Tag: unions

  • How Can Unions Defend Worker Power Under Trump 2.0? (Labor Notes)

    How Can Unions Defend Worker Power Under Trump 2.0? (Labor Notes)

    In the December issue: 

    New York’s Working Class Elects a Movement Mayor, by Luis Feliz Leon
    Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and the Democratic nominee, will be New York City’s next mayor, after trouncing former Governor Andrew Cuomo in a primary and general election double whammy. Volunteers were galvanized by Mamdani’s relentless focus on the affordability crisis and principled stand against Israel’s unfolding genocide in Gaza.

    Canadian Postal Workers Strike Again, by Danielle Smith
    Canadian postal workers are back on strike—again—as they fight to save a vital public service. “By staying on the job and continuing to wait for demoralizing offers, we show that we accept this, we’re not going to fight. So we decided we’re going out,” said Nova Scotia letter carrier Basia Sokal. 

    Indiana Casino Dealers Are Bringing Back the Recognition Strike, by Alexandra Bradbury
    There are no clocks in a casino, so the dealers all set their phone alarms for noon. Everyone was a bundle of nerves. Before work, a couple of people threw up.

    But when the cacophony of alarms sounded, everyone lifted their hands in the air, slammed down the lids on their games of baccarat, blackjack, craps, and roulette, and announced they were on strike. “It was more powerful than anything I’ve ever felt in my life,” said dealer Tera Arnold. “I had goosebumps head to toe.”

    PLUS: Articles published so far in our Roundtable Series: How Can Unions Defend Worker Power Under Trump 2.0?, a Stewards’ Corner on welcoming immigrant members into the union, and more! 

    Source link

  • Students, Unions to Protest Trump’s Higher Ed Agenda Friday

    Students, Unions to Protest Trump’s Higher Ed Agenda Friday

    Members of the American Association of University Professors, the affiliated American Federation of Teachers and student groups are planning protests in more than 50 cities Friday against “the Trump administration’s broad assault” on higher ed, the AAUP announced in a news release.

    The AAUP said demonstrators will urge institutions to continue rejecting Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” and instead “commit to the freedom to teach, learn, research, and speak out without government coercion or censorship.”

    “From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of life-saving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump’s higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in the release. “We’re excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good.”

    The protests are part of a progressive movement called Students Rise Up, or Project Rise Up. The Action Network website says there will be “walkouts and protests at hundreds of schools” Friday—the start of a buildup “to a mass student strike on May 1st, 2026, when we’ll join workers in the streets to disrupt business as usual.”

    “We’re demanding free college, a fair wage for workers, and schools where everyone is safe to learn and protest—regardless of their gender or race or immigration status,” the website says.

    Other groups listed as organizing or supporting the protests include the Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Florida Youth Action Fund, Frontline for Freedom, Higher Ed Labor United, Ohio Student Association, Sunrise Movement, Dissenters, Feminist Generation, Gen-Z for Change, Generation Vote (GenVote), March for Our Lives, Oil and Gas Action Network, Socialist Alternative, Together Across America, Voters of Tomorrow, Blue Future, Get Free, and NOW Young Feminists.

    Asked for a comment from the Education Department, Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications, repeated statements the department previously made, saying, “The Trump Administration is achieving reforms on higher education campuses that conservatives have dreamed about for 50 years.”

    “Institutions are once again committed to enforcing federal civil rights laws consistently, they are rooting out DEI and unconstitutional race preferences, and they are acknowledging sex as a biological reality in sports and intimate spaces,” she wrote.

    Source link

  • FIRE SURVEY: Colleagues and faculty unions fail to defend scholars targeted for speech

    FIRE SURVEY: Colleagues and faculty unions fail to defend scholars targeted for speech

    “I was afraid to leave my home for several weeks. I was afraid for the safety of my children. I received death threats.”

    “I was vomiting throughout the day, couldn’t eat, was having constant panic attacks, couldn’t be around people or leave the house . . .”

