Employees Knock Univ. For Pension Reduction

Backed by a storm of angry janitors and maintenance men, local union officials yesterday charged the University with breaking employee-management agreements and cutting employee pensions without notice.

Daniel G. Mulvihill, president of the University Employees Representative Association, some 600 strong, rapped the University for changing the pension agreement at will, "without consulting the Union for organized and a committee for unorganized employees."

Employee dissatisfaction has built up since the University came under Social Security, on January 1, 1951. At that time the personnel office abolished a minimum guarantee of $50 per month after ten years of work, with $5 for every extra year, revising pensions downward.

Social Security Benefits

But the Social Security benefits, said John W. Teele, Director of Personnel, more than compensate for the reduction in University pensions.

"Edward S. Marshall, president of the Building and Grounds Maintenance Association, disagreed with Teele's defense. He said his men have complained that the University is "no longer holding up its end of the pension plan," and added a committee is now at work on the pensions question.

"Favorable Break"

Teele said the University employees receive "a more favorable break than in most places." He said his office had notified everyone of the change in pensions, and had not with members of the HUERA to explain the change.

The agreement to which employees referred is a letter sent out by the personnel office on April 13, 1950. The letter states 'The amount paid under the Harvard Plan plus the 'primary' benefit under Social Security, if any, shall be at least $50 per month for a full-time employee with ten years' service plus $5 per month for each additional year of service up to a total minimum pension of $100 per month for 20 years' service."

Under the present system, one/employee who has worked as a janitor for 16 years will receive only $28 per month. With Social Security, however, his total pension will be higher than the $30 he would have received under the University's "minimum pension" plan.

Fear Retaliation

Most of the employees interviewed yesterday asked their names be withhold for fear of University retaliation.

In a long statement asking for a general revision of pension allotments, Mulvihill stated, . . . "decency cries out for us to begin this task at once and to revise our attitudes towards the employment of older workers."