms has not been able to do so yet.

Reagor says that the disagreement comes when the two sides "get down to the dollar issues. The union wants the same things we do, they just want more funding than the University can afford to give."

Harvard currently has seven child care centers which provide day care for students, staff, faculty, alumni and some community members. But the seven centers only have space for 320 children,and there are waiting lists of over 200 names.

And many staff members complain that thecurrent day care system--because of its high costand limited enrollment--is oriented more towardthe needs of faculty than employees.

John T. Dunlop, the University's chief contractnegotiator, says that the problem withestablishing full-paid child care is that theUniversity must find a way to divide its availablemoney between pensions, raises and healthinsurance as well as child care.

In its search for solutions to the day caredilemma, the University recently consulted withStride Rite head Arnold S. Hiatt '48, a HarvardBoard of Overseers member whose companyestablished a model child care system more thantwo decades ago.

And Hiatt says that he would expect Harvard, asan "enlightened" institution and as a business, tobe very responsive to the issue of child care."It's an investment that has a large return," hesaid. One dollar spent on child care saves $4.75later on social programs, according to experts'estimates.

"We're not progressive, just realistic," Hiattsays. "We've been in the child care business for18 years now." At Stride Rite, unions have not hadto bargain for child care because of Hiatt'sinitiatives. "We've never been approached by aunion [about child care]," Hiatt says. "It's neverbeen a union issue. It's been a management issue."

But at Harvard, and most other universities,child care has lagged behind the needs of theemployees--and, inevitably, with unionizationdrives have come demands for improved facilities.

Because of its 83 percent female workforce, thesupport staff union at Harvard has organized, andis now negotiating, around such "family issues" asaffordable day care. In the current negotiations,the union has pressed for a broad platform ofchanges, going from large increases in child careto paid parental leave and scholarship money forday care.

Should the contract agreed on by the Universityand the union address these issues, many observerssay it will serve as a beacon of change in thefield of campus labor relations.

And, according to labor experts, universitiessuch as Harvard are the ideal site at which tonegotiate new and progressive relationshipsbetween management and labor on the child carefront.

Many labor experts say they share the view ofUniversity of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala,who says, "There are those who believe thatuniversities can only reflect society, but Ibelieve they should be role models for society."

And throughout society the issue of child carehas been a dominant one in the 1980s. As familylife and professional responsibilities have becomeinextricably linked in recent years, families nolonger have the luxury of having one parent stayhome to care for the children while the other oneworks.

With one in four mothers in the workforcemaintaining her own family and the number ofsingle mothers more than doubling in the last 25years, employers have started to address theissue.

But most experts agree that companies and thegovernment have done too little, too late in thearea of child care. Last year 24 million childrenin the United States under age 13 needed day care,yet there were only 1.5 million licensed spots.

"Presently the United States is the onlyWestern country without subsidized child care,"says Berenice Sandler, director of the Project onthe Status and Education of Women. "We say we careabout children, but we don't put our money whereour mouth is."

Shifting Emphasis

Experts say employers should have a vestedinterest in child care because it reduces anxietyand absenteeism among workers.

"If you don't think that family life affectswork life, just look around at 3:15 when phonelines start to buzz as workers call home to checkon their kids," says Ellen Galenski, co-presidentof the Families and Worklife Institute.

But in 1988, only 4150 out of 6 million U.S.businesses of all sizes gave support to employeechild care needs--despite the fact that the firstjoint management-government child care center wasnegotiated by a union in 1968.

Because of this, national unions havebegun--slowly--to negotiate child care programsfor workers, a response many union organizersattribute to the lack of initiative on the part ofmanagement and government.

"Whenever government takes a walk, employershave to step in and unions must lead the fight,"says chief HUCTW organizer Kris Rondeau.

At the American Federation of State, County andMunicipal Employees (AFSCME)--HUCTW's parentunion--President Gerald R. McEntee hasconsistently placed child care on the top of hisagenda. When he first became president of theunion, which now represents more women than anyother in the country, McEntee set up a task forceto address the problem nationally.

"Before President McEntee, child care playedvirtually no role at the bargaining table," saysBrenda Hall, an AFSCME researcher.

Labor's new interest in child care hasdefinitely taken on a new, more aggressivecharacter, experts say. On June 21, the AFL-CIOwill bring one family from each of the 50 statesto lobby their representatives in support of childcare legislation and the Family Medical Leave Act.

In addition, AFL-CIO officials have beeninstrumental in pushing for new legislation thatwould provide $2.5 billion for child caresubsidies.

But despite the new politicization around thechild care issue, unions at other universitycampuses were not very successful in securingchild care benefits for workers in their firstcontracts.

For example, the clerical workers at Columbiadidn't negotiate a straight dollar subsidy tocover child care costs until their second time atthe negotiating table.

"We had a hard time when the university came tothe table saying child care wasn't theirresponsibility, but that it was the responsibilityof the government," says District 65 organizerMaida Rosenstein of Columbia.

But by 1988, the Columbia union got $40,000 ayear to cover any child care needs of its 1100workers.

The Columbia contract set precedent for otherunion contracts on the issue of child care,experts say. "I don't know of any other unioncontract that has a straight child care subsidy,"says Rosenstein.

Indeed, after two contracts, the Yale clericaland technical workers still do not have anyprovisions for child care.

Universities have been wary to commit to along-term agreement to cover child care costsbecause they fear its skyrocketing rise, accordingto both administrators and union officials.

But this wariness of employer-funded day carehas not always been so firmly entrenched in theminds of management, labor experts say.

When large numbers of women first entered theworkforce in droves during World War II, childcare was viewed as the responsibility ofmanagement, as it was too costly for women toleave the assembly line if their child was sick.

"In the '30s and '40s, there were 24-hourcomprehensive centers," says Carol Keyes, a leaderof the National Coalition for Child Care. "Whenthere's a crisis, as there was during the war, wedo something."

And in the 1960s, after family structure hadbegun to change, the Carnegie Commission on thestatus of women came out with a report that saidchild care was necessary for equal opportunity inhigher education.

Yet labor contracts have only recently begun toreflect the changes of the workforce and thecorresponding need for increased day care,parental leave and flexible work-time.

"It's only become a priority issue for unionsin recent years since women are making up anincreasing portion of the workforce, and childcare has typically been the mother'sresponsibility," says an AFSCME researcher.

A few recent labor contracts have set precedentin this area. For example, the union at AT&T justsettled a contract that has been hailed by laborexperts as highly progressive in the area offamily care.

Workers will benefit from a $5 million fund forchild care and care for elderly relatives. Inaddition, employees get coverage for theirchildren's medical and dental bills.

Rondeau and others acknowledge the impact ofthe AT&T contract, saying that because of the sizeof its bargaining unit, the phone company hasbroken new ground. "It's a lot more than a food inthe door," Rondeau says.

The next foot in the door which Rondeau hasprojected for the labor movement is Harvard's owncontract. And labor experts agree that theUniversity's accommodation--or disagreement--withthe union's family issues platform could herald anew stage in the ongoing organization of thealmost all-female, "pink-collar" workforce.

As Keyes says, "Harvard could be a beacon inthis arena."A Harvard day care center worker helps alittle girl tie her shoe.