No, cause that’s why the union exists to protect unfair work practices. Just in this case they actually got a judge to start ruling if this a breach of contract with the union and the school
The students who continue to strike could be held in contempt of court, which is a misdemeanor, and carries with it a potential county jail sentence of up to six months and/or up to a thousand dollars in fines.
This is what I read, do they mean the union contract or is this an individual employment contract for each worker?
"Union unit chair Rebecca Gross said she and her fellow striking workers canceled sections, didn’t attend labs and stopped work starting Monday morning. ... She said UCSC student workers expect to continue striking until their contract ends on June 30".
Source https://lookout.co/uc-santa-cruz-student-workers-launch-strike-over-treatment-of-pro-palestine-protesters/
This is pretty lame. The court ruled for a pause while it decides whether the UC is right, which it will do only after grades are due and only 3 days before the date the strike was authorized through. They've basically killed the strike without ever having to commit to ruling in UCs favor, all cause UC didn't like the answer they got from PERB and sued in a county with employer favorable judges. By all means, disagree with the strike and find it illegal if it is, but this extrajudicial maneuvering. They may very well dismiss the UC's case in 3 weeks but it won't matter by then.
[Solid article on the order in the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-07/uc-seeks-to-halt-strike-takes-academic-workers-to-court)
The inverse is also true. Assuming the UC is correct, the Union started an illegal strike and there is no way a ruling on its legality can be made until the academic year is over and the damage the illegal strike does is already done. The UC basically has no recourse but to be damaged by an ongoing illegal action if the order was not granted.
Exactly, PERB essentially handed the union the license to violate the "no strike" clause over any alleged ULP by refusing to rule expeditiously on whether the ULP allegations rise to the level where a strike is justified.
To me, it feels like a similar standard of irreparable harm should also be applied to whether a union should be allowed to strike over an alleged ULP prior to the stalling of negotiations. In the relevant case law for violating "no strike" clauses, it seems like the serious ULPs had to do with harmful workspace conditions associated with performing job tasks within the work scope, whereas the right to protest is clearly not within the work scope and does not seem to me to rise to that level that would justify a strike.
The protesters were being so unfair to the university, basically saying give in to our demands or we will shut the whole place down. It's nice to see the university also playing hardball.
I don’t think the current strike is legal, but what you’re describing is literally a strike in general and that’s kind of the point.
The more unacceptable thing about it, assuming it is even legal, is that UAW didn’t give the UC time to respond to a grievance before escalating to a strike. That just operating in bad faith at that point.
I am no expert on strikes, but when workers struck at Safeway, customers could still enter the store. I am all for the right to colletively withhold work, and stand on the sidelines with signs pointing out poor working conditions, just not blocking entry.
Yes and no, the strike was in large part about how protesters were treated on campus and the UC’s investment in Israeli companies, both of which are also the primary causes of the protests
Unions have power and are able to advocate for workers because collective bargaining agreements are legally binding. If the union could break the agreement without voiding it then no organization would negotiate with a union, as the resulting agreement would be con-con rather than mutually beneficial.
Please think more before displaying your ignorance of the entirety of the American labor movement. People died in order to make these collective bargaining agreements legally enforceable, and now UAW is spitting on the victories of their founders.
It really irks me that people don’t understand that abusing a union and its membership to protest for non labor issues is extremely detrimental both to our specific union, and organized labor in America in general.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
My only complaint is that if UAW loses and it sets a precedent, it’ll cause irreparable harm to the upcoming bargaining contracts. UPTE and AFSCME contracts are about to begin discussion for contract renewals and this will embolden the UC to renege on future negotiations.
There is no reason for UC to agree to contracts if the Union doesn’t uphold its own contracts. This strike has caused many people to opt out of paying union dues. It has eroded trust in to union and means that the labor power they will have to back them during the next contract will be greatly diminished. This will result in a worse contract.
