So-called reformers commit the mistakes they claim to oppose: bargaining concessionary contracts, decreasing membership participation, and diminishing transparency. False and misleading statements make union "reformers" unworthy of emulating.
As a long-time activist in my union (UAW 2865—representing over 13,000 University California student workers), I’ve experienced the damage done by the caucus called AWDU (Academic Workers for a Democratic Union) during their years-long effort to take and maintain power. Crusading as a “reform” movement to democratize our (already democratic) union and engage our (already active) rank-and-file membership, they’ve weakened our union and created the most precipitous drop in rank-and-file membership participation in our history. A recent Labor Notes article by AWDU leader, Katy Fox-Hodess (“California Grad Employee Contract Shows Reform Works”) makes audacious claims about their recent contract campaign, implying AWDU is worthy of emulation by others in the labor movement. As a member of our union’s bargaining committee I cannot stay silent in the face of these claims, which range from dubious to false.
Under AWDU, rank-and-file activism declined, members lost wages and benefits, and our future bargaining power eroded. AWDU hid concessions from members and unduly took credit for victories, achieving a lack of transparency far worse than what they once claimed to fight. Please heed my call: AWDU is not a model worth emulating in your union.
Waning Membership Participation under AWDU
AWDU claims to inspire the rank-and-file, but neglect to mention that they haven’t even built consensus over joining and participating in the union. Under AWDU’s leadership, our union’s membership dropped to an historic low—44%—by the end of the 2013-14 school year. Since reaching majority in 2002, membership had never dipped back below this threshold. Under AWDU’s leadership, most of the rank-and-file sat out the 2013/14 contract campaign:
■ Only about 9% of 13,000 student workers voted to ratify initial bargaining goals, and 8% voted to ratify the contract;
■ Only about 17% voted to authorize the union to call a strike; and
■ Only a few hundred (5-10%) participated in the strike 4/2-3/14.
This was a new low for our union. Prior to AWDU’s leadership, in the 2007 contract campaign, over 6,500 (54% of student workers) signed a public pledge to strike that October if the University didn’t stop unfair labor practices. In 2010 more than 67% of members participated in the contract campaign, including: planning an unfair labor practice strike, mobilizing to defend public education, attending bargaining sessions, and signing on to a “report card” evaluating UC’s misplaced priorities. These previous contract campaigns resulted in real gains for all student workers. This year’s campaign resulted in concessions.
What We Lost Under AWDU
Fox-Hodess claims AWDU won “social justice” issues without having to trade “bread and butter” issues in this year’s contract. They won neither. Without strong rank-and-file involvement we took concessions, both in the pocketbook and (more importantly) in our ability to mobilize effectively in the future.
1. Leaving Money on the Table
Some readers may not know that California increased its allocation to UC by a whopping 20% during the year we bargained (2013-14). But the AWDU-led committee decided our members could afford a pay freeze, letting our contract expire as a tactical experiment. Previously, the only times 2865 bargaining committees agreed to one-year pay freezes were 2002-03 and 2009-10, years when state funding was cut (-6.46% and -18.89%, respectively). AWDU botched taking advantage of increasing State funds, leaving TAs to absorb $950-$1,850 in lost wages and/or child care subsidies. Previous bargaining committees (2003 and 2010) bargained retroactive compensation when contracts expired.
2. Weakening our Right to Strike
AWDU, who claims to put it all on the line for rank-and-file militancy, has weakened our future strike threat, quietly changing our contract expiration from September 30 (the beginning of the academic year, when 2865 members have the most power to strike) to June 30 (when few members work).
3. Keeping Rank-and-File Away from the Table
AWDU also conceded to UC’s demand for a 4-year contract, the longest in our union’s history. As a union of workers with higher-than-average turnover, we had always avoided long contracts so that each cohort of members could collectively decide and bargain its own priorities. AWDU sacrificed members’ right of self-determination for four years.
4. The Gag Order
AWDU preempted full membership debate over the proposed contract by conceding to UC’s demand that the union “unconditionally recommend ratification” of the contract. In 15 years of bargaining, no other 2865 committee agreed to such a limitation on free speech. Members were deprived of learning both the pros and cons of the new contract during ratification.
Misleading Contract Highlights
AWDU’s gag order was coupled with misleading contract summaries that omitted the above concessions, misrepresented certain changes as victories, and took undue credit for some improvements.
Class Size
AWDU claimed victory on class size, but the words “class size” appear nowhere in the newly-bargained provisions (so there appears to be no contractually-guaranteed mechanism with which to improve class size), and they only won the right to a commit-tee that lacks any real power. In previous contracts (2007 and before), we won far greater class-size advances.
False Credit for Campus-Life Improvements
We all agree that increasing campus inclusivity was a win, but we don’t all agree that AWDU deserves all the credit. Before bargaining, UC had begun improving access to all-gender restrooms, lactation facilities, expanding leaves and child care subsidies. While articulating these rights in a contract with a powerful enforcement mechanism was useful, this would not have happened without the coincidence of pre-existing UC initiatives and California law. A competent leadership group would have won these provisions without making the above concessions.
Appropriation of Improvements for Undocumented Students
AWDU’s claim that they expanded undocumented students’ rights is opportunistic; AWDU nearly relinquished this demand weeks before concluding negotiations. A March 18th email from an AWDU executive board member discussed letting down members of the undocumented community carefully so they wouldn’t feel “thrown under the bus” when AWDU conceded. Fortunately, undocumented student rights improved in the contract, despite AWDU’s willingness to concede to UC.
AWDU Claims False Credit for Passing Prop 30
Fox-Hodess claims, “through a ballot initiative [Prop 30], we [AWDU] also partially restored state funding of higher education.” While mobilization by California labor and progressive movements helped pass Proposition 30, and increased the State funding to UC, AWDU refused to endorse Proposition 30, because they deemed it too “regressive." AWDU’s revisionism regarding their (non-)role in passing Prop 30 further demonstrates how they try to conceal their shortcomings with distortions of facts.
Conclusion
The highest ideals of social movement unionism require us to tell the truth in the face of deceptive leadership. AWDU’s leader-ship has alienated most members, not empowered them.
I hope that by telling the truth we can recover the tradition that led previous members in my union to organize tens of thousands of workers and bargain real gains. Members on my campus, UC Riverside, have already begun by reaching out to all student workers, not just those that agree with us. And our movement is growing. We encourage others to join us.