Tag: unions

  • Higher Ed Unions Call for Free College in Fed Policy Agenda

    Higher Ed Unions Call for Free College in Fed Policy Agenda

    A coalition of labor unions representing faculty and other higher education workers called for free college and more Thursday—the same day House Republicans passed their reconciliation bill, which would cut Pell Grants and target postsecondary education in other ways.

    The federal policy agenda is from Higher Ed Labor United (HELU), which seeks to unify all types of higher ed workers—academic and nonacademic, unionized or not—in a single national coalition that can organize together.

    The other broad prongs of HELU’s agenda are to:

    • Establish strong labor standards on every campus
    • End the crises of student and institutional debt
    • Rebuild and expand the nation’s research infrastructure
    • Enshrine and protect the right to learn, speak freely and teach without fear or retaliation
    • Ensure democracy and shared governance for those who work, learn and live alongside colleges and universities

    “Now is the time to rally our forces and offer a different vision of higher education and a positive path forward,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors and a founder of HELU, at a news conference in Washington, D.C.

    “Higher ed is under a withering assault right now,” Wolfson said. “But it’s important for us to be clear: The assault on higher ed did not begin with Trump.”

    “As a sector, we have suffered through 50 years of federal and state divestment,” Wolfson continued. He said this has led to, among other things, “skyrocketing tuition” and a lack of job security for campus workers.

    “The corporatization and neoliberal attacks on our universities are entwined with the right-wing authoritarian attacks,” Wolfson said. “They want to stop political dissent,” and, “as higher education goes, so goes democracy.”

    Two Democratic politicians—Rep. Mark Takano of California and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts—spoke at Thursday’s event alongside leaders from multiple unions. Markey said House Republicans “have proposed a budget that will decimate the Pell Grants, leaving colleges out of reach for hundreds of thousands of low-income and first-generation students.”

    “Donald Trump and Republicans don’t want freedom, they don’t want democracy, they want control,” including over curricula, research and student speech, Markey added.

    Source link

  • As Universities Yield to Trump, Higher Ed Unions Fight Back

    As Universities Yield to Trump, Higher Ed Unions Fight Back

    From the day he retook office, President Donald Trump’s campaign to disrupt higher education has been unrelenting. He’s targeted diversity, equity and inclusion. His administration slashed more than a billion dollars in federal grants and contracts for universities, and it plans to cut more. It’s also attempted to deport pro-Palestinian international scholars, accusing them of sympathizing with terrorism.

    Prominent—or infamous—among the administration’s escalating actions was its decision last month to cut $400 million from Columbia University for allegedly failing to address on-campus antisemitism. Trump officials followed this by demanding that the university, among other things, place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department in academic receivership.

    As the disruption has mounted, many college and university presidents have kept silent. But unions representing higher ed employees have stepped up to the plate. They’ve protested in Washington, D.C., and on their campuses, organized open letters and filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Trump administration. Union leaders say they are filling a void in an existential fight for higher ed’s future. They wish others would join their resistance, but their unified strength in numbers may protect their members from federal retaliation in ways that higher ed officials aren’t.

    Concerns about higher ed’s future under Trump and calls for a forceful response to his actions pervaded a recent gathering on collective bargaining in higher ed. The conference—held in Manhattan just two days after Columbia announced it would capitulate to multiple demands the administration made—offered a snapshot into a large pocket of resistance.

    We couldn’t actually be better positioned to fight back against the kind of authoritarian attacks that we’re seeing.”

    —Ian Gavigan, national director of Higher Ed Labor United

    William A. Herbert, executive director of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, kicked off the event addressing what he has called the Trump administration’s “assault on higher education.”

    “We gather today during a very perilous time. To paraphrase Tom Paine, these are the times that try our souls,” Herbert said, adding that “in this crisis, we must care for ourselves and others—particularly our students, our immigrants and others most vulnerable in this time of danger.”

    He spoke to roughly 150 people gathered in the historic home of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Invoking the wartime president’s Four Freedoms speech, Herbert said FDR’s listed freedoms—of speech and worship, and from want and fear—“are threatened more today than ever before. So it is our obligation to those who came before us to fight for freedom and to fight against tyranny.”

    Rejecting nonintervention, Herbert said, “Neutrality in defense of higher education’s mission and the principles of collective bargaining is not an option. We must reject appeasement. We must reject capitulation to the enemies of higher education and collective negotiations.”