    “I was getting violent threats via email every day . . . The police were doing daily drive-bys because so many people threatened me with violence.”

    PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 28, 2025 — These are just some of the harrowing first-person accounts collected by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression in “Sanctioned Scholars: The Price of Speaking Freely in Today’s Academy,” a new survey of scholars who have been targeted for any protected speech since the beginning of the decade.

    “Cancellation campaigns are often wrapped in the language of preventing ‘emotional harm,’” said FIRE’s Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “But our survey shows that it’s the mobs themselves that inflict lasting mental anguish on academics, many of whom still suffer the consequences long after the controversy subsided.”

    FIRE reached out to the over 600 academics listed in its Scholars Under Fire database who were sanctioned or targeted between 2020 and 2024, of whom 209 completed our survey. (FIRE’s survey was conducted before the Sept. 10 assassination of Charlie Kirk, which was followed by nearly a hundred scholars being targeted, over a dozen fired, and 2025 emerging as a new record high.)

    Nearly all (94%) who participated in the survey described the impact of their experience as negative. Roughly two-thirds (65%) experienced emotional distress, and significant chunks reported facing harrowing social setbacks, such as being shunned at work (40%) or lost professional relationships (47%) and friendships (33%).

    For some, the consequences were severe. About a quarter of the scholars who completed the survey reported that they sought psychological counseling (27%), and 1 in 5 lost their jobs entirely (20%).

    Nearly all institutions of higher learning promise academic freedom and free speech rights to their scholars. But many of the targeted scholars reported that they received no support from precisely the institutions and individuals who were supposed to have their backs in moments of crisis and controversy. Only 21% reported that they received at least a moderate amount of  public support of their faculty union, for example, and a paltry 11% reported that they received public support from administrators.

    Tellingly, colleagues felt more comfortable supporting the targeted scholars privately rather than publicly. Just under half of scholars received at least a moderate amount of private support from colleagues (49%), but only about a third (34%) received their support publicly.

    Grouped column chart

    In their open-ended responses to FIRE’s survey, many scholars reported that this was their deepest wound: the public silence and abandonment by their peers. “My biggest disappointment was in the cowardice of other faculty who refused to do anything public on my behalf,” one professor wrote.

    “Free speech advocates have long argued that acts of censorship don’t just silence one person,” said Honeycutt. “They chill the speech of anyone who agrees with them, and even those who disagree but are too cowed to defend their right to speak. Our report shows that the academy urgently needs courageous faculty willing to stand up for their colleagues, even when doing so is difficult or unpopular.”

    FIRE’s report also found a noticeable partisan gap in the level of public support reported by scholars. Larger proportions of conservative than liberal faculty reported that they received support from the general public (55% vs. 37%). But far fewer than their liberal peers reported that they received public support from their faculty union (7% vs. 29%) or their university colleagues (19% vs. 40%).

    Grouped column chart

    “Support for academic freedom should never depend on the views being expressed, but our survey shows that’s exactly what’s happening,” said FIRE Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “If faculty unions and institutions of higher learning won’t stand by scholars in their moments of crisis, they can’t claim to stand for free speech and inquiry.”

    The Scholars Under Fire survey was fielded from Jan. 15 to April 15, 2025. A total of 635 scholars were invited to participate in this study, and 209 participated. The scholars recruited were individuals listed in FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire Database because they experienced a sanction or sanction attempt between 2020 and 2024. Participation in the survey was anonymous to encourage candid responses without fear of personal consequence, and to allow participants to speak more freely about their experiences.


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change

    Teachers unions leverage contracts to fight climate change

    This story first appeared in Hechinger’s climate and education newsletter. Sign up here

    In Illinois, the Chicago Teachers Union won a contract with the city’s schools to add solar panels on some buildings and clean energy career pathways for students, among other actions. In Minnesota, the Minneapolis Federation of Educators demanded that the district create a task force on environmental issues and provide free metro passes for students. And in California, the Los Angeles teachers union’s demands include electrifying the district’s bus fleet and providing electric vehicle charging stations at all schools. 

