Historically, graduate teaching assistants and research assistants were considered students who assisted with teaching or research as part of their studies. Because this relationship was primarily educational rather than economic, students at private institutions were not eligible to unionize. In 2000, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concluded that at least some graduate assistants could unionize, but reversed itself just four years later. Then, just as the current fall semester was about to begin, the NLRB issued a long-awaited decision in a case involving Columbia University, allowing both graduate and undergraduate students who teach or do research at private institutions to unionize.
Teaching and research assistants have varied arrangements with their institutions. Some institutions have a tradition of “fully funding” doctoral students for a period of years; students receive tuition remission, a stipend, and often benefits such as health insurance. Assistantships are generally part of these packages and are considered essential preparation for research and teaching careers.
Students in undergraduate or master’s programs rarely receive such generous support and are commonly paid either hourly wages or relatively modest stipends for their assistance with teaching or research. Nonetheless, students often seek out such work; while compensation is surely relevant, the work is seen as an important enhancement of the educational experience and a useful credential when seeking postgraduation employment.
The NLRB rejected the argument that these different groups of students have interests too divergent to be a single bargaining unit.
In some states, graduate students at public universities have long been able to unionize. Some argue that the current law will simply give private university students the same rights. But the National Labor Relations Act, which governs private unions, differs substantially from the state laws governing public unions. Most state laws contain limitations not found in federal law, often including a prohibition on strikes.
Organizing campaigns will now take place on many campuses, with elections likely to begin before the year ends. Colleges and universities will need to decide whether to oppose unionization or remain neutral. Students will need to weigh the arguments for and against unionization. If unionization prevails, institutions will need to negotiate contracts with unions representing students who also teach or do research.
Proponents argue that the NLRB’s recent decision recognizes the economic reality of student work. They say higher education has become increasingly reliant on (cheap) student labor to staff research labs and teach lower-level classes. They assert that unions will bring better pay and benefits, a greater voice in the workplace, and procedural protections.
Opponents of unionization are concerned that unions will subvert the educational environment by applying traditional labor law principles to students whose main relationship with their institutions remains educational. They worry that unions will meddle in critical educational issues such as course content, student evaluation, and academic progress that are inevitably intertwined with issues of student employment. In addition, graduate students are inevitably short-term employees; this means that union organizers (and some current students) will shape contracts that control the long-term relationship between students and institutions. Unionization of graduate students has economic consequences for institutions, but it will also require new or expanded administrative functions as issues traditionally resolved informally become subject to formal grievance procedures. Institutions may conclude that some forms of assistantships are not sustainable in this environment.
The Columbia case changes nothing for those who serve public institutions. Boards of private institutions, however, should expect to be informed about any unionization efforts on their campuses. Federal law constrains what institutional leaders (and faculty) can say about unionization efforts, prohibiting any “threat of reprisal or force or promise or benefit.” The standards are not intuitive, and board members should have guidance from counsel about legal requirements. If this is not already on the agenda for your next board meeting, it should be.
Share on LinkedIn
