"Universities are in the business of trying to educate people, but for other things, they turn to experts like us," Owens said.

"We hope to grow by our performance," said Owens.

As for the workers who left Harvard for the outside, reports are mixed. Those who got fired are understandably bitter, and most of this group blame Harvard for valuing money over principle. Some go so far as to suggest the University could have improved efficiency without contracting to ISS, but did not want to face the responsibility and found it easier to delegate the termination employees. No one, neither University administrators nor union rank and file, denies and Scott's official dual emphasis on efficiency and fairness is skewed toward monetary concerns.

Owens said he found the workers were glad to be employed in the profit sector. "There was a very difficult transition, but after five months we feel morale is high," he said. "Going from an institution like Harvard to a large company with a profit motive is hard, so I'm pleased," Owens added.

What is the future of contracting out? One conclusion many draw is that Harvard has almost run out of important areas in which to delegate responsibility to the outside world. But another, equally reasonable conclusion is that Harvard will go on cutting off pieces of itself for some time to come, as it tends to save the University money.

One thing, however, appears certain. As long as Harvard looks for new ways and new places to subcontract, employees will continue to worry and labor relations will continue to worsen.

But Bozzotto added that at least in his case. "Harvard thought they were in a position to hold bargaining power over us, but they were wrong."