Published using Google Docs
Against an Anti-union No Vote Campaign
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

The list of signatures on this letter is updated periodically based on response to this form.

Against an Anti-union No Vote Campaign

We write as rank and file members of UAW 2865 and SRU-UAW dismayed by the effort to organize a No Vote against a tentative agreement which has not yet been secured. This effort is led by the bargaining team members who have thus far been against efforts to negotiate or move off of our union’s opening proposals. It has also taken hold in some parts of the rank and file within our union, who like to claim to speak for the entire non-elected membership. While dissenting opinions are welcome in our union, the current effort to stoke resistance to a future agreement has taken on an anti-union tendency that should be strongly rejected.

Once there is a tentative agreement to vote on, there would be nothing wrong with encouraging a No Vote if you have a plan to win a better agreement and are actively organizing to execute it. However, those currently pushing a Vote No campaign have articulated no such strategy and criticize efforts by the most active rank and file organizers to escalate and build the power of our strike.

Instead of organizing to build our strike, this contingent is writing guides about how to organize a Vote No campaign that include right-wing union busting tactics such as those in the screenshot below.

This kind of disruption shuts down democratic processes and alienates rank and file workers from their union meetings. This toxic behavior not only diminishes our current power, but will discourage members from participating in strikes in the future. If the solidarity we have built through this strike is overshadowed by bad faith attacks on each other, how will we organize an even more powerful strike next time around?

Many of those who are sympathetic to the idea of a No Vote are motivated by concerns that the bargaining process has not been democratic or transparent enough. We share the belief that transparency and democracy should be prioritized, and also believe that union members can play a proactive role in improving the process. Though some of us have been taken off guard by decisions made by our bargaining teams, we have been actively working with them to improve the process and have found them very receptive. In a multi-unit statewide strike by a union as large as ours, we should expect challenges to democratic process and assume good faith as we correct the course.

Against minimizing what our strike has already won

Our mass participation strike has already won incredible victories, which some attempt to minimize by describing other bargaining team members’ choice to vote on tentative agreements as “selling out.” When we turn against our fellow workers (on or off the bargaining teams) for not securing all of our initial demands, we lose sight of the goal of building power to make UC concede as much as possible.

Student Researchers, after 20 years of fighting, have finally won the protections against arbitrary firing (and in many cases, deportation). The importance of this is impossible to overstate: even as we continue to bargain, SRs have been fired unjustly from their labs. Another key focus in our Student Researchers’ unionization campaign was protections in the workplace. During our strike, we won worker's comp/ workplace injury rights that SRs have needed for a long time. Student Researchers have shared the significance of this, but are being ignored by those leading a Vote No campaign.

We’ve also made important gains through our tentative agreements on paid leaves. These agreements would allow all working parents to take eight weeks of fully paid leave, which is two additional weeks for birthing parents and four additional weeks for non-birthing parents. We’d also get this same paid leave if we have a serious health issue arise or need to care for a sick family member.

Disabled workers, both rank and file and elected leaders, fought long and hard for the new rights and protections secured in the Access Needs/Reasonable Accommodations article. They made strategic decisions to win the biggest possible gains, and their wins should be celebrated instead of denigrated for not matching the exact language of our original proposals.

On wages, our strike has moved the University from offering a 7% raise over two years to offering a 29%-33% raise over two years (depending on your experience). That increase is unprecedented among other academic unions and other unions at the UC.

By all standards, these are incredibly significant improvements. Downplaying them serves to downplay the power of our strike. We believe our strike is powerful, which is why we are still leveraging that power to win more.

Against Demobilization

It is telling that the bargaining team members who have been losing votes since the strike began have also been advocating for partial striking and against collective actions. There is a contradictory narrative being pushed — on the one hand, they tell us that direct actions are “performative” and “a distraction from the real strike, which is withholding our labor.” Simultaneously, they advocate for partial striking — returning to do the research you want to do while withholding data from your PI. This is a betrayal of those of us who have actually been withholding our labor. Those of us building the power of our campaign through direct action have simultaneously been withholding ALL our labor — not doing our research, not advancing our careers, and at times facing retaliation as a result. Advocating for shortcuts is the most telling indication that those behind a No Vote have no plan to win.

Another form of demobilization taking place comes in the form of workers (including some bargaining team members) spreading misinformation to the press and on social media. For instance, in this campus newspaper, a bargaining team member mischaracterized the content of a proposal. Though the article went on to detail some of the facts about the proposal, quotes like these demobilize members by minimizing our victories at the bargaining table.

