by Brian Tokar
Into the third full week of the Service employees' strike, the Institute community has been bombarded with literature from all sides, charges and countercharges, overall confusion, and further polarization of opinion. MIT has been taking advantage of its position by releasing, almost daily Reports dominated by lists of accusations blaming the union for everything under the sun; meanwhile the union and its supporters have attempted to use their limited resources to explain the alternative point of view of the issues involved. They have sought to elucidate the reasons why there are still no ongoing negotiations and why at one meeting with a Federal mediator called by the union last week, the former reportedly "threw up his hands" in a gesture of hopelessness upon hearing the position of MIT negotiator Robert Davis.
Last week it was asserted that MIT's wage offer had been negotiated up from 6% with the Service Employees. This is not true in that such negotiations only took place with the Technicians' Union, and Davis' offer to the strikers never changed from 7 1/2%, as has been reported time and again.
Citing the destructive nature of MIT's position, the etaff of the Cancer Center on Friday issued a leaflet addressed to the administration protesting the numerous inconveniences the strike has caused. Since the Center's daily operations depend upon all facilities being in nearly perfect condition and their support of the strike makes it "morally repugnant" to hire scabs, they have taken the initiative in what it is expected to become a significant show of faculty support and direct pressure against the MIT administrations. Toward this end, another group of faculty members, from various departments has planned a TEACH-IN on the strike for Wednesday afternoon.
Which brings us to the matter of the hack Institute Report. As everybody probably knows by now, this amazing reproduction accused the union in MIT's own style of such absurdities as cutting all of the electric cables into Walker and attacking secretaries who tried to deliver mail during the day (one department followed up with a warning against such incidents!) and it credited the Institute with hiring students in the mailroom at $4.20 an hour and suggesting that Institute, Mail be wrapped with newspapers. Approximately 1500 copies of this "Report" were placed in the corridors for distribution by the small group of students who prepared it, and they were all removed shortly after, when it became apparent that readers were really geting angry at the union due to the new vandalism "charges" (The author of the "Report" has announced that only 300 copies had actually been taken.
This all happened a week ago, but what matters now is the high state of uproar that was created in Institute circles by this harmless hoax. And the only explanation being offered for this uproar is that maybe ther leaflet was believed because the "charges" it leveled, however absurd, were no more so I than that of the real Institute Reports. In fact, there were people who absolutely refused to believe that the "Report" was not real. If MIT does not consider the hoax to be a serious affront to their dwindling credibility, why did they exclaim that "as many as 5000 could have been distributed ..." and why "did a large-scale investigation of the incident begin immediately and continue until the author confessed".
With this in mind Tuesday afternoon, we decided to contact some of the departments directly mentioned in the "Report." call to the mailroom asking for a job yielded a simple? "no jobs-- it was a hoax" reply, j)ut officials at Student Accounts and Dining Service were not taking it so lightly. When we called the former asking for ary "expected" commons refund, I we were told of the hoax by a secretary who obviously hadn't even hesitated once to blame everything on the union. "Just because one union is on strike, she declared, "they think the whole Institute should be shut down." However, she did say that individuals who hadn't eaten lunch that day due to the report of Walker closing should be able to get a refund, and we promptly called Dining Service for a confirmation.
The Dining Service, as expected, was much more cautious in dealing with our innocent ripped-off commons customer, and after a short huddle off the phone, the secretary left the number of one of their officials to call. The official, unknown to us until later, turned out to be Dining Service's head accountant, who said that we might have a case but that a refund could only be approved by the management of Walker. Only Dining Service have the authority to decide on such a matter, and if they think otherwise, "Student Accounts is way out in left field!" And so goes the tight efficient image which the MIT Administration so loves to paint for itself.
But more important, so goes the Institute Report. MIT has continually blamed the union for every unusual incident that happens here, and the union is already preparinging a libel suit against some of the charges. Meanwhile, the administration has asked that anything suspi-. cious be reported to the strike center instead of Campus Patroi, so that the accusations can continue to flow. As optimism for a rapid settlement and continuation of Institute services grows rarer with time, it is no surprise that many MIT people have conciuded that MIT can never deny the content of the hack Institute Report until there is a full admission as to the dubious jand destructive nature of the "real" ones,
The following is the text of the confession given to Campus Patrol by the students responsible for the hack Institute Report distributed last Tuesday.