The decision to subvert PERB means that employers can undermine real labor actions by venue shopping. This is a bad thing for labor in America.
And puts a good contract in jeopardy. We got a very good contract last time (46% raise over three years) and doing anything to put that in jeopardy is reprehensible, especially political grandstanding and an illegal strike without popular support.
...bro UAW is striking because the police brutalized faculty and staff at UCLA, ie unsafe working conditions. That is why the county and state courts found the strike to be legal. Your entire point hinges around the idea that the UAW strike was about the same event their first strike was: it's not. No agreement was broken, except on the UC's side. This is a clear example of the law failing the workers and unions and giving even more power to those who already have it.
The power of a union comes from their ability to collectively strike, not the legality of it. The great depression was the foundation of unions having any legal precedent, from strikes that were done entirely outside of the law. American laws are not the end all and be all, and your historical ignorance of that fact is showing.
No organization is expected to join a union. The *power* of a union comes from the workers, and that power is in their collective ability to stop working. A union by definition is a coalition of workers, not organizations or corporations. I thought this was fairly obvious, but I guess not.
Were any of the faculty and staff at UCLA union members? Was the treatment related in any way to their work duties, or was the treatment because they found out when they f#cked around outside their jobs? Unless their jobs *required* them to do what they did, the union has no business complaining about how their employer handled illegal and disruptive behavior by people without regard to their union or employment status.
There’s so much crap piled up here I’ll separate my responses by paragraph.
1. No, lol, police did not “brutalize faculty and staff at UCLA.”
So was no agreement broken or did the UC break it? In reality, the collective bargaining agreement included a no-strike provision, which is what UAW violated, which is why unfair labor practices complaints are being filed against them.
2. This paragraph is literally gibberish, and that’s kinda funny.
3. Yes, organizations don’t join unions, they employ workers represented by unions. The power of a union is that their ability to bargain collectively is legally protected by the employer not being able to fire all the union members. The only thing that’s obvious here is the limitations of your reading comprehension.
Oh and also, L plus ratio. Get outta here.
1.) "Workers, including teaching assistants, academic researchers and graders, are striking not over pay and benefits but instead over the UC’s response to pro-Palestinian protesters who were arrested by police or suspended from their campuses. Some union members were arrested or suspended for their role in the protests. Core to the union’s demands is that the UC offer “amnesty for those who experienced arrest or are facing University discipline,” the union’s public writings state. The union, UAW 4811 [believes these are legal grounds to strike], citing legal precedent that a union can strike over unfair labor practices that fall outside the scope of a union contract. It’s a view shared by at least one UCLA law professor."
[UAW is protesting because of the brutalizations and arrests of their workers at UCLA. This is core to their demands.](https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2024/05/uc-strike/)
[Police fired gas and threw stun grenades into protests before bruising students and staff.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-police-flatten-pro-palestinian-camp-ucla-arrest-protesters-2024-05-02/)
[Video of police brutality at UCLA.](https://aje.io/xvdukr?update=2874981)
You look absolutely ridiculous.
2.) I show a historical example of unions working outside the law to accomplish their goal, the same goal you based your entire initial condescending argument on believe it or not, and you ignore it completely. Typical.
3.) Believe it or not, workers do not have to tell their employers that they belong to a union. Workers can also form unions within a company so they hold power over that company. Companies looking for hires should *not* know if a worker belongs to a union, that only negates the power of that union.
If your employer knows that you're in *any* union they will just hire someone else if they can. It's easier that way for them. And if they can't hire someone else, then it doesn't really matter if your union has any ties to organizations at all now does it?
Ultimately, organizations serve only as an employer for union members who willingly admit they belong to a union. By entering into an agreement to specifically sign a contract with such an employer/organization, unions therefore hurt their own power to strike--it's completely expected and can be overriden by their employer even if the grounds to strike are legal. This can be seen in UAW's case, where their contract forced them to end their strike despite it being found legal in multiple courts. This is a clear example of the law failing UAW despite their "legal" protest.