Our employer is the only one who benefits from statements meant to seed misinformation and sow division. And we should think carefully before mobilizing the UC to exploit them. We must have diversity of thought and tactics while presenting a united front against the boss.

Against Cynicism and Mistrust

The bargaining team members who have been losing recent votes have wrongly proliferated a belief that the other side of the bargaining team has ‘sold out’ the workers and made concessions at the bargaining table. A concession is when you give up something you already have. In this case, it would mean weakening existing contract articles or agreeing to wages below the rates set by the 2018 contract. We have made no concessions — despite UC’s efforts to claw back our sexual harassment and workload protections, and every article tentatively agreed to by our union  is either as good or better than the current contract.

If bargaining team members “sold out” anyone, it is far from clear how they benefited from the arrangement. Such third-partying of bargaining team members and other elected leadership and the suggestion that these leaders have interests that are separate from those of other workers is a destructive and divisive tactic similar to right-wing anti-union rhetoric. Union leadership “selling out” members is an old trope, and stems from unfortunate but undeniable instances of corruption from organized labor’s past. Anybody who thinks our elected bargaining team has cut any kind of deal with UC management during these negotiations should share evidence of that before spreading such an extraordinary and insidious rumor. Our coworkers on the bargaining team have worked tirelessly to win the best contract possible and this cynical distrust does nothing to move our campaign forward.

A Vision to Win

The majority of our UAW 2865 and SRU bargaining teams decided not to accept UC’s “final” offer because they wanted members to have the opportunity to deliberate about what we have won, what we could still win, and where we go from here. Since then, rank and file and elected leaders have been escalating to directly target the decision-makers who have the power to redirect some of UC’s billions to the workers who do the majority of the teaching and research.

On December 14th, we will have a mass action at the Board of Regents meeting, and workers are organizing across Southern California to make them feel the urgency of our situation (find the RSVP form here). We must also continue striking and withholding our labor, including our grades, until we reach a fair contract.

Whenever our bargaining teams do decide to reach tentative agreements, we encourage other rank and file members to discuss what it means for you and all your coworkers, and whether or not it represents meaningful progress toward a more equitable UC.

For now, it’s time to fight the boss, not to demobilize with an anti-union Vote No campaign.

Signed by:

