Tag: unions

  • Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Ahead of heading out for the summer to deliver training to new students’ union officers, as well as booking trains and hotels and placing an unfeasibly large order of (unfeasibly large) post-it notes, every year we have a run at reading and analysing all of the pledges made in their election manifestos.

    Jim recalls a time when the key challenge emerging from the exercise was convincing the incoming crop that £1 a pint might need to be an occasional offer rather than a permanent price drop – a time when “student stress” was a precursor to mental health, and a time when “grants not fees” was a viable option rather than a lost era.

    A time when promises to improve the awareness of, or to extend the range of goods on offer in the campus food bank would have been unimaginable.

    Over the years, the pledges adorning the leaflets that litter the campus every spring have become less markedly less political and increasingly parochial. Oftentimes the key challenge has been to help new officers understand where their pledges meet policy – to help them locate what they want to achieve with the right committee or the appropriate PVC.

    So there’s something quite bleak about a year in which the demands are so historically comparatively modest, yet also so simultaneously ambitious given the resource constraints facing the sector they’re about to be immersed in.

    And as we dust down the exercises and update the slide decks, we’re left wondering whether the right message isn’t how to advocate for “more and better”, but instead should be picking which things shouldn’t join the growing group of aspects of the student experience that are becoming “less and worse”.

    They are not, in and of themselves, a collection of PDFs that are fully representative of the student body’s needs and aspirations. Many tell us more about a particular university’s culture and structure, or that students’ unions’s local funding settlement, than they do the realities of the contemporary student condition.

    But taken together, they tell us quite a bit about how students see their education and the aspects of it they’d like to see change. We’ve read, coded and analysed over 1,000 of them this year – from both winners and many of the losers – and our main conclusion is that the parochialism on offer belies something more than a lack of ambition or understanding of politics.

    They suggest a generation struggling to believe in possibility – one for whom the world looks like it will never get better, and where making little tweaks to help students cope is the wisest way to avoid being yet another politician whose promises will be broken. The question we’re struggling with is whether to amp up their ambitions, or temper their expectations with a dose of reality.

    Back to basics

    The first thing you notice when taking a step back from this year’s crop is that universities seem to be systematically failing to deliver fundamental aspects of the educational experience. The manifestos reveal students demanding things that ought to be standard – lecture materials uploaded in advance, breaks in long teaching sessions, consistent feedback. It’s not even about demanding extras or enhancements – it’s often about institutions not delivering the basics:

    Right now, some departments give detailed comments, while others leave students guessing…feedback should help students improve, not just justify a grade.

    Helen Slater, Education Officer, SU University of Bath

    Multi hour lectures should have a short break, make this enforced. Rebecca Schofield, Loughborough Students’ Union

    When, like us, you know what’s in the Quality Code or the B Conditions of the regulatory framework like the back of your hand, the sheer volume of pledges about improvements to simple things is dispiriting. Students shouldn’t need to campaign for things like accessible learning materials, or for the VLE to work:

    …resolving issues with timetabling. This will mean you receive your timetables earlier than 1-2 teaching weeks.

    Amrit Dhillon, University of Manchester SU

    End Deadline Clumping: Two deadlines shouldn’t fall on the same day, students perform best when they can focus on one piece of work at a time.

    Aliasgar Gandhi, Birmingham Guild, Postgraduate Officer

    What also emerges is a picture of institutions that have failed to adapt to students managing multiple responsibilities – work, commuting, caring duties – whilst trying to engage with their education. The assumption that getting into university means being ready for it, and that they’ll be able to benefit from what’s there, is coming apart:

    Have timetables that work for you! No more waiting around for lectures!

    Lily Watson, President, University of Chester

    Improve assessment timetabling by involving departments, preventing deadline clashes, and ensuring deadlines are released earlier.

    Aya Haidar, Academic Officer, York University SU

    It all suggests a generation that has lost faith in institutional competence and is demanding explicit guarantees that basic teaching and learning processes function in a way that allows them to experience them. We’re left wondering whether to explain what it is that students are entitled to – even if it seems that on the resource available, many universities are struggling to deliver it.

    Time won’t give me time

    It’s long been clear that student disengagement tends to reflect time scarcity rather than apathy. Manifestos reveal students stretched impossibly thin between work, commuting, and study, making traditional university schedules completely unworkable:

    Flexible Timetables & Online Learning: University should fit around your life, not the other way around. This isn’t just about convenience—it’s about reducing stress and creating a study environment that fits your needs, whether balancing work, personal life or study preferences.