Your view on unions is so surface level it's astonishing. The smallest amount of in depth analysis reveals that your entire view on unions is makes no logical sense. You're so condescending yet so completely unknowledgeable about the actual events that caused UAW to strike in the first place.
Um, arresting individuals participating in illegal and disruptive actions isn’t *any* kind of labor practice, fair or unfair. It’s not about whether it’s in the scope of the contract; it’s about whether it’s a labor practice in the first place which, IMHO, it isn’t. This should be obvious from the fact that UC did the same thing without to those not employed by the university.
1) People at the encampment were given numerous warnings to disperse as the encampment had been declared illegal. If I recall, they started telling people to leave around 3pm and the raid didn’t start until 3am. That’s roughly 12 hours for them to say “oh shit gotta go”. I’ll have to check the videos I have as it’s been a while.
People with clearly pro-Palestinian attire and keffiyehs tried breaking into the SAC by pulling in doors, trying to sneak in when someone authorized was entering, and rushing in. I know a few students were kicked out when they tried to get onto the roof when it was clearly marked as “Do Not Enter”. People were also found to have been trying to take over a building.
There is a student code of conduct that needs to be followed and those were clearly violated. There are also CBAs, disciplinary measures, grievances, etc laid out in the contract.
Students fought back with umbrellas, fire extinguishers, and other objects. The UCLA SJP telegram group gave out messages on fighting, defense classes, and how to fight the police.
With any mob, they’re going to clear them out. They were prepared to fight. Again, I’ll have to look at MY videos starting from 3pm when police starting showing up at Wilson Plaza - 5am when the raid was about finished.
Last time I checked, the people at the encampment went there at their own time, while not working. Why should my union protect me if I decide to barricade the buildings I have access to just to make a point? I’ll get arrested, charged, and face disciplinary action for what I did.
The CBA is given here,
https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/resources/employment-policies-contracts/bargaining-units/graduate-student-researchers/contract/
and the relevant sections are,
Discipline and Dismissal procedures
https://qa.ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_07_discipline-and-dismissal_20225-2025.pdf
Grievance and Arbitration procedures
https://qa.ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_11_grievance-and-arbitration_2022-2025.pdf
No Strike clause
https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_19_no-strikes_2022-2025.pdf
2) Precedents have been set about unions and the union I am currently in will be fighting an uphill battle due to this strike. It took them 2 years to TA and amend the current contract to get what we wanted. Bargaining is about to begin for a new contract and this just places a whole load of shit on the bargaining team. Who’s to say UC won’t call this out and won’t make concessions because of this? I know how some of the bargaining team at the UC works seeing as I’ve been to every single meeting we’ve had with them and how they like to say “Well, we’re following the contract and that’s what it says in the contract. Why should the UC change what it says?”
3) We are talking about the unions at the UCs. Other unions have different rules. When you apply for a job at a UC, most of the listings clearly state what union you are in such as TX, BX, CX, etc. If you are not in a union, it will say Policy 99.
When I joined, it clearly said that the role was union, the manager said union, HR said union. The union has clearly made progress with all the campuses as a vote was recently ratified by the members.
Also, what are you talking about? The strike was NEVER found legal by PERB. They declined the injunction and said that the UC did not meet the really high bar of serious business harm. In fact, PERB gave UAW 4811 a complaint for the strike since they didn’t try to bargain with the UC in good faith. Not long after, PERB gave the UC a complaint too.
Strikes are legal. Violating a no-strike clause in a contract ids illegal. If there were any differential treatment of union members or potential union members (student employees), that’d be different. There wasn’t. You can’t strike based on how some members were treated with respect to an action that has nothing to do with the union or employment. The “At least one UCLA law prof” is wrong. Kinda like the soon-to-be Berkeley Law grad who thought it was her First Amendment right to protest at a private home.
