This last Monday evening, there was a Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) Membership meeting to discuss the proposed two-year extension on our present contract with Harvard. This was our first and only provided opportunity to come together as a Union to deal effectively with the momentous issues put on the table so suddenly in January. We have over 2,500 members, yet only about 45 of us attended last evening. For a whole contingent of our members who work in the Medical School area, as well as those members who work at off-campus sites and even many of us who work on the main campus, the venue and time of the meeting proved completely inopportune.

Nevertheless, those who were able to attend had a frank discussion with the leadership on what many of us consider to be serious flaws in the proposal on the table, as well as regarding the undemocratic way in which this proposal came about. Only the leadership rose to speak in favor of the proposal.

Today, after being given only two days' time in which to study, reflect and make up our minds, we are asked to participate in a plebiscite on whether to ratify the proposed two-year extension of our contract. I urge my fellow HUCTW members to go to the polls today. I also urge my fellow members to VOTE NO! Here are my reasons, for your consideration:

The money settlement is terrible. Voting for this contract extension guarantees that most of us will have to live paycheck-to-paycheck for the foreseeable future. There is no question of Harvard's ability to pay. Harvard has over $12 billion! The Massachusetts economy is reportedly running even stronger than the U.S. economy, which is also reportedly very strong at present. We should be negotiating for at least 8% raises!

The proposed contract extension is NOT a Harvard management "final offer"! By voting down a poor money settlement, Harvard workers are virtually certain to get a better money settlement in the next round. Taking this action in our own immediate interest presents no danger to us and will only strengthen our negotiating hand.

There is no concrete language to protect our jobs and our health in the contract extension proposal now on the table: nothing to improve our working conditions, nothing to strengthen work security, grievance procedure, workers' compensation or pension plan.

It is clear the peculiar system of "Joint Committees" and "problem solving" our leadership promotes is a failure because of the obvious power disparities between management and labor. It needs to be replaced by the tried and true system of strong union stewards fully backed up by our union's leadership.

The proposal was not negotiated in good faith with our membership. It was arranged behind the backs of the members, in closed-door sessions in December. There was no mention of it at our December membership meeting. The members were never surveyed to determine their wishes. We were told nothing of what was happening until the deal was in the bag. No negotiating team was elected, for the second and, I hope, last time in our history. We have not since been provided enough detailed information about the proposal, nor time enough, to allow us to make an informed decision on the merits. In sum, the proposal is undemocratic, precipitous and management driven. A rubberstamp ratification vote implicates the membership in the creation of a company union, pushing us into the powerful arms of an arrogant, uncaring and bad faith management.

To build a democratic, effective, member-run union, we have to struggle. There is no concrete alternative. We have the power to get a really good deal in our next contract. We should vote this proposal down to defeat, start over the democratic way, and decide together what we want in our next contract. We should elect a negotiating team that promises to take what we want to the table and fight for a strong contract when they get there.

The present leadership does not involve the members in decision-making about our wages, benefits and working conditions. The logical result? A mounting disinterest, apathy and dissatisfaction, as well as a lack of communication, solidarity and activism. Our few membership meetings in recent years have not been used to conduct union business with democratic agendas, discussions, motions and votes according to normative union practice; as a result they are not perceived as productive uses of our time. Many of us have not attended a HUCTW membership meeting for years!

As a Union we are becoming weaker, in my view because many of us have prematurely thrown in the towel. We, the members, are the Union, and it is our responsibility to each other and to the future security, health, benefit and strength of our work lives at Harvard to turn this thing around.

The first step is to VOTE NO! today and send Harvard management back to the drawing board. The second is to demand of our leaders the immediate election of a strong, confident and resolute HUCTW negotiating team.

The third is to revive our flagging strength by holding regular monthly membership meetings run on a democratic basis.

And last but not least, the fourth step is to create a regular monthly HUCTW newsletter with an elected editorial board.

Thompson E. Potter, Jr. is a faculty secretary at Harvard Law School.