Increased Health Care Costs Worry Staff

For Margarida Amaral, an Eliot House dining hall worker, house payments, $400 a month in grocery bills and a son she hopes to send to college next year don't leave a lot of extra money left over from her $1600 monthly salary.

Like all full-time dining hall workers, Amaral earns a total of $15,845 a year. But out of that paycheck comes monthly deductions for health care premiums.

Both Amaral's husband and her 18-year-old son are also insured through Harvard on her Bay State plan, at a total cost of $109 a month.

"My check stays over here [at Harvard]," Amaral says. "It's not enough."

And compared to many staff members around the University, faced with dramatically increased health care premiums and $10 co-payments, Amaral is getting off easy.

A University task force, exclusively made up of 10 top-level administrators, spent most of the last year evaluating Harvard's benefits program for faculty and staff in an effort to cut costs and eliminate a reported $10 million structural deficit.

The myriad of changes resulting from their report, which was released earlier this month, will be phased in over the academic year, administrators say.

The report has not been greeted with enthusiasm by the Harvard community. Those affected by the changes say they fear increased costs and criticize the specifics of the new benefits structure.

In fact, the benefits review process has been somewhat controversial almost since it started. The all administrator makeup of the task force was a point of contention among Harvard's staff from the beginning.

Union leaders say they were deliberately excluded from the task force, although the administration intended to allow them to participate in an advisory committee.

And now that the changes have finally been officially announced, Harvard's staff community seems unsure, and somewhat nervous, regarding the long-term effects of the report.

Health Insurance

Since 1989, Harvard has paid 85 percent of all health care plans for all employees.

But as of January, Harvard's contribution will be a percentage of the lowest cost plan and will be tied to income and full-or part-time status.

The University will continue to contribute 85 percent only for full-time employees making less than $45,000. Contributions will be 80 percent for those earning between $45,000 and $70,000, and 75 percent for those making more than $70,000.

Part-time workers, however, will be the hardest hit--a point on which even task force members agree.

"The fact that the University's contributions will be pro-rated is going to be difficult for them," Candace R. Corvey, associate vice president for human resources, said in July.

Harvard will pay 60 percent for part-timers earning less than $45,000, 55 percent for those earning between $45,000 and $70,000 and 50 percent for those earning more than $70,000.

The Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) last week released an open letter to the Harvard Community criticizing the impending changes which will affect part-time employees.

"Although HUCTW members are not immediately affected, we are concerned about this particular change, and the thousands of Harvard family members who will be touched by it," the letter says.

The union says that increases in health care premiums and co-payments for part-times could force employees to choose less expensive child care, increase their hours, go uninsured or even leave the University.

One HUCTW member working in an administrative office says she is contemplating that choice between work and family.

"One of the things for me that is an issue is that I'm pregnant," she says. "I'm looking at going down to part-time. The amount of money that a part-timer has to put out for health insurance is quite a bit."

Her husband is self-employed, and her job is the family's only source of health insurance. She belongs to the HealthFlex Blue family plan, and her premiums are now $127 a month.

"I'm a diabetic," she says. "My health is very important to me. I do pay the most expensive premium."

If she went down to part-time, and the union accepted the changes, she would pay $183 a month.

She says she and her husband have discussed the possibility of her leaving her job after the baby is born.

"We'd have to bite the bullet and pay out on our own plan. It's essentially the same as paying your own insurance when you combine [the cost of day care and health insurance," she says. "It's something we're definitely looking at."

"But I love my job," she says. "It's important to have something of your own outside raising a child."

The full-time cut-off will be 28 hours a week. Employees who work between 17.5 hours and 28 hours will be affected by the new part-time contributions.

According to the report, the 17.5 hours cutoff is lower than that of several area employers, such as Polaroid and the Bank of Boston, and that of all Ivy League schools except Brown.

But even under the lowest cost plan, Harvard Community Health Plan (HCHP), premiums will be $41 a month for part-timers earning less than $45,000, as opposed to $24 for full-time employees.