    Those are among the examples in a new report on how unionized teachers are pushing their school districts to take action on the climate crisis, which is damaging school buildings and disrupting learning. The report — produced by the nonprofit Building Power Resource Center, which supports local governments and leaders, and the Labor Network for Sustainability, a nonprofit that seeks to unite labor and climate groups — describes how educators can raise demands for climate action when they negotiate labor contracts with their districts. By emphasizing the financial case for switching to renewable energy, educators can simultaneously act on climate change, improve conditions in schools and save districts money, it says. 

    As federal support and financial incentives for climate action wither, this sort of local action is becoming more difficult — but also more urgent, advocates say. Chicago Public Schools has relied on funding for electric buses that has been sunsetted by the Trump administration, said Jackson Potter, vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union. But the district is also seeking other local and state funding and nonprofit support.

    Bradley Marianno, an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said that educator unions embracing climate action is part of a move started about 15 years ago in which more progressive unions — like those in Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere — focus on “collective good bargaining,” or advocating for changes that are good for their members but also the broader community. But this approach is unlikely to catch on everywhere: “The risk lies in members feeling that core issues like wages and working conditions are being overlooked in favor of more global causes,” he wrote in an email. 

    I recently caught up with Potter, the CTU vice president, about the report and his union’s approach to bargaining for climate action. Collaborating with local environmental and community groups, the Chicago Teachers Union ultimately succeeded in winning a contract that calls for identifying schools for solar panels and electrification, expanding indoor air quality monitoring, helping educators integrate climate change into their curriculum, and establishing training for students in clean energy jobs, among other steps. 

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

    The report talks about contract negotiations being an underused — and effective — lever for demanding climate action. Why do you see that process as such an opportunity for climate action?

    On the local level, our schools are 84, 83 years old on average. There is lead paint, lead pipes, mold, asbestos, PCBs, all kinds of contamination in the HVAC system and the walls that require upgrades. By our estimate, the district needs $30 billion worth of upgrades, and right now I think they spend $500 million a year to just do patch-up work. We’re at a point where it’s a system fail of epic proportions if we can’t figure out a way to transition and make things healthier. And so if you’re going to do a roof repair, put solar on it, have independence from fossil fuels, clean air in areas that have faced environmental racism and contamination. 

    We’re also dealing with a legacy of discrimination and harm, and that is true of the nation. So how do we get out of this and also save the planet and also prevent greater climate events that further destabilize vulnerable communities and put people at risk? It made sense for us to use our contract as a path to do both things — deal with this local crisis that was screaming for new solutions and ideas, in a moment when the climate is on fire, literally.  

    How challenging was it to get educators to view climate issues as a priority? There are so many other things, around pay and other issues, on the table. 

    When we started, it almost felt like people in the membership, in the community, viewed it as a niche issue. Like, ‘Oh, isn’t that cute, you care about green technology.’ As we figured out how to think about it and talk about it and probe where people were having issues in their schools, it became really obvious that when you started talking about asbestos, lead and mold remediation — and helping communities that have been hit the hardest with cumulative impacts and carcinogens and how those things are present in schools — that became much more tangible. Or even quality food and lunch and breakfast for students who are low-income. It went from bottom of the list to top of the list, instantaneously. 

    Your contract calls for a number of climate-related actions, including green pathways for students and agreements with building trade unions to create good jobs for students. Tell me about that. 

    We’re trying to use the transformation of our facilities as another opportunity for families and students in these communities that have been harmed the most to get the greatest benefit from the transformation. So if we can install solar, we want our students to be part of that project on the ground in their schools, gaining the skills and apprenticeship credentials to become the electricians of the future. And using that as a project labor agreement [which establishes the terms of work on a certain project] with the trades to open doors and opportunities. The same goes for all the other improvements — whether it’s heat pumps, HVAC systems, geothermal. And for EV — we have outdated auto shop programming that’s exclusively based on the combustible engine reliant on fossil fuels, whereas in [the nearby city of] Belvidere they are building electric cars per the United Auto Workers’ new contract. Could we gain a career path on electric vehicles that allows students to gain that mechanical knowledge and insight and prepares them for the vehicles of the future? 

