Despite Agreement, Problems May Persist

The settlement between Harvard and its union of clerical and technical workers means workers get a raise.

It means fewer Yard rallies. It means cooler rhetoric from union officials. It means Vice President for Administration and chief management negotiator Sally H. Zeckhauser has more free time.

But it doesn't mean that Harvard can forget about its workers for the next three years. And it doesn't mean that all the University's labor relations difficulties have van- ished with a pen-stroke.

"The fact that this agreement was reacheddoesn't mean that all the problems with theUniversity and its management have been solved,"union director Bill Jaeger said yesterday.

During the months of negotiations, unionmembers and officials have been liberal withcomplaints about how Harvard treats its workers,at times characterizing the University's attitudesas "hostile," "antagonistic" and "mean-spirited."The complaints came from other Harvard unions inaddition to the clerical and technical workers.

"There are big, big problems," union PresidentDonene M. Williams said yesterday. She mentionedaffirmative action and career development as twoareas in which the union and Harvard could worktogether for improvements.

Harvard administrators said yesterday that theyhope to maintain such endeavors with workers andtheir representatives. "Harvard looks forward tocontinuing the joint efforts on issues involvingemployment," said Vice President for Government,Community and Public Affairs John H. Shattuck.

And President Neil L. Rudenstine said in awritten statement, "We remain fully dedicated to aconstructive joint relationship with the HarvardUnion of Clerical and Technical Workers."

That commitment will be tested again and againin the coming years. And if the last few days areany indication, the union and management are stillfar from harmony.

There was powerful irony in the fact that thetwo sides couldn't even agree on what time thecontract was finally settled. Even in agreement,it seemed, labor and management were at odds.

The sides also disagreed on how well thenegotiation process worked. Rudenstine said in astatement today that he thought "the negotiationprocess, while arduous at times, worked well."

But Jaeger said, "it wasn't a good example ofhow negotiations ought to work."

Today, union leaders and Harvard administratorsalike are basking in the glory of the contractsettlement. But once the initial euphoria has wornoff, underlying divisions will likely remain.

"Harvard still is not the perfect workplace,"Jaeger said, "We still don't have the perfectunion-management relationship."DONENE M. WILLIAMS

"The fact that this agreement was reacheddoesn't mean that all the problems with theUniversity and its management have been solved,"union director Bill Jaeger said yesterday.

During the months of negotiations, unionmembers and officials have been liberal withcomplaints about how Harvard treats its workers,at times characterizing the University's attitudesas "hostile," "antagonistic" and "mean-spirited."The complaints came from other Harvard unions inaddition to the clerical and technical workers.

"There are big, big problems," union PresidentDonene M. Williams said yesterday. She mentionedaffirmative action and career development as twoareas in which the union and Harvard could worktogether for improvements.

Harvard administrators said yesterday that theyhope to maintain such endeavors with workers andtheir representatives. "Harvard looks forward tocontinuing the joint efforts on issues involvingemployment," said Vice President for Government,Community and Public Affairs John H. Shattuck.

And President Neil L. Rudenstine said in awritten statement, "We remain fully dedicated to aconstructive joint relationship with the HarvardUnion of Clerical and Technical Workers."

That commitment will be tested again and againin the coming years. And if the last few days areany indication, the union and management are stillfar from harmony.

There was powerful irony in the fact that thetwo sides couldn't even agree on what time thecontract was finally settled. Even in agreement,it seemed, labor and management were at odds.

The sides also disagreed on how well thenegotiation process worked. Rudenstine said in astatement today that he thought "the negotiationprocess, while arduous at times, worked well."

But Jaeger said, "it wasn't a good example ofhow negotiations ought to work."

Today, union leaders and Harvard administratorsalike are basking in the glory of the contractsettlement. But once the initial euphoria has wornoff, underlying divisions will likely remain.

"Harvard still is not the perfect workplace,"Jaeger said, "We still don't have the perfectunion-management relationship."DONENE M. WILLIAMS