Over the past few years, graduate workers at Stanford — and at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Chicago, Yale University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Southern California and beyond — have organized in overwhelming numbers to form unions.
As we celebrate presenting our economic platform to Stanford, it’s imperative to remember the issues Stanford has been quietly refusing to address for months. A union contract is not just about wages and benefits; our contract establishes a host of protections — now in place at many of our peer universities — that can truly shift the balance of power for graduate workers across Stanford in our favor. A strong union contract is the most effective way that we can stand up for and support each other. Any one of us individually can face harassment, discrimination, abuse of authority, delayed information from the Bechtel International Center, dangerous working conditions or late pay. Having a strong union with the resources to enforce our contract will empower us to act collectively to force our employer to address these issues and protect each other.
Building a powerful union that can enforce our contract is going to take all of us, united together in a union shop.
Union shop is a system where all workers contribute financially to ensure that our union has the resources to organize, enforce and improve upon the gains we all win together. It is a critical foundation for a strong contract. Labor law mandates that the union represent all bargaining unit members whenever they face issues on the job — both those who become union members and those who do not. However, when issues invariably arise, it is easy to dismiss the concerns of union members when “members” include only a small portion of the employee group. It is exactly on this premise that right-to-work states have successfully been reducing the strengths of labor unions in their states.
If Stanford were to have their way, we would have an open shop in which graduate workers are not automatically in the union. Instead, we would have to solicit them to join, creating a significant drain on the time and finances of the existing union members. At the same time, our union organizers would have to spend countless hours away from their own work bringing in new members every quarter, which would increase burnout. Non-members would pay nothing at all, despite receiving all of the benefits and protections of a dues-paying member, significantly reducing the resources the union has to enforce its contract. By contrast, we propose a union shop system that includes everyone, with provisions to include an opt-out system. Under an agency shop (one version of union shop), those who choose to not join the union still pay the costs associated with representing them. Plus, resources can be devoted to contract enforcement, rather than recruitment. Agency shop is the current standard in recent union contracts at MIT, UChicago, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins, with a dues rate set in the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (Stanford Graduate Workers Union’s parent union) national constitution at 1.44% of stipends.
Union dues build the financial stability needed to effectively enforce our contract, and how they are collected is vitally important to ensure things like arbitration fees are covered when a labor violation occurs. The simple fact is, as an institution grows, we leave behind the realm of “if a problem happens” and enter “when a problem happens.” Thus we now ought to choose between ensuring ample resources or gambling against the future. No dues are taken until we have won a contract (which will contain a raise significantly higher than the percentage of dues), and dues money goes to building the infrastructure of our local union here at Stanford.
Stanford has deep pockets and can spend significantly more on legal fights against our grievances than our union can. For cases where the union needs to pursue a grievance all the way to independent, third-party arbitration, we will need to have our own resources to get anywhere near an even playing field to defend our workers’ rights. These resources are needed to protect graduate workers directly, such as through a strike hardship fund. For this reason, union shop can sometimes more accurately be called union security.
When institutions like Stanford (or other large scale, anti-union employers like Mercedes, Amazon, Alphabet and more) do their best to weaken union organizing, they are not doing so only for financial reasons. Strong unions challenge the employer’s monopoly on power. Employers want to be able to make profitable choices without considering the needs of the person creating the profit. Employers know this very well and, in an attempt to weaken unions, have pushed so-called “right-to-work” legislation that denies union shop security in all workplaces. In other words, the modern union-busting strategy is a long game: weaken and divide.
The arguments against union security are often framed as a “freedom of choice,” that each worker should have the freedom to choose whether they are members of the union. The reality is that unions without union security consistently win lower wages and fewer benefits than those that have a strong union security clause in their contract.
This is why all of the existing contracted unions on campus — including the unions for education workers, nurses and public safety officers — all have a union shop clause in their contracts. Furthermore, other graduate workers’ unions also provide clear examples of why union shop is so important. Harvard University and Brown University’s graduate workers have both negotiated their second contracts. At Harvard, graduate workers just received a 3% raise July 1st, following 5%, 4%, and then 3% raises in the last three years respectively. At Brown, graduate students will soon receive a 7.75% raise, followed by a 7.25% and 6.5% raise in the following years. How can we explain the disparity in pay raise? Harvard didn’t have a union security clause in their first contract, and Brown did.
“Freedom of choice” and “right to work” arguments rely on fear, but the data shows that all of us will be better off standing up together. With all workers paying union dues, everyone ends up with more money in their paycheck than without a union shop provision. As a private institution in California, we are lucky as workers that we have the legal right to a union shop. We need to make sure it is included in our contract so we can secure wins, both now and in the years to come.
Union shop also maintains equality within the bargaining unit. Every union member will have the right to run for union office, serve as a department steward, attend union meetings and vote in union elections. In short, everyone will be able to equally and fairly participate in the practices and priorities of our union.
If, on the other hand, we were to adopt an open shop, all that unity breaks down. Suddenly, the graduate worker body is divided into members who vote on a contract and non-members who are bound by that contract, despite not considering themselves a part of it. Suddenly, our union has to have annual or even quarterly membership drives.
Union shop allows us to focus on enforcing our contract, building power and making gains for future contracts and future graduate students instead of constantly running membership drives. Union shop allows us to build on our wins with each new contract instead of having to fight to maintain what we have already won. All workers are bound by the rights and benefits that come from the union contract — all workers should also have a democratic voice in how that contract is negotiated and enforced.
Our immediate goal is to secure a strong contract. We know from the experience of other unions that a contract without union security won’t be strong enough to meet the needs of all graduate workers. We cannot lose sight of the importance of building a strong and lasting union in which all workers are united. Standing together gives us the power to successfully negotiate to improve our working and living conditions and our ability to hold Stanford accountable to all graduate workers.
Bargaining up till now has taught us that the only thing Stanford responds to is visible outside pressure. They don’t want to be embarrassed, and they know they can’t refuse us if we stand together. So please make your voice known, and your opinion shown. Attend SGWU events, get involved in the union shop campaign, talk to your coworkers about union shop, put union shop posters in your labs and offices, and share social media posts. We need to show Stanford that silence is not a viable tactic, and that we are willing to stand up for a strong union.
We fought to win our union because we know it’s the most effective vehicle to address our needs. Now we need to ensure that our union remains strong for years and decades to come.
Emma Cuddy is a third-year Ph.D. candidate in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) and the SGWU Bargaining Committee Representative for MSE. Nora Enright is a fifth-year Ph.D. candidate in Bioengineering and SGWU Bargaining Committee Representative for Biosciences. Kamila Thompson is a second-year Ph.D. candidate in Electrical Engineering (EE) and SGWU Bargaining Committee Representative for EE.