    As the conference progressed last week, unions showed they weren’t capitulating. The American Association of University Professors, an organization of scholars that also represents many of them as a union, alongside the American Federation of Teachers, with which the AAUP is affiliated, filed together or individually three lawsuits against the Trump administration’s moves. These suits seek to stop the dismantling of the Education Department, end deportations of noncitizen students and faculty who demonstrated for Palestinians, and restore Columbia’s lost $400 million.

    Even before last week, the AFT had sued the Education Department to stop it from enforcing a sweeping Dear Colleague letter targeting DEI, and together with the AAUP sued the department and Trump to overturn his anti-DEI executive orders. The AAUP and its partners did secure a temporary injunction blocking parts of the anti-DEI orders—an early victory—but an appeals court overturned that court order. (Other higher ed groups and unions have sued, but the AAUP and AFT are involved in multiple lawsuits that Inside Higher Ed is tracking.)

    Atop the litigation, presidents and members of those unions and others—such as the United Autoworkers, a major organizer of graduate student workers—have rallied in Washington, D.C., against cuts to universities and federal research agencies. This week, the UAW joined other, nonunion organizations in suing to overturn the administration’s cancellations of National Institutes of Health grants.

    Attempts at more national shows of force are coming. Across dozens of campuses, multiple unions are sponsoring a “Kill the Cuts” day of action on April 8, focused on reversing the NIH cuts and other federal funding reductions, followed by a more general protest April 17. It all adds up to campus unions taking a public stand where administrators largely haven’t.

    “I think that labor needs to fill the vacuum of leadership we’re seeing in the sector,” said Todd Wolfson, national president of the AAUP. “I don’t see another way forward.”

    A Large Presence

    Expecting powerful resistance from labor organizations might seem irrational in the U.S., where union membership among workers over all dropped to 10 percent in 2024—a record low since data collection began in 1983. But the picture is starkly different when you look at faculty and grad student workers alone.

    Bucking the national trend, grad workers’ unionized ranks increased 133 percent from 2012 to the start of 2024. Roughly 38 percent of them are now unionized. That’s according to a report released last year by Herbert’s collective bargaining study center at Hunter College; Herbert said the share of unionized grad workers is even greater today, but he didn’t have an updated figure.

    The number of unionized faculty also increased over that 12-year period, from roughly 374,000 in 2012 to 402,000 in January 2024. Roughly 27 percent of faculty are now unionized. And the Biden years saw a growing phenomenon of postdoctoral and undergraduate student workers unionizing. Trump has shaken up the National Labor Relations Board and experts predict a rollback in rights for union workers, but higher ed strikes are continuing into his administration in Massachusetts and California.

    “We have more power now on our campuses than we’ve had in recent memory,” said Ian Gavigan, national director of Higher Ed Labor United, or HELU, and formerly a unionized grad worker himself. “And we couldn’t actually be better positioned to fight back against the kind of authoritarian attacks that we’re seeing.”

    “I’m scared,” Gavigan said, but “that power gives me hope.”

    The White House didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment.

    HELU seeks to unify all types of higher ed workers—including nonacademic workers, and regardless of whether they’re unionized or not—into a single, national coalition. Gavigan spoke during a late-addition panel to the conference. (The whole conference was renamed, after Trump’s election, “Unity in Defense of Higher Education and Collective Bargaining.”)

    Panelists and the audience discussed the Trump administration’s ongoing targeting of higher ed and how to respond.

    “We are under absolutely relentless assault,” said Rebecca Givan, general vice president of the Rutgers University AAUP-AFT and a HELU steering committee member. “It’s constant, it’s everywhere, it’s in every direction, but it would be so much worse if we didn’t have our unions. And so we have these structures and we need to use them to fight back.”

    Givan said that “none of us have been sleeping,” but “if we can’t organize within our unions to fight back, we have nothing.” She said unions have to work within state and federal politics and agencies, fighting for changes such as higher taxes on the rich to fund higher ed.

    “We also have to give our university administrators a strong invitation to do the right thing,” Givan said. “And if they do not, we have to fill that leadership vacuum. We cannot let them back down. We cannot let them do a Columbia and capitulate.”

    Some other higher ed groups beyond unions are resisting as well. The American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities, has sued to stop the NIH from capping reimbursements for costs indirectly related to research. As for why many presidents aren’t publicly speaking up, Jon Fansmith, ACE’s senior vice president for government relations, told Inside Higher Ed that they have an “incredible tightrope to walk.”

    “They are responsible for the jobs and livelihood of thousands—tens of thousands—of people in some cases,” Fansmith said.