    The report talks about the Batesville School District in Arkansas that was able to increase teacher salaries because of savings from solar. Have you tried to make the case for higher teacher salaries because of these climate steps?  

    The $500 million our district allocates for facility upgrades annually comes out of the general fund, so we haven’t at all thought about it in terms of salary. We’ve thought about it in terms of having a school nurse, social worker, mental health interventions at a moment when there is so much trauma. We see this as a win-win: The fewer dollars the district has to spend on facility needs means the more dollars they can spend on instructional and social-emotional needs for students. In terms of the Arkansas model, it’s pretty basic. If you get off the fossil fuel pipelines and electric lines and you become self-sufficient, essentially, powering your own electric and heat, there is going to be a boon, particularly if there are up-front subsidies. 

    Math and climate change 

    When temperatures rise in classrooms, students have more trouble concentrating and their learning suffers — in math, in particular. That’s according to a new report from NWEA, an education research and testing company.

    The report, part of a growing body of evidence of the harms of extreme heat on student performance, found that math scores declined when outdoor temperatures on test days rose above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Students in high-poverty schools, which are less likely to have air conditioning, saw declines up to twice as large as those in wealthier schools. 

    The learning losses grew as temperatures rose. Students who took tests on 101-degree days scored roughly 0.06 standard deviations below students who tested when temperatures were 60 degrees, the equivalent of about 10 percent of the learning a fifth grader typically gains in a school year. 

    It’s not entirely clear why student math scores suffer more than reading when temperatures rise. But Sofia Postell, an NWEA research analyst, said that on math tests, students must problem-solve and rely on their memories, and that kind of thinking is particularly difficult when students are hot and tired. Anxiety could be a factor too, she wrote in an email: “Research has also shown that heat increases anxiety, and some students may experience more testing anxiety around math exams.”

    The study was based on data from roughly 3 million scores on NWEA’s signature MAP Growth test for third to eighth graders in six states. 

    The report urged school, district and state officials to take several steps to reduce the effects of high heat on student learning and testing. Ideally, tests would be scheduled during times of the year when it wasn’t so hot, it said, and also during mornings, when temperatures are cooler. Leaders also need to invest in updating HVAC systems to keep kids cool. 

    “Extreme heat has already detrimentally impacted student learning and these effects will only intensify without action,” wrote Postell. 

    Mea culpa: A quick note to say I got two things wrong in my last newsletter — the name of the Natural Resources Defense Council was incorrect, as was the number of hours of learning California students have missed so far this year. It’s more than 54,000. 

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].

    This story about teachers unions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter on climate and education.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Trump’s higher ed compact draws condemnation from faculty and college unions

    Trump’s higher ed compact draws condemnation from faculty and college unions

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Faculty groups and employee unions are urging universities to reject a proposed compact from the Trump administration that would trade control over their policies for preferential access to federal research funding.

    Of the nine colleges that received the offer, at least two faculty senatesthe University of Virginia and the University of Arizonavoted to oppose the deal and pushed their institution’s leadership to reject it. Other instructors and employee groups have also decried the compact. 

    Leaders at the colleges have thus far issued mostly noncommittal responses, with none publicly announcing they would decline the deal as of Wednesday afternoon. 

    Along with UVA and the University of Arizona, the Trump administration sent the compact to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California and Vanderbilt University. It gave the institutions until Oct. 20 to respond with feedback and up to Nov. 21 to sign.

    Faculty groups weigh in

    At a Monday meeting, the University of Arizona’s faculty senate approved a resolution opposing the compact in a 40-8 vote, with one member abstaining.

    The resolution called the compact a danger to “the independence, excellence, and integrity” of the institution and the constitutional rights of the campus community.

