After 15 months of forceful student pressure, President Neil L. Rudenstine announced yesterday that the University plans to extend health care and job training benefits to virtually all Harvard employees, but will stop short of enacting a living wage.

Rudenstine said he plans to follow the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on Employment Policies, which released its final report yesterday. The document, which Rudenstine called "comprehensive and conscientious," rejects a living wage but recommends a broad increase in benefits for all University employees, including subcontracted and casual workers.

"It is my strong inclination to recommend that the University adopt the suggested expansion of benefits for each category of workers, and the guidelines for contracting with outside companies for services," Rudenstine announced.

Members of the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM), which coordinates the living wage campaign on campus, cheered the recommendations but criticized the committee for denying their chief demand.

"What today shows is that the University is seriously moving on an issue the students brought to the fore, and that's huge," said William W. Erickson '00-'01, a member of PSLM. "The recommendations exceeded our expectations but still didn't address our main issue."

Campaign organizers met with Weatherhead Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills, chair of the ad hoc committee, and Provost Harvey V. Fineberg'67 in a private meeting in Mass. Hall yesterday afternoon to discuss the committee's findings.

The report, more than 100 pages long with 16 appendices, recommends instituting near universal health care, greatly expanding job and educational training opportunities, extending benefits to casual workers and establishing a set of strict guidelines for contracting firms.

But while the report acknowledges that "it might have been easier, quicker and more popular" to raise wages, the committee chose not to establish a base wage of $10.25--originally $10--per hour for all Harvard employees, the core demand of the living wage campaign.

"We are in broad principle in agreement with the living wage campaign, but we didn't think what they were proposing was practical," Mills said.

Letter of Recommendation

The report, to be distributed to administrators, faculty, staff and the public, presents basic findings of fact and contains recommendations in three major areas--health insurance, job training and subcontracting guidelines.

The committee calls for the University:

- To provide health insurance for all Harvard employees working more than 16 hours per week;

- To refuse to contract with firms that do not provide health insurance for their employees at Harvard;

- To institute new educational and job training opportunities for all entry-level workers with paid leave time;

- To enhance the benefits received by casual workers;

- To establish guidelines for contracting with outside firms.

These recommendations would provide health insurance to almost all workers at Harvard, including those employed by outside contractors.

"We live in a country which does not provide health care to everyone, and it is a point of concern with us," Mills said.

The proposal to require contracting firms to provide health insurance proved the most contentious issue, provoking a letter of dissent from two of the eight committee members.

Paul F. Levy, executive dean for administration at the medical school, and Nancy L. Maull, administrative dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, included a two-page letter in the report challenging the recommendation.

In the letter, Levy and Maull wrote that Harvard should not impose "moral" standards on outside firms and that such a move would increase costs and detract from the University's educational mission.

"As best we can determine, the committee's decision is based on a moral position... How, though, can one argue that [Harvard] has the moral right, or obligation, to impose a similar requirement on service contractors?" they asked. "A countervailing moral view, if one is needed, is that the University has an obligation to society to support its core teaching resources and research mission in the most efficient manner possible."

Rudenstine acknowledged the dissent in his response to the committee, noting that "in the eyes of some, the recommendations go too far," but pledged to support them regardless.

Rudenstine announced he will formally review the recommendations this spring.

The proposal would have an impact on about 25 percent of subcontractors, but the committee was unsure exactly which subcontractors the move would affect because of the lack of contracting guidelines.

"We don't have that specific information," Mills said. "A lot of the people, particularly part-timers, do not have health insurance."

The report recommends instituting a set of specifications for hiring outside service contractors, as none are currently in place.

"The University and its units should not contract for service work solely to save money, if the cost savings come at the expense of the workers providing the service," the document states.

The committee also urged Harvard to provide coverage to more of its own employees. Lowering the eligibility requirement from a minimum of 20 to 16 hours per week would allow 247 more Harvard employees, many of whom work only a weekend shift, to participate in the University's health insurance plan, at a cost of $2,000 per employee per year or a total of $500,000.

The recommendations also call for a major investment in the education of entry-level workers. The committee urged the University to expand a pilot program teaching literacy and English as a Second Language from its current 38 participants to 500 next year--250 Harvard employees and 250 contracted workers.

The report calls the literacy program a "win-win," as employees learn new skills and the University gains a better-trained workforce.

But Mills said educating entry-level workers poses a different set of problems for the University than teaching students.

"My view is that this is a stretch for Harvard," he said. "We're not used to educating people at this level."

All employees will receive paid time off under the proposed plan.

The report estimates that this program would cost the University $2,800 per employee, almost $1.5 million per year.

On a Tear

Representatives of the living wage campaign first learned of the committee's recommendations at a meeting yesterday afternoon at Mass. Hall with Fineberg, Mills, Polly Price, associate vice president for human resources, and A. Clayton Spencer, associate vice president for higher education policy.

The meeting opened at 3 p.m. as eight members of the campaign tore into sealed manila envelopes containing copies of the report.

Mills gave a brief presentation of the report's findings, and then students peppered the administrators with questions, challenging Mills to explain why the report did not call for a living wage.

Students presented their views forcefully but remained civil.

"There's a need for institutional change," said Aaron D. Bartley, a second-year law student. "The wage structure has eroded the position of service employees on this campus."

Mills said the committee did not recommend a living wage because they did not want to subvert the collective bargaining process. He said the committee did not want to set a specific figure that would require constant adjustment.

In addition, he said they felt setting a base universal wage would be too difficult to implement, and they considered the recommended benefits--designed to improve workers' quality of life and future job prospects--to be significant means of advancement.

He also said that very few of the University's employees earn less than $10 per hour.

The report states that of the University's 12,722 regular employees, only 372, about three percent, earn less than $10 per hour, and all are represented by unions. Of the University's 2,000 subcontracted service workers, employees of outside firms who perform custodial, security, parking or dining hall duty at Harvard, about 500 earn less than $10.

Mills said this relatively small number did not warrant a major unilateral change that could have unintended consequences.

The report stated that the committee agreed with the campaign's philosophical aims, however.

"The Committee finds itself in agreement with the underlying premise of the Living Wage Campaign--that workers on the Harvard campus should be paid fair and competitive compensation for the jobs they perform and should be treated with dignity as part of the larger University community," it reads.

But PSLM members said changing the University's wage structure was necessary for workers.

"Health care benefits are not going to put food on the table or their kids through school," said Christina R. Andersen '03, a member of PSLM. "To not discuss wages is irresponsible and avoids the issue entirely."

Erickson said he was pleased by the recommendations to increase worker benefits but found these proposals unresponsive to the living wage campaign's primary demands.

"We asked for one pile of stuff and they gave us another pile of stuff," he said. "Its really good the stuff that they gave us--it's going to make hundreds of workers' lives better--but the issue of low-wage labor will still be a major issue on campus."

Mills said he agreed with Erickson.

"It's an exactly correct statement," he said. "We have a real difference of opinion on what they're asking for."

Power to the People

Although the report did not officially endorse a living wage, Rudenstine, University administrators and members of the committee all emphasized the profound effect of the living wage campaign on yesterday's decision.

"I personally believe that, had the campaign leaders on campus not pressed their case so thoughtfully, we would not have looked so carefully and broadly at these questions and probably would not have considered such wide-ranging reforms," Rudenstine announced.

"Without the students this would not have happened," said Paul S. Grogan, vice president for government, community and public affairs.

Bill Jaeger, the director of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, the University' s largest union, said he was surprised that students had been able to effect real policy changes.

"We're psyched," he said. "Going from nothing to something is always the hardest part, and this is something."