    Forum Yadav, Education Officer, Manchester Metropolitan SU

    … implement a hybrid learning system that encourages people to come into the classroom in person, without disadvantaging those who cannot make it to lectures in person. This system would allow disabled students to keep up without putting their health at risk, and allow students to actually stay home when they’re ill… or have other commitments.

    Lyds Knowles, Diversity, Access and Participation Officer, University of Sussex

    Every set of manifestos contains pledges about scheduling that acknowledge students no longer have full-time availability for academic life. Universities persist with timetables designed for a student body that could prioritise education over economic survival:

    Concurrent lectures, especially around lunch time cause students to not be able to have lunch. We will work with Vice Deans and programme officers to sort out the timetables to make sure there is an hour free at noon for students to be able to eat.

    Baiyu Liu, President, King’s College London SU

    The grouping of deadlines, it is unfair to expect students who also have to work part time jobs to submit their deadlines all in the same week. Often leading to burnout, stress and further complications. I would like to see the deadlines spread throughout a student’s academic journey allowing them the time and freedom to explore them in full.

    Joshua Frost, President Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business

    The depth of these time management proposals reveals institutions fundamentally out of step with student reality. When students need explicit campaigns for reduced commute times, condensed timetabling, and online options, it suggests universities are designing education around institutional convenience rather than student availability:

    Timetabling that will be student-friendly

    Francis Ani. President for Student Communities, Hull SU

    Make NECs more easily accessible for students, and more confidential; you shouldn’t have to disclose personal circumstances to attain a needed extension!

    Ryan Turner, VP Postgraduate Candidate, Nottingham Trent Students’ Union

    It all represents a fundamental challenge to the traditional university model, which assumed students could treat education as their primary occupation rather than one competing demand amongst many. We’re torn between encouraging SU officers to challenge that – or whether they should find ways to help students meet the demands.

    The earn-and-learn economy

    The traditional full-time student model seems to have completely collapsed as financial necessity forces students into near full-time work alongside study. The manifestos treat work not as supplementary income but as a survival strategy that universities must actively support:

    Students are left with no option other than work excessive hours in their part time jobs to be able to afford basic necessities, having a negative impact on both their academic as well as their university experience.

    Aisha Lord, Vice President Falmouth, Falmouth and Exeter SU

    Almost all students commute to university… This can be very costly and stressful, and force students to work extra hours, which takes away from their study, and their overall energy.

    Komal Ashfaq, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Rather than treating work and education as competing demands, the manifestos demand integration – paid internships, work experience built into courses, and academic arrangements that accommodate employment. It reflects students who can’t afford to see work and study as separate:

    Lobby for part-time work experience that matches course content and enhances learning.

    Ismail Patel, Candidate for Education Officer, University of Bradford Students’ Union.

    Advocate for more internship and part-time work opportunities for postgraduate students.

    Navin Raj Ramachandran Selvaraj, Candidate for Postgraduate Students’ Officer, Oxford Brookes University.

    Their proposals go beyond simple job-finding to demand that universities take responsibility for helping students find good work that develops relevant skills. It suggests a complete rejection of the idea that student employment is peripheral to education:

    Push for More Part-Time Job Opportunities on Campus Financial stability is crucial for students, and I will advocate for more part-time roles within the university.

    Muhammad Barik Ullah, Vice President of Undergraduate Education, Westminster SU

    I will also campaign nationally for increased apprenticeship schemes that provide real-world experience beyond the lecture hall.

    Matthew Lamb, candidate for Education Officer, Lancaster University SU

    It also reflects a generation that sees no viable alternative to integrating work and education, and expects institutions to adapt accordingly rather than maintaining the fiction of full-time student focus. We can’t work out whether they should fight to reclaim the full-time student experience, or continue to try to fit too much into a tight timetable.

    The financialisation of… everything

    On that, cost-of-living concerns have invaded every aspect of university life because the student finance system has fundamentally failed to cover basic living expenses. The manifestos demand subsidised everything – meals, transport, laundry, stationery – revealing students unable to afford necessities:

    Increase the Selection and Diversify £1.50 Value Meals to ensure access to affordable, nutritious options. …Offer Free Meal Planning and Cooking Classes to help reduce grocery expenses and prevent malnutrition.