    “Others wiser than I have called it recently a trap, a poisoned apple,” Faculty Chair Leila Hudson said before the vote. “Federal funds are not a drug that we need a quick fix of to be forever extortable.”

    Hundreds of miles east, faculty at the University of Virginia similarly rebuked the Trump administration’s proposal.

    The UVA faculty senate on Friday, in a 60-2 vote with 4 abstentions, approved a resolution whose preamble called the compact a danger to the university that runs antithetical to its mission and traditions. It also said the deal “likely violates state and federal law.”

    At least one law firm, Ropes & Gray, has said the compact raises legal questions, adding that it “does not explain the statutory or other basis that authorizes the Administration to give preferential access to federal programs.”

    The law firm also said the compact used vague and broad language and doesn’t explain key elements of the proposal. For instance, it threatens to strip federal funding from institutions that sign and then violate its terms — but it doesn’t explain which dollars could be revoked.

    “Would all federal benefits — research dollars and beyond — be affected by an instance of non-compliance, or would only those additional or new federal benefits that have accrued as a result of the institution having signed onto this Compact (the scope of which is unclear as well) be affected?” it posited in a Wednesday analysis.

    A second round of deals?

    Two of the institutions that received the offer — Penn and Brown — have previously struck deals with the Trump administration.

    Penn President J. Larry Jameson said Sunday that he would seek input on the compact from the campus community, including Penn’s trustees and faculty senate.

    “The long-standing partnership with the federal government in both education and research has yielded tremendous benefits for our nation. Penn seeks no special consideration,” he said in a statement.

    Jameson added that he would keep five factors front of mind: “freedom of inquiry and thought, free expression, non-discrimination, adherence to American laws and the Constitution of the United States, and our own governance.”

    In March, the Trump administration suspended $175 million of Penn’s research funding over its prior policy permitting transgender women to compete in women’s sports. The U.S. Department of Education formally alleged in April that the university’s policies had violated Title IX, a law banning sex-based discrimination at federally funded institutions.

    Source link

  • AAUP, Other Unions Sue Trump Admin Over H-1B Fee

    AAUP, Other Unions Sue Trump Admin Over H-1B Fee

    A slew of unions, including three that represent university faculty and staff, are suing the Trump administration over its proposed $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas, The New York Times reported.

    The plaintiffs, which include the American Association of University Professors, UAW International and UAW Local 481, allege in the lawsuit that numerous researchers and academics will lose their jobs as a result of their institutions not being able to afford the new fee. (An H-1B visa previously cost $2,000 to $5,000.) Universities, along with national labs and nonprofit research institutions, were also exempt from the annual cap on the number of new visas, and it’s unclear whether the new fee will apply to higher ed.

    The New York Times reported that this lawsuit “appears to be the first major challenge to the new fee.”

    The fee, the complaint states, “will result in significant and potentially catastrophic setbacks to research that benefits the American public and ensures the United States remains a leading source of innovation and expertise. For example, the fee will likely result in sharp cutbacks in the employment of highly talented foreign workers and severe setbacks for university research, graduate programs, and clinical care, compounding an anticipated shortfall of 5.3 million skilled workers over the next decade.”

    The lawsuit highlights several specific examples of researchers whose work would be interrupted by this change, including an unnamed plaintiff who studies conditions and diseases that cause blindness.

    “Her departure will set back the crucial research she is conducting, disrupting the lab’s ongoing work and ability to secure future research funding, preventing her department from getting any future funding through her, and potentially delaying the availability of treatment for the conditions that are the focus of her research,” it states.

    The plaintiffs note in the lawsuit that the $100,000 fee “applies even where workers are already lawfully present in the United States under, for example, a student visa or another immigration status, and are seeking to change to H-1B status.”

    They argue in part that the president does not have the statutory authority to increase the fee for H-1B visas. They are asking the judge to nullify the $100,000 fee and allow H-1B visas to be processed as they were previously.