"There are a couple stories we hear of exempt [non-union] staff who work 26 hours per week and are begging their department to increase their hours to 28," says Donene M. Williams, HUCTW president. "They're making decisions about whether they can afford to keep working based on the changes in the health insurance."

"And that's an outrageous way to have to make a decision," she says.

Union members and officials say that workers often have part-time status due to a necessity, such as health problems, instead of choice.

"Part-time workers work part-time because they have kids or parents at home," says Jennie H. Rathburn, an HUCTW member who works full-time in Houghton Library.

Currently, workers play $0 to $10 per office visit. With the changes, co-payments will be $10 for all plans.

"The puzzling thing about that is it's kind of regressive," says a Kennedy School employee and HUCTW member. "If you make what we make, it is completely counter to the philosophy of what an HMO is."

And if the union accepts the changes in their negotiations next spring, Rathburn estimates the additional annual drain on her pocketbook from the increased co-payments would be $500.

It appears from the report, however, that the University isn't expecting out-of-pocket costs to go up--instead, the task force seems to have expected that the number of trips to the doctor would go down.

"Co-pays for office visits should be at a level high enough to discourage excessive use of services," the report says.

Details

But John and Joan Yatteau, both Harvard staff members, predict significant increases in their medical costs.

Joan Yatteau is a HUCTW member and a secretary. Her husband John Yatteau is a systems manager and project scientist in the Division of Applied Sciences, and is an exempt staff member. The couple is currently insured under John Yatteau's Harvard University Group Health Plan (HUGHP).

"I can tell you that in the discussions we have had we are going to be paying about $500 more a year for no increase in services," Joan says. "We have always used HUGHP, and we've never had a co-payment before."

The couple say they are also concerned about increases in the cost of their dental coverage. The University will now contribute 65 percent, instead of 66 to 70 percent, of dental costs.

HUGHP Dental is now going to be separate from the HUGHP medical plan.

"It's going to become more expensive," John says. "The amount that we're going to pay is going to go up by some hundreds of dollars next year."

The administration freely admits that one goal of the changes is to encourage employees to move to the lowest cost plan, HCHP.

"What we were trying to do was address incentives to encourage people to opt for the most cost-effective health care," says Vice President for Administration Sally H. Zeckhauser, the second task force chair. "If you tie [the contribution] to the lowest-cost plan, you encourage people to move."

Like most HMOs, HCHP requires its members to see doctors who belong to the plan. And switching plans may mean switching doctors.

"It seems they're trying to force people to migrate to the cheaper plans," Rathburn says. "I've had my doctor for three or four years. It's hard to get up the nerve to switch."

But for those with serious or chronic health problems, the prospect is even worse. Some plans do not accept new members with pre-existing conditions.

"I have breast cancer," says Judith Ross, an HUCTW and Business School employee who is insured under her husband's plan at his employer, the Raytheon company. "Long-term disability is something I signed up for when I was hired, not knowing I was going to be sick, but figuring there was always a chance I was going to get run over by a truck in Harvard Square."

But cuts in federal defense spending have made Ross concerned about the security of her husband's job.

"I can't always count on Raytheon. What if my husband gets laid off?" Ross says. "But to be honest, I don't know what it would be like to have to go on a new plan. Preexisting conditions make it tough for people to get health care."

For now, though, Ross and her husband are going to stay under Raytheon's Blue Cross Blue Shield Master Health Plus plan, under which she pays one and a half percent of premiums.

"It's a better deal because we pay so little," she says."

Some employees say they are determined to avoid Harvard's health plans. One veteran police office left Harvard's benefits program and joined his wife's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan 10 years ago.

"I can go to any doctor I want," he says. "I pay three dollars for medicine, three dollars for office visits. Dental, everything, is on here."

He says he left the Harvard plan after his adult daughter became ill.

"My daughter lives in California, and when she got sick, I thought my group health would cover her. No sir," he says. "I was shocked to find out my daughter wasn't covered. I was very disappointed in it. [Harvard's] health plan is 100 years old, even though it's revised."

Rising Costs

Since 1988, Harvard's benefits costs have risen 15 percent, according to the task force report. Much of that increase may have been due to the generous 85 percent contribution to premiums.