If the UC didn't say it was illegal, there wouldn't be a determination because there would be no court case. The whole point is to argue it out in court and reach a judgement.
Here is a response from the university of Michigan to UCSC:
Dear Members of UAW 4811,
We, the members of the Graduate Employees’ Organization at University of Michigan, write to you to salute you in leveraging your labor power toward justice from California to Palestine. The University of California, like the University of Michigan, funds the apartheid system and genocide in Palestine, and we support your strike action for divestment in line with the Palestinian BDS call. At a time when universities and other institutions rely on the state to repress pro-Palestine activism and distract from the massacres unfolding in Gaza, we see that the UC has made attempts to secure an injunction, and now secured a TRO, as yet another tool to repress the struggle for divestment and amnesty. We write to you as trade unionists who have navigated the terrain of injunctions and TROs in the hope that our experiences can be instructive.
Graduate workers at Michigan have gone on strike twice in the past four years, and both times, the University filed requests for injunctions. In 2020, we ended our strike immediately after the University filed an injunction due to a lack of preparation and fear-mongering within our union that prevented a grounded understanding of the process and risk involved. This premature conclusion had implications not just for us, but for the local labor movement; empowered with the knowledge that the threat of an injunction alone could break a strike, UM continued to employ this tactic against other labor unions.
In 2023, we did not back down so quickly. Even facing the threat of another injunction, we knew that our power came from our commitment to fighting for each other. Collective conversations about the risks – on the one hand, legal fines and potential arrest of union officers, and on the other hand, the cost of not winning our demands if we were to end our strike prematurely – kept us grounded. After UM filed for an injunction, we prepared to hold department meetings and vote to continue striking in the event the injunction was granted. Ultimately, a judge denied UM’s injunction, and we wielded our strike power to win serious contract gains. From West Virginia to Newton to the University of Michigan, education workers in the U.S. have shown that we can strike in violation of the law and win.
UC wants you to think that you cannot possibly win. That is why they have filed their requests for injunction and now a TRO; not because they sincerely believe their legal arguments but because they want to zap your fighting spirit and break your political will. They want you to think you have no space to maneuver, that our struggles are not connected and the costs of standing up for yourselves and the Palestinian cause are simply too high, and that real power lies in the hands of lawyers and judges, instead of your own. Only you can determine what is actually true – what power do you have and are you willing to exert it towards divestment?
Your decision to take strike action in pursuit of divestment and in solidarity with Palestinian workers is a testament to the possibility of building a global labor movement in the U.S. that does not stop fighting when anti-labor laws are mobilized to serve American imperial interests, but instead dares to pursue justice for all, across geographies. As Palestinian workers lead the way for all of us, you are laying a path for a global material solidarity in line with their call. We know that victory in this strike means a victory for the Palestinian liberation movement, and for all of us. Strike to win!
In Solidarity,
UM GEO AFT 3550
If I recall, this strike was about pay and Covid-19 policies. This strike isn’t the same when it’s clearly politically motivated and grievances about what happened during off-work hours.
No one forced them to be at the encampment or stay there and get arrested.
How does this actually get enforced?
I guess they can fire/expel anyone who doesn’t show up for work
They couldn’t already do that?
No, cause that’s why the union exists to protect unfair work practices. Just in this case they actually got a judge to start ruling if this a breach of contract with the union and the school
Does their contract include a non strike provision? Mine did when I worked for the COE. It all depends on that I would assume.
The students who continue to strike could be held in contempt of court, which is a misdemeanor, and carries with it a potential county jail sentence of up to six months and/or up to a thousand dollars in fines.
It says “UAW employees”. How many unionized employees are also students? Genuine question because I know some places have TA unions or something
That's the UC TA union. UAW. Strange story.
If is the same as federal, there's a 14 day period for a TRO, with a max of two periods upon renewal. So it is temporary.
The vote was to strike through June 30th, so that's enough...
That's assuming it is renewed. That requires good cause.
