At Our Back Door

IT IS IRONIC, after years of student concern and protest here for injustices around the globe, that a serious one has gone unnoticed at our back door. More than half of the employees of the Harvard Cooperative Society signed authorization cards several weeks ago requesting representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers, speaking against serious injustices that they have faced for years. The policies of the shrewd Coop management, the labor situation of the Harvard Square area, and the indifference of students and other customers have allowed an exploitative employment situation at the Coop to persist.

The workers should be supported in their unionization effort, for it may represent the best method of establishing more equitable employment relations. We hope that the more than 500 employees be allowed to decide freely whether to unionize, and that the Coop management not use intimidation tactics. Students involved with the Coop, especially those elected to the Coop's board of directors should watch policies closely to guard against unfair practices before the March 26 union election.

The Coop's corps of management officials can not be entirely faulted for the worker's major grievance--the low wages paid many of the company's employees. The low pay-scale is a rational response to the transient nature of the Square's labor force. Many of the stock and sales personnel are recent college graduates only interested in short-term work. It is more profitable for management to exploit high employee turnover and pay low wages than to try to make employees become more productive and stay for longer periods of time. The existing policy might be tolerable for the Coop's younger workers, but it is unfair to the older and more senior employees who must make ends meet in starkly inflationary circumstances. Union representation could correct this injustice by raising wages, improving benefits and establishing a more stable and equitable employment policy.

But the low wages are only the most obvious sign of deeper problems which underscore the need for a union at the retail establishment. Employees claim that oppressive monitoring, biased promotion procedures, and inconsiderate assignment of tasks and responsibilities demonstrate a general lack of dignity in the Coop's treatment of its workers. A union could serve as the ideal voice to communicate grievances and provide the dignity the employees deserve.

We must commend the Coop management for allowing a union election date to be set rapidly and peacably. But we hope that it sticks to fair and honest tactics in its effort to pursuade workers to vote against unionization during the more than a month until the election. The decision whether to unionize is ultimately that of the workers themselves. We hope that they will overcome latent fears and anti-union prejudices and cast a vote for higher wages and a better workplace.