"The University created this problem. In 1989, the University increased its contribution very liberally," says Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics Professor William Paul. "Between 1988 and 1993, 800 new families joined the plan, at a cost of $4.8 million."

"In effect, Harvard is subsidizing other large employers in Massachusetts because of the disproportionate enrollment in our plans instead of theirs," says a source close to the task force. "The benefits changes adopted do not address this serious problem at all."

One factor the task force didn't have during their evaluation was the 1995 health care premiums, which for Bay State, HCHP, HUGHP, Pilgrim and Tufts have gone down by two to $12.

"It leaves a real big question in our minds, 'Well, why would we be interested in that then?'" says Williams. "We're not taking the set of changes, and our rates are going down."

According to the report, Harvard's costs rose an average of 21 percent between 1988 and 1993. It is not clear how much the task force expected premiums to change this year.

Another goal of the task force may have been to encourage employees to switch to their spouse's plan.

But according to some employees, Harvard's benefits program is still more generous than other employers.

"I was a chef at Johnson and Wales. This is much better," says James Taylor, a food production manager in Eliot-Kirkland who came to Harvard in September. "I'm a diabetic, and all my stuff will be covered."

Taylor says he spent $300 a month on a blood testing machine while working at Johnson and Wales. HCHP will cover that cost.

Taylor's family is covered by his wife's health plan at the Inn at Harvard. He says, though, that he will probably consider putting the whole family on the HCHP family plan.

The University currently offers its employees the choice of eight health plans.

"Harvard has very good choice. I feel that's pretty good," says one security guard whose wife and four children are covered under his Bay State family plan. "I didn't even have to fill out the form [this year]. I kept everything."

"My wife works for Blue Cross Blue Shield," he says. "And she knows medical."

Pension

In fact, administrators defend many of the staff health care changes by arguing that Harvard's plan was overly generous in comparison to the market, other Ivy League schools and large Boston employers.

For example, at Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, staff must work at least 35 hours per week to receive any health benefits.

In contrast, the staff pension plan, administrators say, was a large hole in the University's benefits structure.

"The staff pension plan, when compared to that at other universities for administrative and professional staff, was very much less good," Corvey says. "In fact, at many of our comparable sister institutions, the administrative and professional staff are members of the faculty plan."

While the changes do not make the exempt staff part of the faculty plan, the staff pension plan will be enhanced.

The new plan has two parts, according to the report. Harvard will make contributions under a defined benefit plan based on age and years of service. The University will also contribute an additional 3.5 percent of pay which the employee can choose to invest. In addition, early retirement bonuses will be increased.

But Paul says the new plan still does not meet the goals set out by the 1973 benefits review--comparable levels of retirement pay for faculty and staff.

"Apparently they didn't manage," he says. "It's federal law. You've got to pay the same retirement for all salary levels. Harvard is almost out of compliance."

Unions

Technically, the changes were only made mandatory for non-union staff. But some unions have accepted the changes, and others are concerned about how the plan could affect them in the future.

The coalition of the seven Harvard unions has so far refused to accept the changes because union leaders were not directly involved.

The administration announced the establishment of a benefits review task force in October 1993. A mix of administrators from different areas of the campus were appointed to the group--but only administrators.

While the administration maintained throughout the process that they offered the unions "full partnership," the opportunity to form an advisory group to the task force, union leaders maintain that role is inadequate.

"We were pretty insistent that if they weren't going to allow us on the task force that had to be pretty clear in their publications that these changes weren't going to affect us," says Williams, who as president of HUCTW is the head of Harvard's largest bargaining unit.

The cuts and restructuring were originally intended to affect only faculty and non-union staff, as union members' benefits are set by contract and are determined in collective bargaining with the University.

Over the last several months, however, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), security guards and cleaning workers, and the Hotel Restaurant Institutional Employees Union (Local 26), dining hall workers, accepted the changes as part of a one year contract extension. Neither is a Harvard-based union, but both include numerous Harvard employees.

"I feel our union made a deal with Harvard," says an SEIU member who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They only allowed us two days [to make the decision]."

