According to an article in the May issue of the Harvard Community Resource, the University hired Towers Perrin, a benefits consulting group, to help with the process.
In addition to the advisory groups, Towers Perrin met with faculty members, exempt staff members and retirees to determine "What faculty and staff valued in the benefits package and the relative importance of each aspect of the package," according to the Resource article.
But the firm did not meet with unionized Harvard employees.
A UHS employee and member of HUCTW, who spoke on condition of anonymity, says he has received little information about possible cuts, despite his union membership.
"All I've seen is what's in the Gazette, and that's been kind of skimpy," he says. "We're kind of in the dark. We don't know what the union's going to do."
Subsidy Choices
At the May 17 Faculty meeting, President Neil L. Rudenstine said the task force's report might suggest that the University subsidize only the least expensive of the seven health care plans it currently offers to faculty and staff.
In this scenario, employees would have the option of paying the University in order to upgrade their insurance plans from the least expensive level, Rudenstine said.
Last fall, the University revealed that it had accumulated a $52.2 million deficit in benefits spending over the past five years. But Rudenstine said the law does not permit the University to sustain annual deficits of $10 million or more in funding.
For faculty and non-Union staff, the task force proposals would become effective on January 1, 1995. Union workers would not be affected until their contract comes up for renegotiation next year, but Harvard is certain to use reduced benefits benchmarks in future labor negotiations.
Childs says he expects the unions to preserve a greater measure of security for their workers.
"For the faculty and exempt workers, they are forcing these cuts down their throats. It's really unfair," says the Adams House cook. "They're telling the faculty not to organize. They're taking advantage of them."
In the Faculty meeting, Rudenstine claimed that the task force proposals would shift the burden of health care costs away from lower paid staff. That change would come. it seems, because higher-paid employees would have to pay directly in order to maintain their current extensive health care plans.
But Williams said last month that the proposed cut would not help many lower-paid employees. "The effect of this will be to force more workers into the least expensive plan, and for most workers, anything more will become virtually unaffordable," she said.
Currently the University contributes 85 percent of its employees' medical costs based on the "weighed average" of the seven University approved health care plans offered to faculty and staff members.
"Now the University will peg its contribution to the lowest approved plan, and employees who want more coverage than that can buy up," Rudenstine said.
Still, the president acknowledged that cutbacks will be felt by all. And with statements like that, Childs and other ill-informed workers are bracing for a blindside to their benefits.
"Harvard's not doing very good by workers today," Childs says. "People are demanding and need more insurance."
The cook thinks such tactics are hypocritical for a University whose researchers have been some of the staunchest advocates of providing universal health insurance.
"Harvard's trying to participate in a national debate on universal coverage," Childs says, "and at the same time is trying to undercut benefits here."