Article Originally Published Here.
Security guards at Harvard said they were asked to approve a new four-year contract without ever seeing its full text, deepening frustration over what several described as a breakdown in communication from their union.
The contract, negotiated between guards employed by Securitas Security Services and Service Employees International Union 32BJ, was ratified last Thursday. But multiple guards said they had received only a one-page summary of provisions before voting, not the full agreement.
“It gave us basically just a little flyer that said a list of what the contract said it was giving us, but we never actually got the actual document in our hands,” said Patrick J. Backer, a security officer who voted against ratification. “It’s a little tough to say yes to something like that.”
The summary outlined a four-year wage plan totaling a $4 hourly increase and included provisions such as expanded immigration protections, new language on workplace harassment, and regular meetings on workplace policies.
Four guards said those details were too limited to evaluate the contract — and that the ratification process reflected a broader pattern of weak communication throughout negotiations, describing long stretches with little to no updates.
Backer said that after an initial survey asking members what they wanted the union to bargain for, communication largely stopped.
“If you weren’t trying to talk to members of the bargaining committee, you probably weren’t getting any information,” he said.
He added that the gap was “unsurprising” and “within expectations,” pointing to the union’s 2021 ratification process, when members also did not have access to a full contract before it took effect.
Aryt Alasti, a longtime guard, said workers were never told which priorities made it into negotiations or how proposals changed over time. He also criticized the union’s decision to appoint bargaining committee members rather than elect them, saying guards were not informed who represented them.
“Clearly the union decided in advance to make all decisions, control all communication, and have as little interference from members in the process as possible,” he wrote in a statement.
Several guards said the confusion carried into the ratification vote itself. Some reported never receiving the email or text containing the ballot, while others said they did not know a vote was taking place until after it had concluded.
Arun Malik, who has previously served on the union’s bargaining committee, said he had to request contract language himself before voting.
“It is my understanding that the committee provided only a single page summary sheet of changes to the CBA instead of sending email with the actual language modifying the contract to all of the guards prior to the vote,” he wrote in a statement.
Malik added that during his time on the bargaining committee, he “always personally ensured” that guards had access to the full contract language before voting.
Union leaders defended the process. In a statement, 32BJ Executive Vice President Kevin Brown wrote that the bargaining committee was selected to reflect the diversity of the members and included active stewards.
Brown said the committee “was committed to regularly notifying members of all negotiation updates,” though he acknowledged that there were periods with little activity, including during Harvard’s winter break.
“We let members know of developments as often as possible through emails, texts, flyers, and meetings,” he wrote.
He pointed to turnout as a sign of engagement, noting that nearly 70 percent of security officers voted and that a “huge percentage” supported ratification.
Alasti said while some provisions — including overnight pay differentials and maintained healthcare coverage — were positive, the process left many guards dissatisfied with how decisions were made.
“I and other guards are not at all happy about the way contract negotiations were handled,” he wrote.