The SEIU member says the approval of Harvard's cleaning workers swung the vote.

"It's been a long standing problem," says another security guard. "A lot of guards feel we shouldn't be in the same union."

But the security guard says he thinks the changes are positive. His Bay State premium will go down $5.

"I feel that's pretty good. I voted to accept the change. Who's going to complain?" he says. "The only people vocal against it was the parking unit. They felt they didn't have enough time to digest the information."

Another security guard, however, says the increased co-payments outweigh any reductions in premiums.

"We're paying more money. Mine went from five to 10. It's a 100 percent increase," the guard says. "We are probably the lowest-making unit. I think it's wrong. It's terribly wrong."

Like Margarida Amaral, the guard has a son in high school.

"Everyone with a family is going to get zapped," he says. "I've got a son going to college next year. It's tough."

For some employees, the promise of another year of security meant more than the possibility of increased costs.

"We took what was offered. You don't know what you're going to get down the road," says a security guard, a widow who has belonged to HUGHP for 15 years. "It's a bird in the hand versus two in the bush."

Domenic M. Bozotto, president of Local 26, and Kathleen Conway, SEIU business manager, could not be reached for comment.

Negotiations

For the rest of Harvard's unions, though, a bird in the hand wasn't good enough.

"I think [the administration] hoped our union would help break the other unions," says a member of SEIU." [But] the coalition would not go along."

The University has only had preliminary talks with the other unions about accepting the changes, administration and union officials say.

"I think that they knew at some point early in the process...that they would then next propose this to the unions," Williams says.

"But the real mystery over here is who thought that would work," HUCTW Director Bill Jaeger adds.

The Harvard police officers' union opted for union solidarity over short-term security in rejecting the offer.

"I felt it should have been negotiated," says Officer Robert Kotowski, union president. "At this juncture, the only way I'd discuss benefits is in [contract] negotiations."

Kotowski says that, in part, the police officers rejected the offer in order to maintain the coalition.

"We stand in the same lines and have the same beliefs as the clerical workers," he says. "We weren't real happy with the way the package was presented, but we're hopeful that we can work to make changes that are more accommodating to our position."

So for at least the next year, the University will administer two completely different benefits program.

"We have a letter in our contract that states that we should not pay any more than any other bargaining unit in the University," says one security guard. "I believe that this directly violates the...contract."

The contracts of the Harvard-based unions will expire over the spring and early summer.

"It wouldn't be surprising for us to start negotiations any time soon," Williams says.

Zeckhauser and Corvey say they are involved in ongoing discussions with the unions.

There is no indication when formal negotiations might begin, however. Timothy Manning, director of labor relations, did not return repeated phone calls.

The last negotiations with HUCTW lasted for a year and went on six months past the June 30, 1992 contract expiration. Talks stalled on issues involving wages, job security and child care.

And if the University aims to make the current changes part of the unions' next contract, the negotiations could be just as drawn out as they were in 1992.

We're expecting it's going to be a wild year," Jaeger says.CrimsonJon BolkJennie B. Rathourn

"The fact that the University's contributions will be pro-rated is going to be difficult for them," Candace R. Corvey, associate vice president for human resources, said in July.

Harvard will pay 60 percent for part-timers earning less than $45,000, 55 percent for those earning between $45,000 and $70,000 and 50 percent for those earning more than $70,000.

The Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) last week released an open letter to the Harvard Community criticizing the impending changes which will affect part-time employees.

"Although HUCTW members are not immediately affected, we are concerned about this particular change, and the thousands of Harvard family members who will be touched by it," the letter says.

The union says that increases in health care premiums and co-payments for part-times could force employees to choose less expensive child care, increase their hours, go uninsured or even leave the University.

One HUCTW member working in an administrative office says she is contemplating that choice between work and family.

"One of the things for me that is an issue is that I'm pregnant," she says. "I'm looking at going down to part-time. The amount of money that a part-timer has to put out for health insurance is quite a bit."

Her husband is self-employed, and her job is the family's only source of health insurance. She belongs to the HealthFlex Blue family plan, and her premiums are now $127 a month.

