Due to a production error, part of this story was omitted from the July 17 issue of The Crimson. The story is reprinted here in its entireity.

Union and management representatives met last week to discuss the possibility of providing health care benefits to domestic partners.

Leaders of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers say Harvard will set a new precedent for universities if it becomes the first to offer long-term homosexual couples the same health benefits it gives its married employees.

"Harvard is a leader in many different areas," said Anna Kent, a member of the union's executive board and of the negotiating team. "There's room for leadership there."

Vice President for Government, Community and Public Affairs John H. Shattuck said management is assessing the issue of health care benefits.

"All proposals and issues that have been raised are under consideration," he said.

According to members of the union, management's current objections to the plan are fiscal, not moral.

The issue initially arose during the first union contract negotiations in 1989, said union member Jennie H. Rathbun, who participated in those talks.

"Everybody at the table, on both sides, agreed that it was essentially a fairness issue," Rathbun said.

At that point, negotiators agreed to form a joint union-management committee to examine health care issues, which began to work last year, said Rathbun, a member of the committee.

According to documents obtained by The Crimson, the committee studied five corporations that offer health care benefits to their employees' domestic partners: Levi Strauss, Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., Lotus Development Corp., the City of Berkeley, Calif. and the City of Seattle.

Each of these companies enacted the policy in order to promote policies of non-discrimination. Each received a lower participation rate than it expected, the documents say.

Rathbun said that if the plan takes effect, it will not be greeted with a flood of new participants. Many people's domestic partners, she said, are already working and are already insured.

The issue, Rathbun said, is "a question of equal work for equal pay. You're really giving someone a much bigger compensation package basically based on whether they're straight and married."

Right now, the idea is novel, said Union President Donene M. Williams. But "in 10 years, it's not going to be an option. Everybody's going to have it."