    Source link

  • UC employees, unions sue Trump administration over ‘financial coercion’

    UC employees, unions sue Trump administration over ‘financial coercion’

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    A coalition of University of California faculty groups and employee unions sued the Trump administration Tuesday over the federal government’s efforts to “exert ideological control” over the system and its 10 institutions. 

    Over the past three months, the federal government has cut off at least $584 million in grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, sought $1 billion from the system to restore that funding and delivered a wide-ranging list of ultimatums that would dramatically reshape the state’s university system through political interference. 

    In their lawsuit, the coalition — which represented tens of thousands of faculty, staff and students within the university systemcalled the cuts unconstitutional and an “arbitrary, ideologically driven, and unlawful use of financial coercion” that threatened U.S. higher education and advancement.

    “The administration has made clear its intention to commandeer this public university system and to purge from its campuses viewpoints with which the President and his administration disagree,” the lawsuit said.

    “Campaign to control universities”

    President Donald Trump began laying the groundwork for “his administration’s coordinated attack on academic freedom and free speech and campaign to control universities” shortly after retaking office in January, the lawsuit alleged.

    Since then, Trump has put dozens of colleges on notice at once via civil rights investigations and targeted specific, often well-known institutions — such as Harvard University and Columbia University — that have invoked his ire.

    “Rather than acknowledging educational institutions like the UC as the assets to this nation that they are, the Trump administration views them as barriers to the President’s agenda of ideological dominance,” the lawsuit said.

    At the end of July, the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that UCLA had violated civil rights law by failing to adequately protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment. A week later, the federal government suspended $584 million in grants to UCLA over the allegations.

    Tuesday’s lawsuit alleged DOJ picked and chose from university documents to make the argument it had wanted to from the start. For example, the agency relied heavily on an October report from UCLA that found antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. But DOJ entirely failed to address the improvements UCLA had undertaken sincea factor similar to one cited by a federal judge when she struck down the Trump administration’s $2.2 billion funding freeze at Harvard earlier this month.

    DOJ also did not explain what connection the specific research funding cuts had to alleged antisemitism, forcing all university employees to prepare “for the possibility of significant and immediate termination of funding,” the lawsuit said.

    The University of California, one of the largest research systems in the country, derives a third of its annual operating budget — $17 billion — from federal funding, according to the lawsuit.

    The Trump administration has also unlawfully disregarded the process by which the government can terminate or withhold federal funds, the lawsuit argued.

    Addressing the cuts on Aug. 6, system President James Milliken said they did “nothing to address antisemitism,” but said the University of California would enter into negotiations with the Trump administration to have the funding restored.

    In the event of a major loss of federal funding, the system would need, at minimum, between $4 million and $5 billion just to survive, Milliken told state lawmakers this month.

    Dramatic and expensive ultimatums

    On Aug. 8, two days after Milliken announced the forthcoming negotiations, the system received an unprecedented list of wide-ranging demands from the Trump administration tying its federal funding to total compliance, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs cited a copy of the list, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, which the University of California has not made public.

    The letter would require UCLA to install a “resolution monitor” — appointed with final approval by the Trump administration — who would hold significant authority over campus affairs.

    UCLA would also be forced to provide the federal government regular access to “a wide variety of records” on faculty, staff and students, “as deemed necessary by the resolution monitor.”

    “The only exception is for attorney-client privilege, not for speech, association, or privacy purposes,” the lawsuit said.

    Source link

  • California Unions Sue Trump Admin Over Threats to UC System

    California Unions Sue Trump Admin Over Threats to UC System

    A coalition of California education unions and faculty associations is suing the Trump administration to challenge what they say is “the illegal and coercive use of civil rights laws to attack the University of California system and the rights of their members,” the American Association of University Professors announced Tuesday. 

    The coalition comprises 19 groups—including the AAUP, the American Federation of Teachers and 10 University of California campus faculty associations—and is represented by the legal organization Democracy Forward.

    “We will not stand by as the Trump administration destroys one of the largest public university higher education systems in the country and bludgeons academic freedom at the University of California, the heart of the revered free speech movement,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement. “We stand hand in hand to protect not only our individual rights to free expression, debate, and association, but also to safeguard the health, safety, and economic mobility of our communities—all of which is at risk.”