"I'm a diabetic," she says. "My health is very important to me. I do pay the most expensive premium."

If she went down to part-time, and the union accepted the changes, she would pay $183 a month.

She says she and her husband have discussed the possibility of her leaving her job after the baby is born.

"We'd have to bite the bullet and pay out on our own plan. It's essentially the same as paying your own insurance when you combine [the cost of day care and health insurance," she says. "It's something we're definitely looking at."

"But I love my job," she says. "It's important to have something of your own outside raising a child."

The full-time cut-off will be 28 hours a week. Employees who work between 17.5 hours and 28 hours will be affected by the new part-time contributions.

According to the report, the 17.5 hours cutoff is lower than that of several area employers, such as Polaroid and the Bank of Boston, and that of all Ivy League schools except Brown.

But even under the lowest cost plan, Harvard Community Health Plan (HCHP), premiums will be $41 a month for part-timers earning less than $45,000, as opposed to $24 for full-time employees.

"There are a couple stories we hear of exempt [non-union] staff who work 26 hours per week and are begging their department to increase their hours to 28," says Donene M. Williams, HUCTW president. "They're making decisions about whether they can afford to keep working based on the changes in the health insurance."

"And that's an outrageous way to have to make a decision," she says.

Union members and officials say that workers often have part-time status due to a necessity, such as health problems, instead of choice.

"Part-time workers work part-time because they have kids or parents at home," says Jennie H. Rathburn, an HUCTW member who works full-time in Houghton Library.

Currently, workers play $0 to $10 per office visit. With the changes, co-payments will be $10 for all plans.

"The puzzling thing about that is it's kind of regressive," says a Kennedy School employee and HUCTW member. "If you make what we make, it is completely counter to the philosophy of what an HMO is."

And if the union accepts the changes in their negotiations next spring, Rathburn estimates the additional annual drain on her pocketbook from the increased co-payments would be $500.

It appears from the report, however, that the University isn't expecting out-of-pocket costs to go up--instead, the task force seems to have expected that the number of trips to the doctor would go down.

"Co-pays for office visits should be at a level high enough to discourage excessive use of services," the report says.

Details

But John and Joan Yatteau, both Harvard staff members, predict significant increases in their medical costs.

Joan Yatteau is a HUCTW member and a secretary. Her husband John Yatteau is a systems manager and project scientist in the Division of Applied Sciences, and is an exempt staff member. The couple is currently insured under John Yatteau's Harvard University Group Health Plan (HUGHP).

"I can tell you that in the discussions we have had we are going to be paying about $500 more a year for no increase in services," Joan says. "We have always used HUGHP, and we've never had a co-payment before."

The couple say they are also concerned about increases in the cost of their dental coverage. The University will now contribute 65 percent, instead of 66 to 70 percent, of dental costs.

HUGHP Dental is now going to be separate from the HUGHP medical plan.

"It's going to become more expensive," John says. "The amount that we're going to pay is going to go up by some hundreds of dollars next year."

The administration freely admits that one goal of the changes is to encourage employees to move to the lowest cost plan, HCHP.

"What we were trying to do was address incentives to encourage people to opt for the most cost-effective health care," says Vice President for Administration Sally H. Zeckhauser, the second task force chair. "If you tie [the contribution] to the lowest-cost plan, you encourage people to move."

Like most HMOs, HCHP requires its members to see doctors who belong to the plan. And switching plans may mean switching doctors.

"It seems they're trying to force people to migrate to the cheaper plans," Rathburn says. "I've had my doctor for three or four years. It's hard to get up the nerve to switch."

But for those with serious or chronic health problems, the prospect is even worse. Some plans do not accept new members with pre-existing conditions.

"I have breast cancer," says Judith Ross, an HUCTW and Business School employee who is insured under her husband's plan at his employer, the Raytheon company. "Long-term disability is something I signed up for when I was hired, not knowing I was going to be sick, but figuring there was always a chance I was going to get run over by a truck in Harvard Square."

But cuts in federal defense spending have made Ross concerned about the security of her husband's job.