    Izzy Downer, Community Officer, SU University of Bath

    I will fight to make the university more affordable with cheaper housing and bus travel (whilst increasing frequency!)

    Lewis Wilson, Education Officer, University of Sussex

    The breadth of financial support demanded goes far beyond traditional student finance, extending to food banks, emergency funding, and discounted services. Maintenance loans are no longer functioning as intended:

    Subsidise essential supplies like period products and course materials.

    Ana Da Silva, VP Welfare & Community, Royal Holloway Students’ Union

    Lower Living Costs – Reduce food, rent, and transport expenses for students… Food on campus should be affordable for everyone. At least one cheap, healthy option should be available on every menu.

    Emma Brown, Union President, University of Southampton

    Increasing provisions of free menstrual products across campus.

    Leah Buttery, Wellbeing Officer, Lancaster University

    Students are essentially demanding that universities compensate for a broken national funding system by subsidising daily life. The manifestos treat a financial crisis as so normalised that every policy area must include cost-reduction measures.

    But with little prospect of significant relief coming from government, we’re torn between whether they should campaign into the ether for better student financial support, or find further fixes internally to provide some relief.

    Radical transparency as a default expectation

    More than ever this year, candidates are demanding real-time access to information about every aspect of institutional decision-making, reflecting a generation raised on social media expecting constant updates and complete visibility:

    I will push for minutes of all committee meetings to be published on the student portal within a week.

    Sophie Elsey, Candidate, University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

    More transparency from the university management in decision making, including budget allocations.

    Candidate, Queen’s Students’ Union

    Manifestos go far beyond traditional accountability to demand that previously private institutional processes become completely transparent. Students want detailed financial breakdowns, accessible decision-making explanations, and immediate access to information that universities have historically kept internal:

    Provide an open-access dashboard showing real-time spending on student services and capital projects.

    William Garvey, Officer Candidate, University of the Arts London Students’ Union

    Push for module leaders to share assessment marking rubrics with students in advance.

    Hasan Chowdhury, Candidate, University of Chester Students’ Union

    Traditional consultation processes and annual reports are treated as inadequate relics. Students expect real-time feedback systems, open access to committee discussions, and quarterly updates that explain exactly how decisions are made and money is spent:

    I will advocate for livestreamed town halls where university leaders take student questions unfiltered.

    Jasmine A., Candidate, Edge Hill Students’ Union

    Push to publish all course changes on a centralised, searchable hub before implementation.

    Priya Chandra, Academic Officer candidate, University of Bedfordshire Students’ Union

    That isn’t just about accountability but about fundamental assumptions around information access. Students treat transparency as a default setting rather than something institutions graciously provide when pressed:

    Introduce opt-in alerts so students are notified whenever the university makes a policy change that affects them.

    Mohamed Khaleel, Candidate for VP Academic Affairs, Cardiff Metropolitan University SU

    The depth of the transparency demands suggest a rejection of traditional institutional opacity and a belief that students have the right to understand exactly how things work rather than trusting authority figures to act appropriately. We could encourage them to demand clarity – or we could prepare them for a year during which confidential discussions are more likely to be the norm.

    Bureaucracy as liberation technology

    Rather than seeing formal processes as obstacles, students genuinely believe that better systems and structured procedures can solve problems that previous generations addressed through personal relationships or protest:

    I’ll lobby for a standardised extension policy across departments to remove ambiguity and favouritism.

    Aisha Khan, Education Candidate, Aston Students’ Union

    The manifestos systematically replace informal advocacy with process-driven representation that offers genuine agency rather than tokenistic consultation. This reflects deep scepticism about personal relationships as reliable routes to change:

    Create template emails and appeal guides for students contesting grades or procedures.

    Liana Dsouza, Candidate, Solent Students’ Union

    Mandate response times for all university emails affecting students’ academic progress.

    Zehra Al-Khatib, Candidate, University of the Highlands and Islands SA

    Students want predictable, systematic responses that don’t depend on who happens to be in charge or what mood they’re in. The proposals assume that good design can guarantee fair treatment regardless of individual personalities or relationships:

    Create an online portal where students can see the status of any ongoing issue or query.

    Lydia Spencer, VP Education Candidate, Bucks Students’ Union

    Replace paper-based mitigating circumstances with an automated and transparent digital system.

    Jayden Moore, Candidate, University of South Wales Students’ Union

    It reads like an inversion of traditional anti-bureaucratic politics, suggesting a generation that trusts systems more than individuals and sees formal processes as tools of liberation rather than oppression. But we are left wondering whether they should advocate for more human approaches – or whether they should place faith in systems that at least appear to them more consistent and fair.