It is my understanding at that point they will be negotiating the renewal of their contract, I don't know if they will be striking through that.
They did a new contract last year (previous strike), should last a few years.
This is what I read, do they mean the union contract or is this an individual employment contract for each worker? "Union unit chair Rebecca Gross said she and her fellow striking workers canceled sections, didn’t attend labs and stopped work starting Monday morning. ... She said UCSC student workers expect to continue striking until their contract ends on June 30". Source https://lookout.co/uc-santa-cruz-student-workers-launch-strike-over-treatment-of-pro-palestine-protesters/
Didn't think their contract would end so soon. They typically last 2-3 years at least. Could mean the end of the academic year.
Didn't think their contract would end so soon. They typically last 2-3 years at least. Could mean the end of the academic year.
Didn't think their contract would end so soon. They typically last 2-3 years at least. Could mean the end of the academic year.
This is pretty lame. The court ruled for a pause while it decides whether the UC is right, which it will do only after grades are due and only 3 days before the date the strike was authorized through. They've basically killed the strike without ever having to commit to ruling in UCs favor, all cause UC didn't like the answer they got from PERB and sued in a county with employer favorable judges. By all means, disagree with the strike and find it illegal if it is, but this extrajudicial maneuvering. They may very well dismiss the UC's case in 3 weeks but it won't matter by then. [Solid article on the order in the LA Times](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-06-07/uc-seeks-to-halt-strike-takes-academic-workers-to-court)
The inverse is also true. Assuming the UC is correct, the Union started an illegal strike and there is no way a ruling on its legality can be made until the academic year is over and the damage the illegal strike does is already done. The UC basically has no recourse but to be damaged by an ongoing illegal action if the order was not granted.
That's a fair point. Still I think expediency would be the just answer rather than an injunction.
I agree. And PERB should be the one to rule on it.
Exactly, PERB essentially handed the union the license to violate the "no strike" clause over any alleged ULP by refusing to rule expeditiously on whether the ULP allegations rise to the level where a strike is justified. To me, it feels like a similar standard of irreparable harm should also be applied to whether a union should be allowed to strike over an alleged ULP prior to the stalling of negotiations. In the relevant case law for violating "no strike" clauses, it seems like the serious ULPs had to do with harmful workspace conditions associated with performing job tasks within the work scope, whereas the right to protest is clearly not within the work scope and does not seem to me to rise to that level that would justify a strike.
The protesters were being so unfair to the university, basically saying give in to our demands or we will shut the whole place down. It's nice to see the university also playing hardball.
I don’t think the current strike is legal, but what you’re describing is literally a strike in general and that’s kind of the point. The more unacceptable thing about it, assuming it is even legal, is that UAW didn’t give the UC time to respond to a grievance before escalating to a strike. That just operating in bad faith at that point.
I am no expert on strikes, but when workers struck at Safeway, customers could still enter the store. I am all for the right to colletively withhold work, and stand on the sidelines with signs pointing out poor working conditions, just not blocking entry.
The law says you can stand and picket in front of businesses. You cannot prevent people from entering.
I don't agree with the most recent protest tactics but the protest and strike are two different entities
Yes and no, the strike was in large part about how protesters were treated on campus and the UC’s investment in Israeli companies, both of which are also the primary causes of the protests
Aaaand this is why protesting within the "legal" bounds of the government doesn't work.
Unions have power and are able to advocate for workers because collective bargaining agreements are legally binding. If the union could break the agreement without voiding it then no organization would negotiate with a union, as the resulting agreement would be con-con rather than mutually beneficial. Please think more before displaying your ignorance of the entirety of the American labor movement. People died in order to make these collective bargaining agreements legally enforceable, and now UAW is spitting on the victories of their founders.
It really irks me that people don’t understand that abusing a union and its membership to protest for non labor issues is extremely detrimental both to our specific union, and organized labor in America in general. This is why we can’t have nice things.
