In February 2025, over 30 custodial staff at Princeton were summoned to hear a climate review conducted by the Office of Human Resources the month before. The findings were stark: “a majority of employees do not feel valued,” one slide read. “Some employees feel they are ignored,” another bullet point read. The presentation was the culmination of over 20 HR interviews held in January 2025 that solicited feedback on workplace strengths and areas of opportunity from managers, supervisors, and administrative staff within the Building Services division of University Facilities.
According to the presentation, which was obtained by The Daily Princetonian and verified by two custodians familiar with the matter, the respondents interviewed for the climate review also cited a lack of support, a sense of having “no voice,” dismissive behavior, and low trust. While briefly noting strengths such as “a very good camaraderie” among custodial staff and supportive campus partners, the presentation largely focused on issues around leadership, morale, and staffing.
Building Services has seen little change in the year since the climate review presentation, according to six current employees and two former employees, all of whom spoke to the ‘Prince’ on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.
In complaints, messages, and emails viewed by the ‘Prince,’ custodians cited verbal harassment stemming from employees challenging leadership. Others reported instances of physical intimidation and loud, heated conflicts among co-workers that interfered with their ability to carry out custodial work. Some of these messages and emails date back as far as 2024.
Custodians interviewed by the ‘Prince’ said that these “toxic” workplace conditions have led to “mental breakdowns” and low morale among staff. Some custodians said they have sought counseling or taken time off simply to distance themselves from their work.
“Our upper management utterly and truly does not care about our department,” a custodian familiar with the matter told the ‘Prince.’ “There are people at the moment trying to abandon ship, looking for other departments and looking for other jobs.”
“And I’ve never seen it anywhere [in] other places I’ve worked,” the custodian continued.
Departmental leadership was identified as a central concern in interviews with custodians and emails. The February 2025 climate review conducted by HR included a slide listing “Areas of Opportunity - Leadership,” with examples including “director’s micromanaging stunts progress and innovation,” “dismissive behavior undermines motivation,” and “lack of confidence and trust.”
Addressing employee concerns and strengthening conflict resolution were also cited as “areas of opportunity” for leadership. The presentation noted that the findings would be conveyed to Facilities senior leadership and the Building Services directors. Director of Building Services Twyla Seward and assistant directors of Building Services did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The University declined to make Building Services leaders available for comment or an interview.
Multiple custodians pointed to instances of bias, saying employees who were personally disliked or who spoke negatively about leadership were subjected to heightened scrutiny or had feedback repeatedly dismissed by leadership.
One custodian also described a pattern of verbal harassment by supervisors, which would occur following a disagreement over workplace protocol or when an issue with the department was raised. If the supervisor perceived disobedience or disrespect, the custodian said that the supervisor would stop talking and walk away in the middle of a conversation or “lash out.”
In another instance, a different custodian reported being yelled at in what they described as “verbal threats” after offering solicited feedback to leadership. The employee also identified departmental leadership as a source of what they characterized as a “toxic” work environment. Following exchanges with HR, the custodian chose not to escalate these concerns further.
While internal complaints were raised repeatedly by custodial staff concerning co-workers and departmental leadership, custodians said that written reports and in-person meetings with the Office of Human Resources produced little meaningful change.
But custodians said that leadership problems are only one aspect of a broader “toxic” workplace culture affecting employees throughout Building Services.
In multiple emails to HR reviewed by the ‘Prince’, another custodian raised concerns about what they described as a stressful work environment. Among other instances described in the emails, the employee cited an incident in which a co-worker allegedly physically intimidated them during a disagreement. The custodian made multiple requests through emails viewed by the ‘Prince’ to transfer to a different team within Building Services due to mental exhaustion from the job.
The custodian also wrote that confrontations with co-workers and frustrations with assignments and shift schedules directed toward them made it difficult to carry out their workplace responsibilities. HR provided the custodian with a list of mental health resources, and the individual remained in Building Services. They told the ‘Prince’ that the underlying concerns about workplace culture were not resolved.
A number of other emails reviewed by the ‘Prince’ addressed complaints raised by custodial staff, often directing the staff to the Office of Human Resources and offering a list of mental health resources.
