Towing the Line

TODAY, the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) will hold a rally in their attempt to organize the University's 4000 support staff. These employees face a difficult choice--a choice that will be made more difficult if the University succeeds in manipulating their supervisors.

Under federal law, supervisors are prohibited from interfering with a union drive or pressuring pro-union employees. But some supervisors said Harvard's head union strategist Ann Taylor told them the University had the right to fire them if they did not back Harvard's position, even though Taylor said the University wouldn't carry out that action. Taylor did say that, "In terms of being activists on the University side, I make it clear that [supervisors] do not have to do so. I hope they will, but it is their choice." But some supervisors said they felt pressured not to speak out against the University's stand.

In past union elections the University has used supervisors and top administrators to discourage employees from backing HUCTW. While the University may have kept these actions within the letter of the law, they certainly have not followed the spirit. This time, the union has urged Harvard to remain neutral during the election. The union argues that any, and all, administration input is a form of coercion, since employees may feel pressured to heed their boss's word and not endanger their job.

BUT employees should be able to hear views about unionization beyond those represented by HUCTW. Many employees have said they want equal access to information about the University's position and about the union's side--because, as one employees put it, "in the end I will do what I want to do." To make an informed choice, support staff should be able to get information from both sides.

Yet employees should not be forced to hear the administration's side from the people who are responsible for hiring them, approving their wage increases and passing judgement on their work. Supervisors cannot just put forth information, because they give that information an unfair advantage and a threatening aura.

The University distributed a booklet to supervisors, listing things they "cannot" say, such as "Was that a union organizer you were speaking with?" and what they "can" say, such as "I am troubled by the tactics of certain union organizers. In some cases they seem to me to be pressuring and harassing support staff." The University draws too fine a line between these remarks--both are tantamount to coercion.

In meetings with supervisors and in the booklet, the University advocated that bosses criticize the union and told them a number of ways to do so. These tactics put supervisors between a rock and a hard place, forcing them into unsure legal situations and unfair ethical relations with their employees. Moreover, many supervisors support the union effort or just don't want to be involved on either side. Supervisors--themselves employees who must answer to other supervisors--should not be forced to tow the administration line, or fear that their jobs are endangered because of their opinions.