"We, Douglas Foxvog, Richard Hilliard, and David Holladay created and distributed a counterfeit institute report. It was an attempt in the vein of the many paradies of Institute publications and newspapers that have appeared before. We first planned to write an obvious hack-one that would not mislead anyone. As we discussed the idea we began with many outrageous, truly, unbelievable statements. Many different things were suggested. As we refined our ideas to a final draft, it Was still quite funny to us. By the time we finished, we had decided to make it more realistic. But apparently I we hid the humor too well; we believed it to contain much subtle humor-but to others, especially people less knowiedgabie about the strike, it seemed quite normal and was believed.
We thought that by the afternoon everyone would realise it to be a farce. We thought its only tangible effect would be some morning phone calls to the administration.
We printed 1500 copies and distributed 300 copies in the lobbies of Bldg 10 at approximately 8:45 am on Tuesday. We felt the effect of it immediately. Students were talking about it, other I people around the Institute I seemed to be taking it seriously. We realised that what began as a parodistic hack had become very serious. Somewhat after 9 am, we returned to the lobbies where we distributed them. Fifty were left of the 300 we had placed there. We retreived them. All undistributed copies were destroyed.
At this point we considered coming forward, identifying the source of the report, and stating the innocence of our intent. We were not attempting to disrupt any negotiations,or inconvenience anyone. But then it seemed that the Administration was considering serious investigations and possibly criminal prosecutions for those involved. We decided to keep quiet.
After consulting with Prof. Jerry Lettvin, and Chief Oliveiri, we have decided to come forward.
To the members of the SEIU Local 254 we apologise and to the MIT administration, to students and other Institute people, we are deeply sorry about any inconvenience or anguish this prank has caused. signed (signatures of Douglas Foxvog, Richard Hilliard, and David Holladay)
There will be a Strike Teach-in sponsored by faculty members on Wednesday, October 2 from 12 to 2 pm in Room 10-250. Speakers from faculty and union. All invited.
SPECIAL REPORT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 23, 1974 Volume 3, No. 3
M.I.T. today filed with the Boston office of the National Labor Relations Board charges of unfair labor practices against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU ) Local 254 and will ask the Board to seek an injunction from the federal court against the continuation of illegal strike activity. The action is in response to numerous instances of mass picketing, vandalism, and threats of violence in connection with the strike, which are in violation of federal statutes regulating strike conduct.
While it is clear that the majority of M.I.T. employees and others participating in the current strike have made every effort to conduct themselves in an orderly and lawful manner, some persons have allegedly engaged in actions which interfere with the rights of others not involved in the strike. Since September 13, there has been mass picketing (i.e., masses of pickets acting so as to block access to M.I.T. property) almost daily at the Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington and at a number of sites on campus.
Of greater concern, however, have been the threats of violence, and one actual incidence of violence, which have been perpetrated against members of the Institute community:
A number of vehicles on campus have been vandalized. Several M.I.T. delivery trucks and a private car have had three or more tires slashed, and some have had windows smashed as well. Nails have been strewn on the driveways and parking lots of four campus buildings.
Non-university vehicles servicing the Institute have also been targets of interference. Spikes and nails were put in the path of a Wellesley exchange bus Thursday evening. As a result of fear of further difficulties, the bus company made plans to discontinue service as of that evening. Only after several hours of negotiations between M.I.T. and bus company officials was the decision made to continue service at a number of designated pick-up points.
On September 13 a truck making deliveries to Building 41 had its tires slashed and its windows smashed. Subsequently some drivers of service trucks in that are a have been physically threatened by masses of pickets. Two companies under contract to the Institute for delivery of goods have discontinued their service as a result of such actions and as a result of telephoned threats to their offices.
There have been several scattered incidents of vandalism on campus. Last Tuesday, a key was used to enter the mailroom in Building 24, remove sorted mail from its slots and scatter it about. Later in the week, washrooms in several buildings had toilets stuffed with rolls of toilet paper, and several others were flooded with running water.
SPECIAL REPORT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 24, 1974 Volume 4, No. 4
Yesterday the National Labor Relations Board announced that it would "...conduct an Investigation into chargesof alleged vandalism, threats of violence, and mass picketing... " by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU ) Local 254, before acting to seek an injunction from the federal court as per M.I.T.'s request.
