Some of Stanford’s resident assistants (RAs) have spent the past year organizing to address what has been described as understaffing, low pay and a lack of communication with administration. After investing considerable time and energy, their proposed solution is a union. I have had nothing but fantastic experiences with hardworking RAs in my time at Stanford. I am in favor of fair wages and robust support for the work that they do.
However, the issues raised publicly by Resident Assistants United Rising (RAUR) have failed to convince me that unionization would address their concerns.
Most importantly, it’s not obvious what their strategy with unionization actually is.
Recently, RAUR made the politically savvy move of withdrawing their National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) petition to avoid a scenario where student worker labor rights are overturned nationwide. However, as they mention in their statement, RAUR is still seeking union recognition. Regardless of whether they pursue voluntary recognition by the University or a union election at a future date, RAUR needs a clearer list of goals and stronger internal relationships. It is precisely because RAUR lacks a coherent set of demands or a clear strategy that I argue the University is right to be apprehensive of potential labor strife. Likewise, this lack of strategy indicates that RAUR is simply not ready to negotiate a contract that will be a net benefit to their members.
Early RA concerns last year centered around alleged understaffing of certain residences and the increased workload that fell upon some of them. Appropriate staffing levels and workloads are a key component of fair employment standards. However, rather than clearly outlining this as part of their platform, RAUR fails to quantify appropriate staffing levels at all. Understaffing is a relative term: one of the houses cited last year as being understaffed still had the same number of RAs as the frosh dorm I was in, with well under half the number of residents.
The current RA compensation of $12,400 has also been framed as an equity issue for first-generation and low-income (FLI) students because it does not fully cover room and board. This is in spite of the fact that RA pay is treated as a financial aid stipend; low-income students serving as RAs already have their room and board covered via financial aid. Stanford’s official financial aid guidance on RA stipends notes that the payment received does not “impact eligibility for institutional scholarship funds.” Viewed this way, Stanford’s RA compensation level and method are consistent with the University’s commitment to need-based financial aid.
A key aspect missing from the discussion on RA pay is that bringing this pay in line with the cost of room and board – $22,944 for the current academic year – for the roughly 450 RAs would cost an additional $5 million. While that may seem like a drop in the bucket, the reality is that university budgeting processes are incredibly complex and essentially every dollar is spoken for. In a constrained budgetary environment (primarily due to the Trump administration’s increased endowment tax), justifying new spending becomes even more difficult. Is RAUR prepared to make a detailed and thorough argument on where new funding might shift from?
Underpinning many RA complaints is the perceived lack of communication with administration. While it is true that unionization and collective bargaining enhance leverage during the contract negotiation process, it’s possible that day-to-day communication between RAs, resident fellows (RFs) and other supervisors could become more bureaucratic, not less. RAs at Georgetown won formal grievance channels in their union contract, but previously informal communication channels and flexible job duties were rigidly defined and enforced. How does RAUR aim to add formal grievance processes while keeping any current supervisory structures they may prefer to rigid alternatives?
Resolutions to these publicly voiced demands don’t even make strategic sense when put with one another and with the RAs’ mission at Stanford.
If the union wants a reduced workload and well-scoped job responsibilities for RAs, that limits their ability to be peer mentors and look out for the safety of their residents, one of the RAs’ core missions. Clarified and codified job responsibilities also empirically allowed administrators at Brown to concede minimal pay increases in their RAs’ first union contract last year.
If the union’s focus is on higher pay, constrained budgets might limit ResEd’s ability to hire the same number of RAs, thereby increasing workload.
If RAUR ultimately wants RAs to be employees rather than student mentors, that pay may no longer be a portion of financial aid and instead become taxable income. This would only reduce take-home compensation gains and harm FLI students who want to step into RA roles.
These examples make it clear just how many factors are at play on an issue which RAUR has painted as black and white. For decision-making within any complex organization, there will often be factors held in tension with one another. Demonstrating an understanding of this reality is key: to avoid another challenge, the path toward union recognition involves showing Residential Education (ResEd) that the union will be a reasonable and mutually beneficial partner in managing the working relationship between RAs and the University.
Conceding that administrators must contend with a myriad of factors and articulating an achievable and clear vision for the future of being an RA is what matters most for RAUR to get a seat at the negotiating table – and the evidence suggests that they simply have yet to outline this vision.
At a minimum, the pragmatic political reality of the situation means that de-escalating public rhetoric is the only real pathway to productive unionization. If RAUR is serious about developing a coherent plan and advancing RA interests rather than simply antagonizing the University, everyone involved, including ResEd, needs to find a way to save face.
In my time here as a student, I’ve yet to speak with an administrator who wasn’t happy to share their perspective and discuss issues when approached with a genuine willingness to learn and exchange ideas. In the short term, Stanford’s RAs would be better served by seeking out targeted, collaborative solutions to the specific issues that they feel are the most impactful. Maybe that’s creating new peer or mental health support systems for RAs. Maybe that’s exploring ways that staffing can be best allocated in the future to spread out workloads. It likely does involve pushing for more pay.
None of this would preclude Stanford’s RAs from once again making a concerted union push once they articulate a clear set of goals. But right now, even after abandoning the NLRB petition, our RAs are in no serious position to unionize.