Reed Yalisove, UCB SR

Elias Bunting, UCD SR

Maura McDonagh, UCSF SR

Sophia Worthington-Kirsch, UCD ASE

Wes Westerfield, UCD ASE & SR

Brennan Gonering, UCD ASE

Ellen Gregory, UCD SR

Sarah Warren Gooding, UCD SR

Anna Cowie, UCD SR

Laurel Sebastian, UCD ASE

Alyssa Phillips, UCD SR

Tanner Stevenson, UCD SR

Stephanie Huard, UCSF SR

Ibis MacConnell, UCD SR

Jamie Ho, UCD SR

Tahsin Saffat, UCB ASE

Elinor Lewis , UCD SR

Anna Jo Muhich, UCD SR

Willa Gibson, UCD ASE

Porter Harrast, UCD ASE

Abigail Ray, UCD SR

Garrett Brown, UCB SR

Gwen Chodur, UCD SR

Alexa D'Ambra, UCD SR

Vincent Hiscock, UCI ASE

Jeremiah Lawson, UCI ASE

Mark K. Gradoni, UCI ASE

Leighton Smith, UCI ASE

Iris Rosenblum-Sellers, UCB ASE

Michelle Kim Gardner, UCI ASE

Rachel Alvelais, UCI ASE

Victor Ginsburg, UCB ASE

Meagan Olive, UCSF SR

Tia Chung-Swanson, UCI SR

Tova  Valentine, UCD ASE

Eric Vin, UCSC ASE & SR

Abhik Pal, UCSD ASE & SR

Peter Kim, UCSD ASE & SR

Julia Badrya, UCI ASE

Zubenelgenubi Scott, UCSD SR

Nathan Sandford, UCB SR

Christian Hellum Bye, UCB ASE & SR

Bo Zhang, UCSD ASE & SR

Bhargavi Dameracharla, UCSD SR

Deryn LeDuke, UCSD SR

Emiko Gardiner, UCB ASE

Andrea Antoni, UCB SR

Luke Herman, UCSD SR

Katalin Berlow, UCB ASE

Alexander Rudenshiold, UCI ASE

Anna Wang, UCSD ASE

Anna Pusack, UCB ASE

Udayan Tandon, UCSD ASE & SR

Wenshan Luo, UCSD SR

Jean Torres, UCI ASE

Diana Smith, UCSD SR

Arman Azedi, UCI ASE

Harrison Mitchell, UCSD ASE

Hannah Rattu Mandias, UCSD SR

Eric Jankowski, UCB SR

Kevin Gonzalez, UCSD SR

Julia Zuo, UCSB SR

Claire Mirocha, UCB SR

True Gibson, UCI ASE

Claire Mastrangelo, UCB ASE & SR

Vilas Winstein, UCB SR

Aidan Kelley, UCB ASE

James Hasbany, UCD ASE

Emily Weintraut, UCD ASE & SR

Daniel Weinberg, UCB SR

Richard Conk, UCB SR

Alex Borowsky, UCR SR

Maxwell Poore , UCSD ASE & SR

Patrick McBurnie, UCI ASE

Brad Price, UCSB SR

Charlie Gunn, UCI ASE

Maya Homsy King, UCB ASE

Kishore Patra, UCB ASE

Nikita Prokhorov , UCI ASE

Joe Costello, UCSB SR

Ellie Coale, UCD SR

Elizabeth Hazen, UCB SR

Sean Clair, UCB SR

Tyler Inskeep, UCR SR

Jacqueline Beechert, UCB SR

Yuan Yao, UCB ASE

Gary Chan, UCSF SR

Cody Bekkering, UCD SR

Jacob Elafandi, UCB SR

Samuel Hoelscher, UCSF SR

Stratton Georgoulis, UCD SR

Dillon Travis, UCSD ASE & SR

Natalie LeBaron, UCB SR

Danielle De La Pascua, UCD ASE

Collin Sanborn, UCB SR

Nathan Conlon, UCSD ASE

Casey Li, UCLA ASE

Daniel Rothchild, UCB ASE & SR

Juan Flores, UCD SR

Sarah Wooders, UCB SR

Linnea Dolph, UCD ASE & SR

Theodoros Ntounias, UCSD ASE & SR

Valerie McGraw, UCB SR

Benjamin Wheeler, UCSF SR

Eric Thai, UCSD ASE & SR

Ian Kinzel, UCR ASE

Ravi Fernando, UCB SR

Jacob Sebastian, UCB SR

Megan Cole, UCI ASE

Christopher A. Strong, UCB SR

Alex Burka, UCB ASE

Cambria Chou-Freed , UCSF SR

Claire Whitaker, UCR SR

Stephanie Collins, UCB SR

Katelyn Malae, UCI ASE

Matin Yarmand, UCSD ASE & SR

Alexander Schedel, UCB ASE

Max Johnson, UCSD ASE

Ziad Jowhar, UCSF SR

Danial Shariat, UCB SR

Shawn Christensen , UCD ASE & SR

Zoë Bell, UCB SR

Anna Coerver, UCB SR

Angel Balam Benítez-Mata , UCI SR

Scott Eustice, UCB SR

Abou Sharmouta, UCD ASE

Ely Sandine, UCB SR

Annika Page, UCB ASE & SR

Maya Lopez-Ichikawa, UCSF SR

Jay Zussman, UCSF SR

Sophie Orr, UCD SR

Marcus Harland-Dunaway, UCR SR

Enta Zift, UCD ASE

Andres Rivero Gamez, UCSD SR

Elena Suglia, UCD SR

Brandon Blackburn, UCI ASE

Gawarlu Janizar, UCD ASE

Sebastián Yépez Rodríguez, UCI ASE & SR

Brent Chick, UCSD SR

James Butler, UCB SR

Michaela Murray, UCB SR

Ni-ma (Jessie) Cao, UCI ASE & SR

David Chu, UCB SR

Julian Arnheim, UCI SR

Deepan Thiruppathy , UCSD SR

Lou (Finnin) Gwei, UCSF SR

Anya Bouzida, UCSD SR

Daniel Heinz, UCSD SR

Sneha Rao, UCSF SR

Flynn Mixdorf, UCI ASE

Julia Zuo, UCSB SR

Stephanie Leal, UCSD SR

Grant Goldman, UCSF SR

[add your signature here]