All Commons has ceased due to vandalism. Last night, electric cables for the Walker kitchen were cut. Large quantities of food were ruined. Service will discontinue following the breakfast meal. The M.I.T. Police are investigating the incident. Repair will begin as soon as is feasible. In the meantime, students on Commons should go to the Students Accounts Office (E19-215 ) for refunds.
While delivering mailto their offices, some Institute secretaries have been harassed. Several have had their mail taken from them and one was physically attacked. It has been suggested by the supervisors at the mailroom that people delivering Institute mail conceal it in a newspaper or other means so as to avoid any troubles.
There have been several other incidents of vandalism and violence: Over the weekend, paper towels were found to have been stuffed in toilets around the Institute, causing drainsto back up and flood in some areas. Suspected union members were seen scattering bags of rubbish in the Institute halls. On September 22 at 4:00 am, a rubbish removal truck from Walker had its tires slashed. There have been telephone threats to members of the M.I.T. administration and their families at home.
As everyone must know by now, the strike of the services union has introduced a good many Institute employees to such unglamorous chores as mail delivering and rubbish disposal. Some supervisors have discovered a simple but successful method for eliciting the manpower needed to keep their quarters tidy and in touch with the world outside: they roll up their own sleeves first. Students are needed to work at the mailroom for $4.20 per hour. apply at 24-007.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 25, 1974 Volume 19 Number 13
A counterfeit Institute Report prepared by forgers apparently familiar with offset printing and containing grossly misleading strike information was distributed at MIT early Tuesday.
John Wynne, vice president for administration and personnel, denounced the forgery for causing undue alarm and concern among employees and students.
"I deplore the effort to create confusion and trouble in a community already troubled by the strike of maintenance and custodial employees," Mr. Wynne said. "We are seeking to determine who did it and if we are successful we will deal with them appropriately under the law."
Institute Report is the special publication brought out by the MIT administration to keep employees, staff, students and faculty informed of developments in the strike.
The counterfeit Institute Report told students that commons meals would no longer be served in Walker Dining Hall because of vandalism (which is not true) and said that secretaries going for office mail had been attacked (which is not true), that students were being hired to work in the central mailroom (which is not true) and that suspected union members were seen scattering rubbish in Institute halls (which is not true).
Piles of bogus documents were placed in at least four hallway locations in Bldgs. 7, 10, 6 and 8 some time between 8:30am and 9am Tuesday. As many as 5,000 could have been circulated before the fraud was detected shortly after
Investigations were begun immediately to trace both the typewriters used in preparing the forgery and the presses used to print it.
SPECIAL REPORT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 26, 1974 Volume 5, No. 5
A counterfeit Tech Talk prepared by forgers apparently familiar with printing and containing grossly misleading information was distributed at MIT early Wednesday, John Wynne, vice president for administration and personnel, denounced the forgery for causing undue alarm and concern among employees and students.
"I deplore the effort to create confusion and trouble in a community already troubled by the strike of maintenance and custodial employees," Mr. Wynne said. "We are seeking to determine who did it and if we are successful we will deal with them appropriately under the law."
Tech Talk is a publication brought out by the MIT administration to keep employees, staff, students and faculty informed of developments in the MIT community.
The counterfeit Tech Talk among other things denied the authenticity of the institute report Vol. 4 issue 4. Piles of the bogus documents were placed in at least four hallway locations in Bldgs. 7, 10, 6 and 8 early Wednesday morning. As many as 5000 could have been circulated before the fraud was detected shortly after 9am.
Obvious errors throughout the issue may have cued most readers to the fraudulent nature of this Tech Talk issue. Mr. Wynne pointed out for example that Allan S. Bufferd does not wear glasses, and that a '64 Rambler classic is certainly worth more than $75 even if it needs a new headlight.
VOLUME 94, NUMBER 34 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1974
By Norman D. Sandler President Edward Sullivan of the striking Service Employees International Union said earlier this week that "tension in theair" is causing problems for workers walking the picket line.
Local 254 President Sullivan confirmed reports that relations between striking SEIU employees and Cambridge police officers hired by MIT during the strike are tense as the work stoppage enters its third week.
"Nobody likes to have half the Cambridge police force following them around," Sullivan said, referring to about twenty off-duty policemen taken on by MIT at the direction of Vice Preisdent for Personnrel and Administration John M. Wynne.