    They’re also responsible for the continuation of university work that includes treating patients and other important concerns. Speaking up could come at a price. Fansmith noted that the Trump administration froze about half of Princeton University’s federal grants after President Christopher Eisgruber wrote in The Atlantic that the “Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia” represented “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.”

    Wolfson, the AAUP president, told Inside Higher Ed that individual university presidents might not speak out because that puts targets on their backs. But there’s “no reason why we haven’t seen a letter signed by 1,000 presidents” speaking out against what the administration did to Columbia, Wolfson said.

    “It’s a real disappointment,” he said, adding that “labor has to step in and be the main focal point of a strong, powerful and vigorous response to the federal government.”

    Source link

  • Higher ed unions rally against Trump’s cuts, layoffs

    Higher ed unions rally against Trump’s cuts, layoffs

    At more than a dozen events across the country Wednesday, workers and faculty at colleges and universities gathered to speak out against what they see as an attack on federal research funding, lifesaving medical research and education. 

    In Washington, D.C., hundreds rallied in the front of the Department of Health and Human Services, while in Philadelphia, hundreds gathered at the office of Senator Dave McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican. Other protests were planned at colleges in Seattle and St. Louis, among others. 

    The rallies were part of a national day of action organized by a coalition of unions representing higher ed workers, students and their allies. The coalition includes the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, Higher Ed Labor United and United Auto Workers, among others.

    Hundreds in Philly braved the freezing temps to rally for our healthcare, research, and jobs! ❄️💪Workers & students from CCP, Drexel, UPenn, Rutgers, Temple, Jefferson, Arcadia, Rowan, Moore—alongside elected leaders & union presidents—made it clear: We won’t back down. #LaborForHigherEd

    [image or embed]

    — Higher Education Labor United (HELU) (@higheredlabor.bsky.social) February 19, 2025 at 2:33 PM

    In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed capping reimbursements for indirect research costs, laid off hundreds of federal employees and cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most recently, the Education Department gave colleges and K-12 schools until Feb. 28 to end all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid. Higher education advocates have called that directive “dystopian” and “very much outside of the law.”

    Colleges and universities sued to block the rate cut for indirect costs, warning it would mean billions in financial losses and an end to some research. Some colleges have already frozen hiring in response, even though the cut is temporarily on hold.

    “If politics decides what I can and cannot study, I’m afraid I will fail the very people who need this research and inspire me to do it,” said Lindsay Guare, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, in a news release about the Philadelphia event. “In an ideal world, I would be fighting to expand support for my science instead of fighting to keep it afloat … The work done in Philadelphia’s institutions doesn’t just lead the world in innovation—it saves lives.”

    Source link

  • Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    Strengthening partnerships between trade unions and universities

    February 10–16 is the Trades Union Congress ‘“HeartUnions” week, a week dedicated to celebrating the good work that trade unions do.

    I love trade unions and higher education. Given that unions primarily receive media coverage when their members take industrial action, it’s easy to forget that, at their heart, they are solidarity movements, whose campaigns have driven social change.

    Trade unions fought for and won a minimum wage, maternity and paternity rights, pension provision, and holiday and sickness entitlements. These victories have benefited every British person. Equally, those external to the sector may overlook the social impact higher education has due to the question of whether university still represents value for money for students.

    The current picture

    Higher education staff knowledge of how trade unions democratically work and the positive impact that a collective movement can have varies. Anti-union legislation over the past 50 years, such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act (1992) and the Trade Union Act (2016), has led to fewer people being members of trade unions or understanding their purpose, compared to previous generations.

    My personal experience as a trade union representative has shown me that it has become increasingly important to explain what a trade union is to new staff entering careers in higher education, as there is a likelihood that they, or their parents, may not have been members of a union. Indeed, in 2021, only 14.1 per cent of trade union members in the UK were aged between 20 and 29 years. Furthermore, in a more interconnected and mobile world, assumptions about trade unions can be very different from stereotypes and experiences in other countries. Overall, there are a range of misconceptions about unions’ purpose and value.

    Despite legislative challenges, trade unions in UK higher education have reasons to be optimistic. Some UCU branches have seen membership numbers grow and an increased level of member activism. A core reason for this appears to be that staff are increasingly viewing unions as part of the solution to overcoming problems faced in the sector. This seems to be driven by the successes branches are having locally, and by the number of universities currently undertaking or preparing to implement cuts.

