To the Editors of The Crimson:

On June 29th HUCTW membership ratified its first contract. The ratification was a foregone conclusion days before the first vote had been cast and the voting process itself was a travesty of democratic process.

On Monday, June 26th, a "contract" was presented to Union membership to consider and vote on three days later. This document was an interpretive summary of good faith agreements between University and union negotiators regulating eight complex areas of management and staff interaction and legally binding for three years. It contained optimistic figures and best-case scenarios on pensions and salaries, and much vague language in the crucial areas of health and safety, affirmative action and family policy.

Union organizers and staff set up "drop in centers" campus wide to answer questions about the contract. But no membership meetings were called so that rank-and-file members could hear each other's concerns and opinions and debate with one another prior to the vote. Instead, the union office launched a vigorous pro-ratification campaign designed to guarantee acceptance of the contract and smother rank-and-file critical debate.

A number of HUCTW members, of which I am one, had long been concerned about both the progress and process of contract negotiations. We had heard disturbing reports from our elected negotiators about union leadership pressure on them to limit their contract demands and to adopt a conciliatory style towards the University negotiators. A number of elected union negotiators had resigned in protest over undemocratic processes. We brought our concerns about this to Kris Rondeau and Marie Manna in a letter, which was followed up by a face-to-face meeting and round table discussion in April. In addition, all of us participated in area union committees and conversed weekly with union staff and other union members on union matters. We promoted membership participation in union affairs by organizing contract information meetings and worked to increase union membership in our buildings and departments.

When the contract summary appeared on the morning of June 26, a group of approximately 10 HUCTW members, activists and former contract negotiators met to study and discuss it. We were appalled by the three-day limit for examining the contract. We had serious questions about the strength and adequacy of the contract to support union members over the next three years in the face of Boston area costs of living and the threat of a national recession. We were outraged that no public debate was permitted the membership until after the voting on June 29. We wrote a collective statement, "We Can Do Better," presenting our analysis of the contract summary and urging voters to demand at least two more weeks to insure proper time to study and discuss the contract. Barring that, we urged a "No" vote as the only way to keep discussion of the contract going. The statement was completed by the evening of June 27, and distribution by hand to union members was begun at once.

I distributed our statement to voters outside Room 304 of the Science Center, where balloting took place June 29 between 12 and 4 p.m. Throughout the afternoon I was bullied and harassed by union staff and organizers. I was called at various times a coward, a traitor and a fraud. Our statement, taped to the walls, was torn down and efforts were made to intimidate me into leaving the area. I was told I am not a proper, loyal HUCTW member and I am no longer wanted in the union. Every possible pressure short of physical violence was brought to bean against me. Voters attempting to read out statements were taken aside by Union staff and instructed to ignore it on the grounds that we were a small group of cranks and anti-union activists. Voters were verbally instructed to vote for the contract even as they stood in line at the ballot boxes. There was not the least chance for any fair discussion of the issues. One voter, examining our statement, summarized the essence of the situation: "This is the first time anyone has told me I could vote `No.'"

Our union, barely one-year old, is in trouble. The problem lies in the attitude of our leaders toward the membership, and the membership's acceptance of that attitude. Our leaders are manipulating us, and we are mired in the old pre-union habit of waiting for someone else to tell us what to do and think. Instead of Holyoke Center, we now wait for HUCTW staff to arrange our working lives for us. Union leadership must serve, not usurp, membership authority. We must empower our leaders to represent us, not replace us. If we will only do as we are told on union matters, we do not deserve a voice in those matters. If we wait for permission to contradict our leaders, we do not deserve democracy. And if our leaders ever tell us that questioning issues and thinking for ourselves is disloyal to the union, they should be summarily booted out.

There is much work for us to do in the next three years. Ratifying our contract was just the beginning. The writing of our constitution and by-laws must be of immediate concern to the whole union membership. We must provide for membership election of all officers and stewards. We must legislate regular membership meetings where important issues can be debated openly and fairly. We must institute a system of recall and accountability for leadership positions and decisions. And most of all, we must start turning to each other and our own selves--ordinary rank-and-file members--for ideas, inspiration and ultimate authority. We are the union. Let's start acting like it. Tamsey K. Andrews   Member, HUCTW Widener Library