According to members of the striking local, there have been incidents involving some pushing and jostling of workers on the picket line by the Cambridge officers. Sullivan said although he has received no reports of violence involving the police, relations are still strained.
"The police haven't been friendly to us," he said. "They've jammed people through picket lines on us and said 'if you don't move I'll arrest you.' But, this is standard language for a labor dispute. If I wanted to complain, I'd go to the (Cambridge) city manager."
The Cambridge officers were hired at the outset of the strike, and MIT Campus Patrol Chief James Olivieri explained they had been assigned to "act impartially and keep the peace, respecting everyone's rights." Members of the 18-man squad have been located at what Olivieri referred to as "strain points, wherever there's likely to be a problem," including major entrances, exits and delivery point, where MIT alleges the union has made attempts to restrict entry to buildings. MIT is paying the cost of the supplementary Cambridge police, according to Wynne, in addition to the cost of maintaining the contingent of MIT Campus Patrol officers at the "strain points."
Sullivan said the union has had no problems with the Campus Patrol, who he said have remained largely quiet since "no one would take that [harassment] from them." Olivieri would not comment on reports that the Cambridge policemen had threatened union picketers with arrest, saying that he didn't "want to get into any discussions about the strike" after statements made by the Campus Patrol earlier this week contradicted MIT Administration claims that the striking employees had engaged in acts of vandalism and violence.
A Cambridge police officer interfered with two staff members of The Tech last Friday as they attempted to take pictures of police and picketing strikers. Photography Editor Tom Klimowicz '77 and photographer Diana Healy '78 were called "assholes" and "idiots" when they aimed their cameras at a Cambridge policemen working across Massachusetts Avenue from the Building 7 entrance. In a related development, SEIU official Sullivan said his lawyers would be filing suit against MIT, charging that libelous statements had been made against him by Robert Davis, director of personnel relations for MIT and a member of the Institute_ negotiating team. Sullivan said the suit would name President Jerome Wiesner as a defendent. He explained that during the course of the strike, MIT officials have made statements relating to the union's alleged non-cooperative spirit which he believes to have been libelous, including assertions that union employees had carried out acts of vandalism against MIT.
"We are preparing a libel suit against Mr. Wiesner. We aren't going to take this shit from them," Sullivan told The Tech Wednesday. "(Davis) has made some allegations about the union, and I guess that's me. And he better be able to back them up, or it's going to cost him a lot. We aren't going to drop the suit."
MIT officials issued a statement Thursday saying they had no knowledge of the suit being prepared by SEIU lawyers. "We are confident we have not libeled anyone," an MIT spokesman told The Tech, "and meanwhile we are pressing our charges against Local 254 with the National Labor Board. MIT is seeking a federal court injunction from the NLRB which would require striking employees to return to their jobs and end the walk-out. In charges filed against the union, MIT charges the strikers have engaged in illegal activities and that the work stoppage has resulted in instances of what Vice President Wynne has termed "unfair labor practices."
By Mike McNamee
MIT Campus Patrol officials are discussing possible disciplinary action against a group of students who claim to be responsible for the production of a bogus issue of the “Institute Report” earlier this week, The Tech has learned.
Talks between the Campus Patrol and the students are preliminary to possible disciplinary action by the Dean for Student Affairs Office or the Institute Disciplinary Committee against the students.
MIT officials said earlier this week they were considering prosecuting the persons who were responsible for the false report, which was distributed Tuesday morning. “We will deal with them [the persons responsible] appropriately under the law,” Vice President for Administration and Personnel John M. Wynne was quoted as saying in Tech Talk Wednesday.
According to David Holladay ’75, who told The Tech Thursday that he was one of the students involved in the “hack” report, the discussions with the Campus Patrol are designed to forestall any attempts by MIT to prosecute the students involved,
“They [the MIT officials] took the hack as a piece of malicious sabotage,” said Holladay. “We did not mean it maliciously — we thought that people would discover that it was a fake and would think it was humorous.”
Campus Patrol Chief James Oliveri, when contacted by The Tech said he had met with the. students for more than two hours, and he felt that the report “was not meant to be malicious in any way.”
“I’m hoping it will be treated that way,” Oliveri said. “That’s not to say that it ought to be treated lightly — we can’t have people interfering with something people depend on for communications around MIT on a regular basis.”
Oliveri said the students had started with a “very funny” idea, but had made it “too real” “They improved it so much they deleted much of the humor — it created a problem,” he said.