    Trade union branches and university management will never see eye to eye on every issue. Trade unions are there to protect their members, whereas university management is there to protect the organisation. As many reading this will know, differing objectives undoubtedly lead to disputes and industrial unrest. Withholding labour can sometimes be the best and/or only strategy unions have to win disputes. It should never be forgotten that many of the successes trade unions have had which we now often take for granted, such as the two day weekend, came through intense campaigning and struggle, including strike action.

    I love trade unions and higher education, and see both for their flaws, including missed opportunities to collaborate. University management and trade unions often have shared purposes. Unfortunately, these are not always understood, limiting the impact trade union branches have.

    New legislation

    The Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, promises greater protection for workers, including repealing much of the Trade Union Act (2016). As written, it would significantly empower workers to act collectively, though it’s worth noting that parts of the bill are currently out to consultation and the legislation is not expected to receive Royal Assent until next year.

    In essence, the bill encourages employers to work more closely with trade unions. It strengthens the rights of trade unions to access workplaces, simplifies trade union recognition processes, introduces new protections for trade union representatives (including equality representatives), and introduces a duty for employers to inform employees that they have a right to join a trade union.

    Drilling down into the details of the bill as it stands, it can be seen how it will be easier for trade unions to successfully gain industrial action mandates. This makes it more vital than ever for university stakeholders, such as UCEA, as well as individual university management teams, to collaborate with trade union colleagues, enhancing how a diverse range of staff voices influence university decisions. This is important as staff working in various capacities across higher education may be well-placed to propose innovative ways of overcoming significant challenges faced by the sector.

    Working in partnership

    Trade unions and university leaders ultimately want the sector to be successful, with excellent teaching, research, and student support, as well as financial stability.

    Personal experiences from working at various institutions have shown that trade unions are typically consultative mechanisms. While consultation must occur, in line with recognition agreements, in many cases it may have been more effective for trade union representatives to have worked in partnership with the university prior to reaching a consultative or approval stage. For example, policies relating to health and safety or sustainability.

    A starting point to building any partnership is understanding how objectives align. Awareness of how trade union representative positions correlate with university structures and committees is a good way of identifying when objectives are shared. Trade union branches often have a range of different representatives who can actively contribute to committees and task-and-finish groups. Trade union health and safety representatives are very capable of assisting in evaluating workload, inspecting environments, drafting new policies, and many other tasks in partnership with the university.

    Although partnership working between trade union branches and universities can be improved, there are good examples of it occurring in the sector. Universities such as Glasgow Caledonian have a “learning agreement” with their recognised trade unions. This agreement specifies how the trade unions will work in partnership on staff development activities.

    Stories from Northampton

    At the time of composing this article, the University of Northampton (UON) is completing a consultation process that has placed many staff at risk of redundancy.

    Although the consultation process has been challenging for the UON UCU branch and the UON leadership team – as can be expected in these situations – UON UCU has continued to improve partnership working across the university, while simultaneously fighting hard to protect the jobs of all members at risk of redundancy.

    The branch has been involved in interview selection processes, work relating to building an improved sense of staff belonging, and a new Race Equality Charter. The branch’s approach of being able to traverse between challenging management on some issues, while simultaneously working in partnership with them on others, has advanced the interests of our members and saved jobs.

    It is also evident that UON UCU will come out of the consultation with enhanced credibility from UON management. Management has expressed willingness to work with recognised trade unions on issues such as workload stress risk assessments and its new learning development policy. It is also highly pleasing to note that membership and activism in the branch have increased. As part of HeartUnions week, activists are completing a live brief with fine art students. The students will be learning about trade unions while using skills developed in their programme to create a large UCU banner.

    HeartUnions

    If you like me love trade unions and higher education, and want them to be their best version going forward, now seems the perfect time to consider how we make their relationship work at every university.

    Yes, like most relationships, there will be times when disagreement occurs. However, equally, there will be opportunities to work together, which will benefit the sector.

    If this article or other activities that occurred as part of HeartUnions week have inspired you to join a trade union, a good starting point is to visit the TUC website. It’s worth checking out staff intranet pages too to learn what trade union agreements are in place at your university.

    Source link

  • Academic unions should adopt neutrality (opinion)

    Academic unions should adopt neutrality (opinion)

    Institutional neutrality at universities is having its moment in the aftermath of a year of nationwide campus protests over the Israel-Gaza war. The list of universities that have adopted neutrality has grown over the course of the past 12 months. The concept necessarily is expanding to include conversations around university investments. Yet, academic unions have slipped under the radar as purveyors of positions on political issues. They should not be neglected in the push for neutral stances except for those that directly pertain to an institutional mission. In the case of the union, this should be to promote labor interests. Professors from a range of ideologies should be able to find common cause for collective bargaining purposes without being forced into supporting other political positions.