"I can't always count on Raytheon. What if my husband gets laid off?" Ross says. "But to be honest, I don't know what it would be like to have to go on a new plan. Preexisting conditions make it tough for people to get health care."

For now, though, Ross and her husband are going to stay under Raytheon's Blue Cross Blue Shield Master Health Plus plan, under which she pays one and a half percent of premiums.

"It's a better deal because we pay so little," she says."

Some employees say they are determined to avoid Harvard's health plans. One veteran police office left Harvard's benefits program and joined his wife's Blue Cross Blue Shield plan 10 years ago.

"I can go to any doctor I want," he says. "I pay three dollars for medicine, three dollars for office visits. Dental, everything, is on here."

He says he left the Harvard plan after his adult daughter became ill.

"My daughter lives in California, and when she got sick, I thought my group health would cover her. No sir," he says. "I was shocked to find out my daughter wasn't covered. I was very disappointed in it. [Harvard's] health plan is 100 years old, even though it's revised."

Rising Costs

Since 1988, Harvard's benefits costs have risen 15 percent, according to the task force report. Much of that increase may have been due to the generous 85 percent contribution to premiums.

"The University created this problem. In 1989, the University increased its contribution very liberally," says Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics Professor William Paul. "Between 1988 and 1993, 800 new families joined the plan, at a cost of $4.8 million."

"In effect, Harvard is subsidizing other large employers in Massachusetts because of the disproportionate enrollment in our plans instead of theirs," says a source close to the task force. "The benefits changes adopted do not address this serious problem at all."

One factor the task force didn't have during their evaluation was the 1995 health care premiums, which for Bay State, HCHP, HUGHP, Pilgrim and Tufts have gone down by two to $12.

"It leaves a real big question in our minds, 'Well, why would we be interested in that then?'" says Williams. "We're not taking the set of changes, and our rates are going down."

According to the report, Harvard's costs rose an average of 21 percent between 1988 and 1993. It is not clear how much the task force expected premiums to change this year.

Another goal of the task force may have been to encourage employees to switch to their spouse's plan.

But according to some employees, Harvard's benefits program is still more generous than other employers.

"I was a chef at Johnson and Wales. This is much better," says James Taylor, a food production manager in Eliot-Kirkland who came to Harvard in September. "I'm a diabetic, and all my stuff will be covered."

Taylor says he spent $300 a month on a blood testing machine while working at Johnson and Wales. HCHP will cover that cost.

Taylor's family is covered by his wife's health plan at the Inn at Harvard. He says, though, that he will probably consider putting the whole family on the HCHP family plan.

The University currently offers its employees the choice of eight health plans.

"Harvard has very good choice. I feel that's pretty good," says one security guard whose wife and four children are covered under his Bay State family plan. "I didn't even have to fill out the form [this year]. I kept everything."

"My wife works for Blue Cross Blue Shield," he says. "And she knows medical."

Pension

In fact, administrators defend many of the staff health care changes by arguing that Harvard's plan was overly generous in comparison to the market, other Ivy League schools and large Boston employers.

For example, at Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, staff must work at least 35 hours per week to receive any health benefits.

In contrast, the staff pension plan, administrators say, was a large hole in the University's benefits structure.

"The staff pension plan, when compared to that at other universities for administrative and professional staff, was very much less good," Corvey says. "In fact, at many of our comparable sister institutions, the administrative and professional staff are members of the faculty plan."

While the changes do not make the exempt staff part of the faculty plan, the staff pension plan will be enhanced.

The new plan has two parts, according to the report. Harvard will make contributions under a defined benefit plan based on age and years of service. The University will also contribute an additional 3.5 percent of pay which the employee can choose to invest. In addition, early retirement bonuses will be increased.

But Paul says the new plan still does not meet the goals set out by the 1973 benefits review--comparable levels of retirement pay for faculty and staff.

"Apparently they didn't manage," he says. "It's federal law. You've got to pay the same retirement for all salary levels. Harvard is almost out of compliance."

Unions

Technically, the changes were only made mandatory for non-union staff. But some unions have accepted the changes, and others are concerned about how the plan could affect them in the future.

