With almost 5,000 Harvard employees associated with the University's eight unions, labor organizers and contract negotiators have their hands full.

This year was no exception.

Harvard's union of custodial workers, Local 254, was first to make the news with intra-union conflict.

In late September, union members approved a new three-year contract which many employees said they had never seen in its entirety.

According to several workers, union members were given only 45 minutes to read and discuss a four-page summary of the pact which was provided before the group was forced out of Science Center B by a Harvard class.

The new contract brought the wages of Harvard's custodial workers in line with the market, according to Timothy R. Manning, director of labor relations.

A survey completed by The Crimson of wages of custodial workers at local colleges revealed that, like Harvard, some pay about $8 an hour, which is close to the market wage. Yet others pay up to $14 an hour.

To explain Harvard's wages, University officials point to the growing cost of education and the need to keep administrative costs down.

But many of the full-time workers said they were not well-represented by the union in the bargaining process, had little input in the negotiations and were not sufficiently informed about the deal prior to the vote.

"Our union doesn't care about the interests of Harvard employees," said Ray Clarke, a worker in Yard operations and a shop steward for the union.

The deal froze wages for the first two months of the three-year contract. Negotiations for salary increases may begin only after July 1, 1998. The agreement also reduced vacation time and decreased sick pay but allowed employees to take advantage of a short-term disability plan, Manning said.

"Dorm crew workers will make more than new full-time custodians," Clarke said.

Angered by the contract they inked, disgruntled custodial workers asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in October to nullify the agreement.

Union members charged that Cathy Conway, their business agent, represented them in bad faith during the negotiations and the vote.

Despite these complaints, the NLRB did not find any evidence of wrongdoing, Clarke said.

New Union Formed

But custodial workers were not the only people upset by the union leadership of Local 254.

Harvard security guards, parking monitors and museum attendants voted in November to establish a new union, only two weeks after they exited Local 254.

Security guards led the movement which separated them from what they described as ineffective union leadership.

But most of the museum attendants, who comprise about one third of the new union, voted against its formation and were skeptical about its future success under its new president, Stephen G. McCombe, who has been a Harvard security guard for the past 12 years.

Losing Ground

The custodial workers belonging to Local 254 would soon have to deal with different problems.

Beginning February 3, 1997, custodial workers from Harvard's Facilities Maintenance Organization (FMO) were told they were no longer responsible for cleaning Quincy House, Cabot House, Loeb Drama Center and Lamont and Pusey Libraries.

Instead, workers from UNICCO, Service Co.--one of the state's largest cleaning companies, which already handled maintenance in many campus buildings--won these contracts.

The need for new workers in these buildings came after about 30 custodians opted to take an early retirement or severance package, negotiated in their November contract.

FMO workers were baffled at the reasons behind the change, especially after they accepted a contract for lower wages. Workers believed the cuts they accepted were to prevent the loss of contracts to outside cleaners.

Although individual schools and departments within the University are free to purchase custodial services from Harvard's FMO or from outside contractors, FMO employees said they were astonished that all of the custodial work in these buildings went to UNICCO.

This change is part of a larger trend over the last several years, in which FMO has lost many contracts to outside contractors, primarily UNICCO, according to sources close to FMO.

David A. Zewinski '76, associate dean for physical resources and planning--the entity responsible for contracting out work for FAS--said that cost differences between FMO and UNICCO were not a major factor in the decision. Zewinski also knew of no outstanding issues of poor service by FMO.

"You go with the visceral feeling of what you feel is going to be the best," Zewinski said.

A Temporary Agreement

Harvard's largest Union certainly did not go unnoticed on campus either.

In October, members of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) began to protest proposed cuts in part-time health-care benefits scheduled to take effect in January 1997.

These cuts were part of a recommendation made in the fall of 1994 by a task force of 10 top-level Harvard administrators. The cuts were made after the University reported a $10 million structural deficit.

The proposed cuts were in health and dental insurance benefits and would effect 500 workers beginning on Jan. 1, 1997. Officials said they wanted to reduce contribution to insurance premiums from 85 percent to 70 percent for all staff who work less than 28 hours per week.

The reduction would have cost workers up to $700 more each year in premiums and would save the University about $200,000, according to the Union.

Members of HUCTW began to outwardly protest the decision, marching around Mass. Hall, shaking chains and booing Provost Albert Carnesale, who is responsible for labor relations.

The picketing and tension over the cuts painfully illuminated a 14-month-old misunderstanding between the University and HUCTW over the role of the Joint Committee on Benefits (JCB) in discussions of the benefits package in the union's 1995 contract.

University officials said HUCTW had accepted the benefit cuts when the contract was negotiated in the summer of 1995.

But HUCTW disagreed, saying that the JCB was created during the contract negotiations to provide a means of continuing negotiations on benefit issues. Union members looked to the committee for renegotiating the benefit cuts.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the Union and the University agreed that [the JCB] was the place where we were going to discuss and decide difficult benefit policies and questions," said Bill Jaeger, director of HUCTW.

But Carnesale, who must approve all labor agreements before presenting them to the Corporation, disagreed with the interpretation.

Carnesale said the University would "not tolerate" a committee that had such negotiating power.

Protesting continued throughout the winter in front of Mass. Hall. Picketers were seen almost every day carrying signs and cutouts of Carnesale's head on sticks as they circled around the entrance.

But on Feb. 14, after months of protesting, HUCTW and the University inked an agreement to halt the reduction of part-time worker health benefits for another year.

The postponement was accompanied by a commitment by the University and HUCTW to continue negotiations until a final agreement is reached.

Both union and University officials said they were glad to see progress in the stalemate extending three years back when the University first proposed the cuts.

"We're extremely happy that we were able to reach an agreement and the [health] benefits won't be cut," said Donene M. Williams, president of HUCTW.

A permanent settlement has not yet been reached.