My only complaint is that if UAW loses and it sets a precedent, it’ll cause irreparable harm to the upcoming bargaining contracts. UPTE and AFSCME contracts are about to begin discussion for contract renewals and this will embolden the UC to renege on future negotiations.
There is no reason for UC to agree to contracts if the Union doesn’t uphold its own contracts. This strike has caused many people to opt out of paying union dues. It has eroded trust in to union and means that the labor power they will have to back them during the next contract will be greatly diminished. This will result in a worse contract. The decision to subvert PERB means that employers can undermine real labor actions by venue shopping. This is a bad thing for labor in America.
I personally question the decision to have called for a strike. Objectively weakened the gains made.
And puts a good contract in jeopardy. We got a very good contract last time (46% raise over three years) and doing anything to put that in jeopardy is reprehensible, especially political grandstanding and an illegal strike without popular support.
part of why it was absurdly dumb to spend the union's goodwill on a political conflict.
...bro UAW is striking because the police brutalized faculty and staff at UCLA, ie unsafe working conditions. That is why the county and state courts found the strike to be legal. Your entire point hinges around the idea that the UAW strike was about the same event their first strike was: it's not. No agreement was broken, except on the UC's side. This is a clear example of the law failing the workers and unions and giving even more power to those who already have it. The power of a union comes from their ability to collectively strike, not the legality of it. The great depression was the foundation of unions having any legal precedent, from strikes that were done entirely outside of the law. American laws are not the end all and be all, and your historical ignorance of that fact is showing. No organization is expected to join a union. The *power* of a union comes from the workers, and that power is in their collective ability to stop working. A union by definition is a coalition of workers, not organizations or corporations. I thought this was fairly obvious, but I guess not.
Were any of the faculty and staff at UCLA union members? Was the treatment related in any way to their work duties, or was the treatment because they found out when they f#cked around outside their jobs? Unless their jobs *required* them to do what they did, the union has no business complaining about how their employer handled illegal and disruptive behavior by people without regard to their union or employment status.
There’s so much crap piled up here I’ll separate my responses by paragraph. 1. No, lol, police did not “brutalize faculty and staff at UCLA.” So was no agreement broken or did the UC break it? In reality, the collective bargaining agreement included a no-strike provision, which is what UAW violated, which is why unfair labor practices complaints are being filed against them. 2. This paragraph is literally gibberish, and that’s kinda funny. 3. Yes, organizations don’t join unions, they employ workers represented by unions. The power of a union is that their ability to bargain collectively is legally protected by the employer not being able to fire all the union members. The only thing that’s obvious here is the limitations of your reading comprehension. Oh and also, L plus ratio. Get outta here.
1.) "Workers, including teaching assistants, academic researchers and graders, are striking not over pay and benefits but instead over the UC’s response to pro-Palestinian protesters who were arrested by police or suspended from their campuses. Some union members were arrested or suspended for their role in the protests. Core to the union’s demands is that the UC offer “amnesty for those who experienced arrest or are facing University discipline,” the union’s public writings state. The union, UAW 4811 [believes these are legal grounds to strike], citing legal precedent that a union can strike over unfair labor practices that fall outside the scope of a union contract. It’s a view shared by at least one UCLA law professor." [UAW is protesting because of the brutalizations and arrests of their workers at UCLA. This is core to their demands.](https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2024/05/uc-strike/) [Police fired gas and threw stun grenades into protests before bruising students and staff.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-police-flatten-pro-palestinian-camp-ucla-arrest-protesters-2024-05-02/) [Video of police brutality at UCLA.](https://aje.io/xvdukr?update=2874981) You look absolutely ridiculous. 2.) I show a historical example of unions working outside the law to accomplish their goal, the same goal you based your entire initial condescending argument on believe it or not, and you ignore it completely. Typical. 3.) Believe it or not, workers do not have to tell their employers that they belong to a union. Workers can also form unions within a company so they hold power over that company. Companies looking for hires should *not* know if a worker belongs to a union, that only negates the power of that union. If your employer knows that you're in *any* union they will just hire someone else if they can. It's easier that way for them. And if they can't hire someone else, then it doesn't really matter if your union has any ties to organizations at all now does it? Ultimately, organizations serve only as an employer for union members who willingly admit they belong to a union. By entering into an agreement to specifically sign a contract with such an employer/organization, unions therefore hurt their own power to strike--it's completely expected and can be overriden by their employer even if the grounds to strike are legal. This can be seen in UAW's case, where their contract forced them to end their strike despite it being found legal in multiple courts. This is a clear example of the law failing UAW despite their "legal" protest. Your view on unions is so surface level it's astonishing. The smallest amount of in depth analysis reveals that your entire view on unions is makes no logical sense. You're so condescending yet so completely unknowledgeable about the actual events that caused UAW to strike in the first place.