    The Trump administration has issued a litany of demands to the University of California in exchange for restored federal funding, including unfettered government access to faculty, student and staff data; cooperation with immigration enforcement; a ban on gender-inclusive restrooms and locker rooms; an official statement that the UC does not recognize transgender identity; and over a billion dollars in penalties. So far, the University of California, Los Angeles, has borne the brunt of the demands, but university system officials fear that funding freezes could extend to the system’s other campuses.

    On Sept. 4, University of California, Berkeley, officials notified 160 faculty, staff and students that their names appeared in documents given to the Trump administration as part of the administration’s investigation into alleged antisemitism on campus. 

    “UCLA [faculty association] is honored to stand with this coalition, which presents as an important reminder of what the UC really is—the people who day in and day out do the work on UC campuses,” Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA faculty association executive board, said in a statement Tuesday. “Today, we join the people of the UC in standing up against federal extortion, job loss, bans on speech and expression—against any effort to dismantle core public values that have made the UC great.”

    Source link

  • Revisiting the Legal Framework for Students’ Unions

    Revisiting the Legal Framework for Students’ Unions

    Author:
    Gary Attle

    Published:

    • This blog was kindly written by Gary Attle, Consultant for Birketts LLP.
    • On Tuesday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment will be hosting the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. On Wednesday, we will be hosting a webinar on students’ cost of living with TechnologyOne – for more information on booking a free place, see here.
    • Read HEPI’s weekend blogs on governance and the Research Excellence Framework on the HEPI website here.

    The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 came into force, in part, on 1 August 2025. New and strengthened statutory duties were placed on higher education providers which are registered with the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England. These duties require the governing bodies of registered higher education providers to take steps to secure freedom of speech (including academic freedom) for staff, students, members and visiting speakers and to promote the importance of freedom of speech/academic freedom. The Office for Students has a direct regulatory jurisdiction towards registered higher education providers under the provisions of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and as ‘principal regulator’ for those registered providers which are charities.

    The current Government has indicated its intention to repeal the provisions in the 2023 Act which would have placed an express statutory duty on students’ unions for the first time to secure freedom of speech and a new regulatory power for the Office for Students to take enforcement action against students’ unions for breach of that duty. In a detailed statement to the House of Commons on 15 January this year, the Secretary of State noted the following:

    “Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, I fully expect student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not. I also expect HE providers to work closely with them to ensure that that happens and to act decisively to ensure their student unions comply with their free speech code of conduct.”

    It is likely to be the case that a students’ union of a higher education provider which is a charity will be a separate charitable organisation itself, whether an unincorporated association of its members or an incorporated body. However, it would be prudent to check both the charitable status of the students’ union and its corporate status.

    The Education Act 1994 (sections 20-22) places a statutory duty on the governing body of specified higher education ‘establishments’ in England and Wales to secure certain requirements in respect of students’ unions of those establishments. The duty extends to a range of governance and constitutional requirements, including ensuring that the students’ union operates in a fair and democratic manner, that it has a written constitution and has a complaints procedure. The governing body is required to approve the provisions of the constitution and review the constitution at intervals of not more than five years. In addition, highlighted for the purposes of this note, at least once a year the governing body of the establishment must bring to the attention of its students “any restrictions imposed on the union by the law relating to charities.”

    Here, we turn to case-law of some vintage to illustrate what this might include. In 1971, the High Court in the case of Baldry -v- Feintuck [1972] WLR552 had to decide whether to grant injunctions against a number of individuals connected with the University of Sussex Students’ Union. The students’ union had passed resolutions for payments to be made in support of certain causes, including a campaign to oppose the then Government’s policy for the ending of free milk to school pupils. A student at the university and a member of the union brought legal proceedings against the students’ union officers and a member of staff at the university on the basis that such payments would be ultra vires the students’ union constitution. In granting the injunction against the President and Treasurer of the students’ union (only), the Judge noted as follows:

    “although research, discussion and debate and the reaching of a corporate conclusion on social and economic problems formed part of the educational process, the proposed payments outside of the university, formed no part of that process…and no payment for political purposes could possibly be charitable.”