Attorneys for MIT were consulted earlier this week at the request of Wynne, and were asked to render an opinion as to the feasibility of prosecuting those responsible for the bogus issue under state laws prohibiting the perpetration of a hoax.
MIT officials late Thursday reported the law firm’s opinion after examining existing law was that “Institute Report” may not be a sufficiently established periodical to cause its forgery to fall into the category of a felony. However, that opinion does not preclude MIT from taking any internal disciplinary action against Holladay and the other students involved.
Holladay said “a large number” of students had knowledge of the origination of the report, but only a few had participated in writing or producing it. The report was printed off campus, Holladay added.
The appearance of the report set off a flurry of activity Tuesday morning with Wynne’s office trying to assure the MIT community that it was false and prevent any damage that might have been caused by the report.
Holladay denied any involvement in a second false “Institute Report” which appeared yesterday morning, spoofing an article in Tech Talk which had dealt with the first report. “I have no idea who was responsible for the second one,” he said.
Dean for Student Affairs Carola Eisenberg, when contacted late Thursday afternoon, said she had been consulted by Campus Patrol Chief James Oliveri, but could not comment on the disciplinary action which may be taken. “We see each situation in a different way,” Eisenberg said, and explained she would have to talk to the students to ascertain their motivation for producing the report before passing judgement.
Memo Issued on September 27, 1974
77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
TO: Jerome Wiesner, President; John Wynne, Vice President Administration and Personnel; and Walter Rosenblith, Provost.
During the present strike, M.I.T. has maintained the facade of "business as usual." The administration has created the Impression that each department and laboratory has gladly taken up the slack created by the strike by performing functions normally done bjr members of the striking union, S.E.I.U. Local 254, such as obtaining and distributing essential supplles and mall and disposing of garbage. However, this is not the case. The failure of negotiations between M.I.T. and the striking union has placed a heavy burden on each lab and department, and has created conditions, both physically and psychologically, which are far from normal. Operation of the virology division of the Center for Cancer Research has been Impaired.
We are engaged in cancer research, and are put In a position of deciding between two unpleasant alternatives: (1) to come to work and cross picket lines, or (2) to stop work and thus allow, important research to be set back.
The only way research can continue is for laboratory personnel to carry out duties normally performed by the striking union. We find this morally repugnant. In addition, some experiments have had to be curtailed due to the time consuming nature of these chores Necessary supplies have not been obtainable since many delivery companies have honored the strike.
An Immediate peril to our work has arisen over the disposal of garbage. Unless someone performs the custodial tasks of trash removal, thus undermining the strike, our director has informed us that he will be forced to close the lab due to health and safety hazards produced by the accumulation of trash in the corridors. If the strike continues, many of us will find It impossible to continue working. We therefore call upon the administration to recognize the essential role of the striking employees, and to negotiate a rapid, fair, and just settlement.
Signed by twenty members of the ataff.
cc: S.E.I.U. Local 254 Strike Committee
IS M.I.T.'S OFFER FAIR AND ADEQUATE?
In Tech Talk. September 18, R.J. Davis,'Personnel Director of M.I.T. stated that the union had never challenged the fairness or the equity of M.I.T.'s proposal. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let's examine M.I.T.'s proposal against the current inflation spiral in which we find ourselves and which more and more presses down upon the low wage workera crown of thorns in greater proportion than any other class of the population.
In July, 1972, the union, restrained by Federal wage controls, accepted an increase of 5.5% and an additional 5.2% in July, 1973. From July, 1972 to July, 1973, the cost of living, according to the Department of Labor, rose 5.7% and from July, 1973 -JCily, 1974, 11.8^ so that during the two years of the contract negotiated under Federal wage controls, union members show a wage increase of 10.7% while the cost of living advanced 17.5%. so that as the bargaining sessions began in July, 1974, the union membership had lost 6.8% in its standard of living.
The Institute's offer of 7.5% made on July 1 has already been eaten UP by inflation which is advancing at the rate of more than 1% per month. The offer to increase the wages by 15% over the next two years from July 1, 1974, to July 1, 1976, is inadequate because even conservative projections are that the cost of living will advance in double digitsduring the next two years.