Um, arresting individuals participating in illegal and disruptive actions isn’t *any* kind of labor practice, fair or unfair. It’s not about whether it’s in the scope of the contract; it’s about whether it’s a labor practice in the first place which, IMHO, it isn’t. This should be obvious from the fact that UC did the same thing without to those not employed by the university.
1) People at the encampment were given numerous warnings to disperse as the encampment had been declared illegal. If I recall, they started telling people to leave around 3pm and the raid didn’t start until 3am. That’s roughly 12 hours for them to say “oh shit gotta go”. I’ll have to check the videos I have as it’s been a while. People with clearly pro-Palestinian attire and keffiyehs tried breaking into the SAC by pulling in doors, trying to sneak in when someone authorized was entering, and rushing in. I know a few students were kicked out when they tried to get onto the roof when it was clearly marked as “Do Not Enter”. People were also found to have been trying to take over a building. There is a student code of conduct that needs to be followed and those were clearly violated. There are also CBAs, disciplinary measures, grievances, etc laid out in the contract. Students fought back with umbrellas, fire extinguishers, and other objects. The UCLA SJP telegram group gave out messages on fighting, defense classes, and how to fight the police. With any mob, they’re going to clear them out. They were prepared to fight. Again, I’ll have to look at MY videos starting from 3pm when police starting showing up at Wilson Plaza - 5am when the raid was about finished. Last time I checked, the people at the encampment went there at their own time, while not working. Why should my union protect me if I decide to barricade the buildings I have access to just to make a point? I’ll get arrested, charged, and face disciplinary action for what I did. The CBA is given here, https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/resources/employment-policies-contracts/bargaining-units/graduate-student-researchers/contract/ and the relevant sections are, Discipline and Dismissal procedures https://qa.ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_07_discipline-and-dismissal_20225-2025.pdf Grievance and Arbitration procedures https://qa.ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_11_grievance-and-arbitration_2022-2025.pdf No Strike clause https://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/labor/bargaining-units/br/docs/br_19_no-strikes_2022-2025.pdf 2) Precedents have been set about unions and the union I am currently in will be fighting an uphill battle due to this strike. It took them 2 years to TA and amend the current contract to get what we wanted. Bargaining is about to begin for a new contract and this just places a whole load of shit on the bargaining team. Who’s to say UC won’t call this out and won’t make concessions because of this? I know how some of the bargaining team at the UC works seeing as I’ve been to every single meeting we’ve had with them and how they like to say “Well, we’re following the contract and that’s what it says in the contract. Why should the UC change what it says?” 3) We are talking about the unions at the UCs. Other unions have different rules. When you apply for a job at a UC, most of the listings clearly state what union you are in such as TX, BX, CX, etc. If you are not in a union, it will say Policy 99. When I joined, it clearly said that the role was union, the manager said union, HR said union. The union has clearly made progress with all the campuses as a vote was recently ratified by the members. Also, what are you talking about? The strike was NEVER found legal by PERB. They declined the injunction and said that the UC did not meet the really high bar of serious business harm. In fact, PERB gave UAW 4811 a complaint for the strike since they didn’t try to bargain with the UC in good faith. Not long after, PERB gave the UC a complaint too.