    The lack of neutrality of professors’ unions on non-labor-related issues is a pernicious problem. Federal law and some state laws that pertain to unions work to compel professors’ speech. Under the federal National Labor Relations Act, if a majority of private sector workers voting in a union election choose to unionize, all workers in that bargaining unit must be exclusively represented by that union. New York’s Taylor Law requires the same for public employees. And, if workers want the benefits of membership, like voting for union leadership and contracts, they must pay dues.

    While public employees could choose not to be union members before the Supreme Court’s 2017 Janus v. AFSCME ruling, that case now guarantees their right to not pay agency fees. But even if workers wish to eschew membership and not pay fees, they cannot dissociate entirely. They are required to be represented by a union that speaks via statements at the local, state and national level on many non-labor-related subjects. Therefore, with their veneer of solidarity, unions quash viewpoint diversity and suppress First Amendment rights. They tie one of the only forms of dissent possible (withdrawing dues) to disenfranchisement from the union, the organization that negotiates their wages and labor conditions.

    Professors who do stop paying their dues are often derided as “free riders.” They risk offending union leadership, who have a say in university processes that can impact their employment, like grievances and denial of reappointment. The union is formally required to provide equal advocacy as their exclusive representative. However, even if one believes biases will never prevail against “free riders,” there is still the suppressive impact of professors’ perception that paying dues and keeping quiet is best for their careers.

    And so, professors are forced into a kind of protection racket, paying unions that may endorse positions with which they may disagree. The National Education Association has opined on everything from ending private prisons to climate change, from promoting women-led businesses to helmets for motorcyclists. They have issued statements on the Israel-Gaza conflict, advocated for codifying Roe v. Wade into law and called for Donald Trump’s ouster. They have adopted progressive ideological lenses throughout such statements, arguing for instance that “white supremacy culture” is prevalent in the current U.S., and that “intersectionality must be … addressed … in order to advance the [NEA’s] social justice work.”

    To be clear, I am not arguing that these positions taken by unions are bad. I am not reflecting my own political preferences. I am not highlighting progressive examples to critique only progressive examples: I could find none that can be considered conservative. I am not saying that it’s not possible that a majority of members agree with the statements. I am also not arguing that workers do not have the right to form associations to advocate for political causes.

    What I am arguing is that due to laws making exclusive representation compulsory, unions should adopt neutrality on political issues that do not impact the primary purpose of academic unions: advocating for professors’ interests as workers. This lets ideological diversity exist and prevents coerced speech and dues payments. This neutrality is of paramount importance with public sector unions, where union leadership activities may receive taxpayer-subsidized administrative benefits.

    This neutrality should extend to political endorsements of individual candidates. While there may be some argument to be made that endorsing a pro-union or pro–higher education candidate over their opponent directly pertains to professors’ interests as workers, this carries with it implicit endorsement of a wide slate of other policies. A better approach would be for unions to support (or critique) candidates’ specific policy proposals or voting records. It would also reduce antagonism between unions and candidates they did not endorse, should those be elected.

    Recent examples show the perils of academic unions not having a neutrality standard. In 2018, a University of Maine professor sued his union, noting his opposition to its stances, like endorsing Hillary Clinton for president. More recently, in 2022, six City University of New York professors filed suit against the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), which passed a pro-Palestinian resolution they viewed as antisemitic. They resigned their memberships, along with approximately 263 other professors. But because of the Taylor Law, they are required to be represented by the PSC, which did not give evidence it could be fair in representing them. The PSC called them free riders, claiming their lawsuit was “meritless … funded by the notoriously right-wing National Right to Work Legal Foundation,” and described the “‘Right to Work’ agenda” as “rooted in white supremacy.”

    After lower courts ruled to dismiss their suit, the CUNY professors appealed to the Supreme Court, which just this month declined to hear their case. Yet, while this case could have been a victory for viewpoint diversity and free speech and an impetus for unions to get on the institutional neutrality bandwagon, future such suits will doubtless arise and reach a court favorable to their claims. Academic unions should get ahead of such a court ruling and make union membership attractive to all who may want to participate based on advocacy for improved working conditions, but not for particular solutions to international wars—or for wearing motorcycle helmets.

    Colleen P. Eren is a professor of sociology and criminal justice at William Paterson University and a research fellow at the Segal Center for Academic Pluralism. Her commentaries on higher ed and other topics can be found across a range of publications, including The New York Times, Discourse, Reason, and the Foundation for Economic Education.

    Source link