    Change is inevitable (except from the vending machines)

    Not nearly as much as we’d like, we are starting to see the wide-ranging organisational change processes and restructures come through in manifestos. But while a decade or so ago we might have seen pledges to “fight the cuts”, more often than not we see candidates keen that students are at least kept in the loop:

    One of the biggest frustrations students have is feeling like decisions are made about them, not with them. Whether it’s changes to course structures, university policies, finance or support services, students often feel out of the loop or unsure about where to raise concerns. I want to push for better transparency between students and the university, ensuring that major decisions are clearly communicated and that student voices are involved from the start.

    Humphrey Kasale, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    “The University and its partner colleges have embarked on a process to explore new operating models including merging into a single institution to help save money and make the institution more sustainable…I will push for any savings to be made through greater efficiencies from the university and colleges working closer together on back office functions and not at the cost of the frontline student experience.

    Xander McDade, Students’ Association President, UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands)

    In some cases manifesto sets seem oblivious to announced redundancy rounds or major change projects that are bound to dominate their year. In others, students see problems coming that others may have missed:

    I hope to ensure that grading and marking stay consistent with the merging of departments soon so continuing students don’t get marked down for writing essays in a specific way they’re used to when taking modules outside of their departmental subject that have different essay structures.

    Noor Abbass, candidate for Education Officer, Goldsmiths

    Ensure smooth transition during departmental mergers

    Jeevana Sandhya, Education Officer candidate, University of Leicester

    Again, we are puzzled. Should we explain just how tough the year looks set to be across many of the universities we’ll be visiting, or keep them focussed on the aspects of the experience they’d like to see improved?

    Power as something you practise

    One thing that is a constant from previous years, and very much reflects the Gen-Z preference for horizontal support, is plenty of pledges on peer support – on everything from wellbeing to study skills:

    I pledge to create an anonymized essay-bank showcasing past student work to illustrate degree classifications, helping students understand grading standards and academic expectations.

    Gina Tindale, Academic Officer, Newcastle University

    Expand Buddy Schemes and Pastoral Support for undergraduates and postgraduates.

    Joshie Christian, Vice President Education, University of Southampton

    I will launch a mentorship programme for new volunteers to gain a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of student media and its dynamics.

    Libby Griffiths, Student Media Officer, Newcastle University

    Even on this one, we can’t work out what to do. Explain how hard it’s getting to find and support student volunteers to deliver the student experience for each other, or encourage them to explore the sorts of schemes we see on the continent that offer academic credit,a payment (or both) – building students’ skills in the process?

    Climb every mountain higher

    In most universities every summer, there’s a careful little dance being played between new SU officers and the senior managers they most often meet with.

    On the SU side, pledges get converted into exploratory conversations to test the appetite for change in the year ahead. On the university side, managers will be sussing out the leaders that students have picked – are these ones who we can work with, or ones that need to be disabused of their assumptions and ambitions?

    Having discussed the choices at length, for what it’s worth, we’ll be doing what we always do – not making assumptions or carefully manipulating them towards particular actions, but laying out what’s going on and why so they can make those choices for themselves. After all, they are almost always perfectly able to.

    But as well as our usual advice to listen and be curious about the underpinning experiences that lead to their policy ideas, we do have one additional bit of advice this year.

    The “sunshine indoors” decade of promises to provide pretty much everything to do with the student experience reflects what universities have been doing too. It might have made sense when there was money around to invest – but it’s now not only proving impossible to deliver, it obscures the role that other areas of government should be playing in the student experience.

    Whether it’s the business department’s dismal failure to think about students at work, the absence of the recognition between health and successful study for health ministers, or (in England and Scotland) housing legislation seeming to be silent on struggles students face, it does feel like we’re close to the end of what universities can do to improve things – with untapped potential for the rest of the public realm to step up to support students.

    Student leaders and university managers may well come from different worlds, and may well need to respectively deepen their understanding of those worlds – but whether working in close partnership or public opposition, they ought to be able to agree to explore together how and why we got here – and the sorts of external lobbying and campaigning that can get us somewhere else.

    It’s almost certainly external to the university where the real possibilities can be found – and feels like students advocating for students while universities advocate for universities is a separation that should come to at least a temporary end.

    Source link

  • 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