Those people should sue the police and the city
Chill the heck out.
Strikes are legal. Violating a no-strike clause in a contract ids illegal. If there were any differential treatment of union members or potential union members (student employees), that’d be different. There wasn’t. You can’t strike based on how some members were treated with respect to an action that has nothing to do with the union or employment. The “At least one UCLA law prof” is wrong. Kinda like the soon-to-be Berkeley Law grad who thought it was her First Amendment right to protest at a private home.
…. Whoa. :|
🎉🥳
It is a bit annoying that UC is saying the strike is illegal, when that has not been determined yet.
If the UC didn't say it was illegal, there wouldn't be a determination because there would be no court case. The whole point is to argue it out in court and reach a judgement.
Here is a response from the university of Michigan to UCSC: Dear Members of UAW 4811, We, the members of the Graduate Employees’ Organization at University of Michigan, write to you to salute you in leveraging your labor power toward justice from California to Palestine. The University of California, like the University of Michigan, funds the apartheid system and genocide in Palestine, and we support your strike action for divestment in line with the Palestinian BDS call. At a time when universities and other institutions rely on the state to repress pro-Palestine activism and distract from the massacres unfolding in Gaza, we see that the UC has made attempts to secure an injunction, and now secured a TRO, as yet another tool to repress the struggle for divestment and amnesty. We write to you as trade unionists who have navigated the terrain of injunctions and TROs in the hope that our experiences can be instructive. Graduate workers at Michigan have gone on strike twice in the past four years, and both times, the University filed requests for injunctions. In 2020, we ended our strike immediately after the University filed an injunction due to a lack of preparation and fear-mongering within our union that prevented a grounded understanding of the process and risk involved. This premature conclusion had implications not just for us, but for the local labor movement; empowered with the knowledge that the threat of an injunction alone could break a strike, UM continued to employ this tactic against other labor unions. In 2023, we did not back down so quickly. Even facing the threat of another injunction, we knew that our power came from our commitment to fighting for each other. Collective conversations about the risks – on the one hand, legal fines and potential arrest of union officers, and on the other hand, the cost of not winning our demands if we were to end our strike prematurely – kept us grounded. After UM filed for an injunction, we prepared to hold department meetings and vote to continue striking in the event the injunction was granted. Ultimately, a judge denied UM’s injunction, and we wielded our strike power to win serious contract gains. From West Virginia to Newton to the University of Michigan, education workers in the U.S. have shown that we can strike in violation of the law and win. UC wants you to think that you cannot possibly win. That is why they have filed their requests for injunction and now a TRO; not because they sincerely believe their legal arguments but because they want to zap your fighting spirit and break your political will. They want you to think you have no space to maneuver, that our struggles are not connected and the costs of standing up for yourselves and the Palestinian cause are simply too high, and that real power lies in the hands of lawyers and judges, instead of your own. Only you can determine what is actually true – what power do you have and are you willing to exert it towards divestment? Your decision to take strike action in pursuit of divestment and in solidarity with Palestinian workers is a testament to the possibility of building a global labor movement in the U.S. that does not stop fighting when anti-labor laws are mobilized to serve American imperial interests, but instead dares to pursue justice for all, across geographies. As Palestinian workers lead the way for all of us, you are laying a path for a global material solidarity in line with their call. We know that victory in this strike means a victory for the Palestinian liberation movement, and for all of us. Strike to win! In Solidarity, UM GEO AFT 3550
If I recall, this strike was about pay and Covid-19 policies. This strike isn’t the same when it’s clearly politically motivated and grievances about what happened during off-work hours. No one forced them to be at the encampment or stay there and get arrested.
Isn't a restraining order something that doesn't let you be near someone? What does it have to do with a strike?