“First and foremost, any allegations of physical intimidation, harassment, or inappropriate behavior, whether involving coworkers or supervisors, are taken seriously, and any such conduct is not tolerated,” University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ “We actively encourage employees to come forward with concerns, which are reviewed promptly and addressed in accordance with University policies and processes,” she continued.
Morrill also wrote that the University is “limited in what we can share in order to protect employee privacy and the integrity of our processes.”
Beyond concerns about workplace culture, custodians also raised issues related to equipment and claimed that they are often required to work with outdated or poorly maintained tools.
Princeton Facilities, which oversees Building Services, periodically posts updates regarding its equipment and supplies on its website, including a new sanitation truck and a supplier fair held to “broaden the pool of businesses to potentially provide goods and services to the University.”
But according to three custodians and the presentation summarizing the 2025 climate review, multiple problems were raised about staff having to use old, outdated equipment to carry out their duties. For instance, one bullet point in the presentation highlighted having to spread ice-melt salt with cups, rather than with a salt spreader. The presentation not only described material problems with equipment being “in disrepair” and needing “better tools” for the tasks they were assigned, but also stated that requests for new equipment or appropriate tools for their work duties were frequently “denied and/or delayed.”
Morrill wrote that the University is “providing employees with the tools they need to perform their work safely and effectively,” and that regular equipment assessments and upgrades are conducted as needed.
While the climate review last year similarly noted that “replacement of critical equipment” would be a priority moving forward, the custodians expressed continued frustrations with their equipment being obsolete and having limited access to new equipment.
Building Services is not new to these kinds of claims. For years, allegations of misconduct and intimidation by members of management have circulated around Building Services.
In May 2018, campus staff members, including custodial staff, publicly shared concerns about job insecurity, low wages, favoritism, and sexual harassment during a town hall organized by Princeton Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) and Service Employees International Union, Local 175 (SEIU 175). At the event, one custodian described his team as understaffed and expressed concern about overwork; allegations of intimidation and bias within management were also raised during the forum. SEIU 175 did not respond to multiple requests for comment through email and phone calls.
The custodians interviewed by the ‘Prince’ pointed to a slow-acting union that is ineffective in resolving workplace challenges and negotiating wages. According to notes viewed by the ‘Prince’ from a union meeting several years ago that discussed paid time off and wage negotiations, SEIU 175 leaders seemed “content with how slow [the] University is with updates and changes.”
“I did not feel particularly welcome,” the union member wrote of the meeting they attended.
In interviews, custodians said that stress related to work has led them and fellow colleagues to seek mental health counseling, request a reassignment to other departments, or take time off to recover from sustained workplace stress. In a message viewed by the ‘Prince,’ one custodian told their colleague that their blood pressure had gone up due to work-related stress following their shift.
When workplace concerns arise, Princeton encourages staff to first raise issues with their manager or contact HR, who can review complaints and develop a plan of action. Anonymous reports can be submitted through EthicsPoint, an independent hotline service available for the campus community, and concerns specifically involving bias, discrimination, or harassment may also be reported to the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity.
Despite these years-long concerns, custodial staff emphasized that they view the issue as specific to departmental leadership and culture rather than the University as a whole. Princeton boasts pay and benefit packages for custodial staff that are comparably better than state averages, which it says contributes to employee retention.
At the annual Council of the Princeton University Community town hall meeting hosted by University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 on Feb. 9, Vice President for Human Resources Romy Riddick said that “we tend to pay a slightly higher rate … than what those jobs pay in other environments,” referring to service roles at the University.
Custodians in New Jersey earn an average of $18.56 per hour, according to the hiring website Indeed. At Princeton, the starting hourly rate is $22.15, and eligible employees receive benefits that may include healthcare coverage, education savings programs, and retirement contributions.
Riddick added that many staff working in custodial positions serve “stay at the University for the long term — very, very long tenures.”
“Princeton is a great place to work,” a custodian told the ‘Prince.’ “But at the same time, it’s not worth it. It’s not worth your mental health. It’s not worth your sanity.”
Sena Chang is the associate News editor for the ‘Prince’ leading investigations. She is from Japan and South Korea, and she often covers local politics and student life. She can be reached at sena[at]dailyprincetonian.com or securely on Signal at sena.09.
Benedict Hooper is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Greenwich, Conn., and can be reached at bhooper[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
The Daily Princetonian welcomes anonymous tips, which can be submitted at https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/page/submit.