Let the Workers Really Decide

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The editorial entitled "Stand Back, Harvard" (April 12) addressed the current drive to unionize Harvard clerical and technical employees. The author of that editorial stated the opinion that it was "immoral" for the Harvard [administration] to "interfere" with the union drive, and that it was time for the administration to "restrain itself until the May 17 election, and let the workers decide."

The author of that editorial seems to feel that the Harvard administration is some great industrial revolution-type machine, and an effort to present its side of the issue is a cruel manipulation of the oppressed "workers." May I suggest to that author that we Harvard employees are not helpless, downtrodden, or in need of a champion, and we demand the right to make, and the resources for making, an informed decision as to whether to vote to unionize our workplace.

The author condemns Harvard's "interference" in the employee's consideration of the union proposition. Does this author really believe that it is more "moral" to sit back and not fight for an opinion, be that opinion personal or organizational, when the outcome of the battle will definitely affect the lives of 3500 people, eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year? The administration's so-called interference is a moral and responsible effort to present the other side of a controversial and significant issue.

The author also implies that the Harvard administration's "business attitude" towards unionization is lowlier than a "moral" prounion attitude. What is immoral about a business-like decision? We are discussing people's jobs here; you can be damn sure a business attitude is important to everyone concerned. Perhaps the editor is unaware that a union is a marketed, strategically organized business itself--what else are union dues for? And should the author be thinking of the union drive as a completely spontaneous call to the masses, perhaps he or she should note that union drive handbooks advise organizers that, "in using publicity, representatives should remember that while his campaign may be based upon facts, he must create an emotional appeal. Words such as `security,' `freedom' [etc.] ...have this appeal." Clearly, the union administration has no problem with calculative strategy.

The author states, "the University has been engaging in a campaign to persuade employees to vote against the union...the University has held `information' meetings for employees." I have been to these meetings; no one tried to persuade me to do anything. The meetings were advertised as, and indeed were, very objective presentations of exactly what types of relevant effects unionization could conceivably have on the current Harvard personnel policy. There was no finger-pointing, no muckracking, and no paternalism.

The author notes that the University administration often held "information" meetings (to which employees are sent written invitation) on work time and with managers encouraging staff employees to attend, while organizers "must meet with employees on personal time." The author declares, "Often, the departmental personnel representative sits on these meetings, which some employees claim discourages them from asking tough questions." The author seems to consider these meetings a form of intimidation. Well, one is invited to attend these meetings, and I have yet to see anyone standing at the door taking down names. It is very clear from the wording of the invitations that the purpose behind informing managers of the meetings is to eliminate any employee concern over attending an out-of-office meeting during work time. And of course the personnel representative should be there--that's exactly who should be the target of the tough questions. Nothing was asked of the employees at these meetings except an open mind.

The union, on the other hand, has asked employees to sign and turn in a card declaring support for an election to decide the unionization question, with the rider that voting to hold an election is a "moral commitment" to voting to unionize. Then, does the author think that the union organizers are forced to huddle in the smoking lounge, hoping to catch one's attention with a few desperate pleas for a moment of one's time? In my office, the union organizers are considered--and treated--with friendly respect. Organizers come around every few weeks, yes, during work time, and stop at each person's office to exchange information and provide updates. It's all very fair.

That author states, as well, that Harvard's "anti-union" strategy has been condemned by 21 student groups, Joseph Kennedy II, Barney Frank, and various other groups whose lives I see to be totally unaffected by the unionization of my work environment. Why did anyone ask them?

I am further annoyed by the author's persistent placement of quotation marks around the work "information," as if, despite the motto of his or her school, he or she has no concept of what the term means. The author has a right to his or her opinion; indeed, I am still forming mine. But Harvard employees are not worker drones in need of salvation, and we welcome the opportunity to investigate both sides of this complicated issue. Sharon E. Block   Marketing Staff Assistant   Harvard School of Public Health