The Union's proposal of 10% the first year and 10% the second year is a conservative approach and recognizes the realities of dealing with an institute like M.I.T. If there was any validity to an offer of 7 1/2- 7 1/2 on July 1, its validity has vanished in the increasing spiral of inflation,: M.I.T. has indicated that in the event that further increases must be given to the Union its student population should bear the burden. What nonsense! M.I.T. is no more a college to be compared to Brandeis, Holy Cross, Boston University or Garland Jr. College.
M.I.T. IS THE 44TH LARGEST MILITARY PRIME CONTRACTOR DOING BUSINESS WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. IN 1972, IT ACCOUNTED FOR ONE HUNDRED TWTNTV SEVEN MILLION. TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN DIRECT PRIME DEFENSE CONTRACTS. M.I.T. IS IN THE SAME LEAGUE WITH GENERAL MOTORS. LOCKHEED. GENERAL DYNAMICS. BOEING AND GENERAL ELECTRIC. IT IS THE SECOND LARGEST DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECT CONTRACTOR IN MASSACHUSETTS.
Since the strike has started some six million dollars in Federal funds have been funneled intp M.I.T. Is this a hard-strapped educational Institution that finds it impossible to balance its budget? Hardly. In the past two years M.I.T. has slashed the maintenance and custodial force by 20% - has eliminated overtime - and increased the number of buildings to be serviced and maintained.
This is why we are out on strike. In today's inflationery market, as the old song says, 7 1/2% doesn't buy a helluva lot.
OUR NEXT REPORT -- "THE GREAT 1974 PENSION RIPOFF"
Edward T. Sullivan, Chairman, SEIU STRIKE COMMITTEE 482-6148
In Tech Talk, August 14, Chancellor Paul Gray announced changes in the M.I.T. Pension Plan. In the last paragraph he said that changes would not be made affecting union members because such matters were subject of the current negotiations. Chancellor Gray well knows that under IRS and Federal Pension Laws benefits for all participants of a pension plan must be the same and, by his action. Gray withdrew from the bargaining table all substantial discussion of pension changes. This in the middle of what M.I.T. calls "good faith bargaining
LET'S PUT THE M.I.T. PROPOSAL UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AND EXAMINE IT. R.J. DAVIS WAS VERY CAREFUL TO POINT OUT THAT THE EMPLOYER ASSUMPTION OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION WAS NOT A RAISE. INDEED IT ISN'T. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALL MR. DAVIS AND CHANCELLOR GRAY HAVE BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO DO IS TO GIVE YOU BACK THE MONEY THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING FROM YOUR PAY FOR THESE MANY YEARS - AND NOT EVEN AT A BARGAIN - BECAUSE WHILE M.I.T. PENSION PLAN WAS EARNING UP TO 10% INTEREST IT PAID OFF AT THE RATE OF 4%.
Ask your supervisor for a "Report of the Trustees of the Retirement Plan for employees of M.I.T.. dated December 31, 1973". It is a very revealing document. On that date M.I.T. had $38,152,414 in assets. During the year, 1973, it collected a massive total of $5,733,857 and paid out in benefits to retired members or their beneficiaries a paltry $165,830 and $75,735 in annuity purchases. Can you imagine a pension plan in effect for almost 15 years with this tremendous cash flow doling out a pittance like this? Well, indeed, they can now, after collecting from the members for 15 years at an assumed interest of. 4 %, afford to pay back to the member and assume the full obligation of the pension costs - 85% of which is directly charged to the United States Government by M.I.T., the 44th Largest military prime contractor in the United States. The amassing of this tremendous amount of money while doling out pennies to its long-term employees is hardly the stuff of which financial geniuses are made. But to present this plan as a raise insults the intelligence of every member of the M.I.T. community.
For years Local 254 has demanded that an employee-beneficiary of the plan sit on the Pension Board. M.I.T. has resisted this with all its strength. Local 254 has filed legislation in the Massachusetts General Court to require employee-beneficiary participation in pension trusts. Without it Employers are free to manipulate these tremendous sums of money without regard to fair payment of benefits.
M.I.T. with its vast military-industrial connections has used the power of this money against the best interests of its own employees and of its neighbors in the Cambrldgeport and Kendall Square areas. Ask for a copy of the report - read it - take it to any insurance actuary and ask his opinion as to whether or not the beneficiaries are getting a fair shake.
Edward T. Sullivan, Chairman SEIU STRIKE CONMITTEE 482-6148