The coalition of the seven Harvard unions has so far refused to accept the changes because union leaders were not directly involved.

The administration announced the establishment of a benefits review task force in October 1993. A mix of administrators from different areas of the campus were appointed to the group--but only administrators.

While the administration maintained throughout the process that they offered the unions "full partnership," the opportunity to form an advisory group to the task force, union leaders maintain that role is inadequate.

"We were pretty insistent that if they weren't going to allow us on the task force that had to be pretty clear in their publications that these changes weren't going to affect us," says Williams, who as president of HUCTW is the head of Harvard's largest bargaining unit.

The cuts and restructuring were originally intended to affect only faculty and non-union staff, as union members' benefits are set by contract and are determined in collective bargaining with the University.

Over the last several months, however, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), security guards and cleaning workers, and the Hotel Restaurant Institutional Employees Union (Local 26), dining hall workers, accepted the changes as part of a one year contract extension. Neither is a Harvard-based union, but both include numerous Harvard employees.

"I feel our union made a deal with Harvard," says an SEIU member who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They only allowed us two days [to make the decision]."

The SEIU member says the approval of Harvard's cleaning workers swung the vote.

"It's been a long standing problem," says another security guard. "A lot of guards feel we shouldn't be in the same union."

But the security guard says he thinks the changes are positive. His Bay State premium will go down $5.

"I feel that's pretty good. I voted to accept the change. Who's going to complain?" he says. "The only people vocal against it was the parking unit. They felt they didn't have enough time to digest the information."

Another security guard, however, says the increased co-payments outweigh any reductions in premiums.

"We're paying more money. Mine went from five to 10. It's a 100 percent increase," the guard says. "We are probably the lowest-making unit. I think it's wrong. It's terribly wrong."

Like Margarida Amaral, the guard has a son in high school.

"Everyone with a family is going to get zapped," he says. "I've got a son going to college next year. It's tough."

For some employees, the promise of another year of security meant more than the possibility of increased costs.

"We took what was offered. You don't know what you're going to get down the road," says a security guard, a widow who has belonged to HUGHP for 15 years. "It's a bird in the hand versus two in the bush."

Domenic M. Bozotto, president of Local 26, and Kathleen Conway, SEIU business manager, could not be reached for comment.

Negotiations

For the rest of Harvard's unions, though, a bird in the hand wasn't good enough.

"I think [the administration] hoped our union would help break the other unions," says a member of SEIU." [But] the coalition would not go along."

The University has only had preliminary talks with the other unions about accepting the changes, administration and union officials say.

"I think that they knew at some point early in the process...that they would then next propose this to the unions," Williams says.

"But the real mystery over here is who thought that would work," HUCTW Director Bill Jaeger adds.

The Harvard police officers' union opted for union solidarity over short-term security in rejecting the offer.

"I felt it should have been negotiated," says Officer Robert Kotowski, union president. "At this juncture, the only way I'd discuss benefits is in [contract] negotiations."

Kotowski says that, in part, the police officers rejected the offer in order to maintain the coalition.

"We stand in the same lines and have the same beliefs as the clerical workers," he says. "We weren't real happy with the way the package was presented, but we're hopeful that we can work to make changes that are more accommodating to our position."

So for at least the next year, the University will administer two completely different benefits program.

"We have a letter in our contract that states that we should not pay any more than any other bargaining unit in the University," says one security guard. "I believe that this directly violates the...contract."

The contracts of the Harvard-based unions will expire over the spring and early summer.

"It wouldn't be surprising for us to start negotiations any time soon," Williams says.

Zeckhauser and Corvey say they are involved in ongoing discussions with the unions.

There is no indication when formal negotiations might begin, however. Timothy Manning, director of labor relations, did not return repeated phone calls.

The last negotiations with HUCTW lasted for a year and went on six months past the June 30, 1992 contract expiration. Talks stalled on issues involving wages, job security and child care.

And if the University aims to make the current changes part of the unions' next contract, the negotiations could be just as drawn out as they were in 1992.

We're expecting it's going to be a wild year," Jaeger says.CrimsonJon BolkJennie B. Rathourn