It was the contention of his second group that what was most needed in the employees' strike was solidarity, and that the two more radical-and specific-demands automatically excluded large numbers of anti-war sympathizers.

It is true. The employees' strike to this point has been notably limited to a single group. By their admission, the strikers are young, white, mostly secretaries or librarians. They are primarily women who have other means of support.

There is indecision and divisiveness even within this group-as attested to by the changing nature of their demands-and it represents only a small percentage of Harvard's 6500 employees.

The problems involved in organizing Holyoke Center workers are manifold. Mostly older women who live outside the Harvard and Cambridge communities, the Holyoke employees staff a labyrinth of independent offices and departments.

There are no unions, not even a central Harvard employees organization. Petitions-much less any attempts at organizing the workers as a single body-are sidetracked by supervisors and workers in different offices, according to those who have tried to start them.

The situation with the University's blue collar and service employees is wholly different. These workers-Buildings and Grounds employees, engineers, food services personnel-are strictly unionized, and all have no-strike clauses in their union contracts. To strike without the union's consent would mean losing their jobs.

Ironically, these are the two groups that matter most to an effective all-University strike. It is clear that the young, more radical office workers are in sympathy with the strike. But the older workers in Holyoke Center, and the blue collar workers-who comprise the majority of the University's third world and black employees-are necessary participants.

Perhaps More Easily Reachable Now

Perhaps now that the two radical strike demands have been eliminated from the employees' platform, these two groups will be more easily reached. It is problematic, hough, because the Holyoke and blue collar workers are being intimidated by their supervisors. And it is the supervisors who have total jurisdiction-the University's latest statement has made that crystal clear.

Groundsmen are being told that they will be fired if they attend strike meetings, much less go on strike. This is contradictory to the stated University policy that every accommodation be made for interruptions in normal procedures.

It is not certain that the employees will vote today to remain on strike, but if they do a new thrust is needed.