    The Charity Commission updated its guidance on ‘Campaigning and political activity’ in November 2022 which it defines as follows:

    Campaigning: “awareness raising and efforts to educate or mobilise the public’s support for an issue or to influence / change public attitudes” (including activities which seek to ensure existing laws are observed).

    Political activity: “securing support for, or opposing, a change in the law or policy or decisions of central government, local government, or other public bodies, in this country or abroad”.

    The basic legal position set out in the Charity Commission’s guidance is that campaigning and political activities by charities can be legitimate and valuable provided they are undertaken only in supporting delivery of the charity’s charitable purposes. The guidance helpfully explains this more fully and the factors which the charity trustees should take into account before deciding to undertake campaigning and/or political activities. The Charity Commission noted that its experience had been that charities had been over-cautious in their approach to such matters and that they were inclined to self-censor, although it noted that it would take regulatory action if there had been misuse of charitable resources.

    Source link

  • Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74

    Court Temporarily Blocks Ban on Bargaining by Defense Department Teachers Unions – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    A district court judge has temporarily blocked a Trump administration ban on collective bargaining by two teachers unions in Department of Defense schools.

    Judge Paul Friedman issued a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed this spring by the Federal Education Association and Antilles Consolidated Education Association, which represent more than 5,500 teachers, librarians and counselors in the 161 schools under the Department of Defense Education Activity. The agency educates 67,000 children on military bases worldwide.

    The union sued the Trump administration over a March executive order that stripped collective bargaining rights from two-thirds of federal service workers. The order impacted the Departments of Justice, Defense, Veteran Affairs, Treasury, and Health and Human Services, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Federal Education Association has been negotiating teachers contracts with the Department of Defense since 1970, while the Antilles Consolidated Education Association has bargained on behalf of Puerto Rico educators since 1976, according to the lawsuit. The current collective bargaining agreements for both unions were approved in 2023 and are set to expire in summer 2028.

    But since the order was issued, the lawsuit says, the Department of Defense Education Activity has discontinued negotiations, stopped participation in grievance proceedings and prohibited union representation during educator disciplinary meetings. Members are also no longer allowed to conduct union work during the school day. Requests from educators to access a union sick leave bank with 13,000 donated hours have also been ignored, according to the suit.

    “These actions, taken together, essentially terminate the respective collective bargaining agreements and thus cause irreparable harm,” Friedman said in his decision.

    A 1978 federal statute allows collective bargaining in the civil service sector. The suit argued that while presidents have the authority to exclude an agency if its primary function involves intelligence, investigation or national security work, “Many, if not most, of the agencies and agency subdivisions swept up in the executive order’s dragnet do little to no national security work, much less do they have a primary function [of] intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative [work].”

    The agency declined to comment on ongoing legal proceedings. In a reply to the unions’ lawsuit, Trump administration attorneys said the executive order was within the law and that reversing it would be costly.

    “Rather than maintaining the status quo, it would force [the Department of Defense] to undo actions it has already taken to implement the executive order, causing significant disruption and resource expenditures,” the lawyers wrote.

    In April, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized a few exemptions for agencies related to the Air Force and Army, but not the teachers unions — despite a push from 45 lawmakers to exclude the school system.

    “Ensuring that DoDEA educators and personnel retain collective bargaining protections will ensure that DoDEA can continue to recruit and retain the best staff in support of its mission,” the congressional members wrote in a letter. “Collective bargaining safeguards the public interest, and its history in DoDEA has demonstrated better outcomes for mission readiness, and stronger connections between military-connected families and those who serve them.”

    An appeal from the Trump administration is pending. A similar lawsuit from six unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees, resulted in an injunction, but a federal appeals court reversed it in August.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link