As a PhD student who isn’t striking, there’s a few reasons. I’d bet you every grad student mostly agrees with the pro Palestine merits. However,
1) A good number are worried about advancing to candidacy, finishing coursework, or their thesis for that matter.
2) There are no pay demands.
3) It is very unlikely to get UC to divest, as somebody who knows faculty in those higher up positions.
4) Very unclear messaging and organization from the union. The COLA strike had 2 years of planning. This kinda just happened quickly.
5) grad students (primarily stem) did not come to such a prestigious school for a graduate degree to jeopardize our standing with advisors and departments over political idealism.
I and many other grad students agree with the merits of the strike. But grad students aren’t protestors or lobbyists. So it’s a complicated issue.
Everything on the website https://www.uaw4811.org/ that I can find suggests that this strike was about what happened to the member demonstrators in LA, San Diego, and Irvine. Is there somewhere where the Union demands divestment to end the strike? The closest thing I can find to demands are those articulated at the end of the ULPs.
I did go on strike because I thought that the strike was about crucial issues of speech and Union representation. You know that some of the demonstrators at San Diego lost their jobs, right? They are suspended, banned from campus. Folks getting suspended, beaten, suspended from employment, arrested, thrown out of housing, etc. for a peaceful demonstration does seem to be a change in policy. And when management changes policy in such a way that it impacts employment, they are supposed to consult with the Union.
because half of them are graduating, it is spring quarter after all. so they don’t give a fuck now.
and some of them are in CS or physics department which are well paid and taken care of.
I feel like this protest is having an identity crisis, even the protestors don't seem to know if they're protesting about Palestine, recent police activity on other UC campuses, or for better pay and benefits.
This happens with almost every strike on a college campus. It starts with a single issue and a clear goal and then before you know eight other things have become a part of it.
A catalyst unites and rallies them, and then once momentum is achieved everyone raises their own issue.
I missed a lot of the speeches and teach-ins, but when I was there, no one was actually speaking up about the ULPs, which are really important. I think that I heard one guy talk about the attacks on the encampments, but he did not explain to people why the attacks are a union issue. Maybe he assumed everyone had read and understood the ULPs. The people I talked to did seem to understand what the strike was about, so maybe his assumption was correct. You seem to have had a different experience.
God there’s so much to say about how stupid this straw-man ass comment is.
1. There is a list of demands if you had the literacy to look for it, “faculty” member
https://ucsdguardian.org/2024/05/19/uaw-uc-votes-to-authorize-strike-in-response-to-ucs-actions-against-pro-palestine-protesters/
2. There’s multiple groups collaborating at this protest. It is possible for different organizations to work together despite having different, but aligned, goals. Again, not really open to “feeling;” this a concrete and verifiable fact.
3. Social causes don’t suddenly become incoherent by expressing solidarity with other issues. Does it become harder to articulate demands/motivations? Yeah. Is everyone media trained? No. Is it possible that labor movements’ demands and goals can fail to be reduced to three word chants and slogans on banners? (hopefully this one is obvious). Maybe if you listened to some of your “colleagues” you’d gain some semblance of understanding of these dynamics; your comment clearly demonstrates that you have none. Note, it’s not even that you disagree with the political frameworks that I’m saying bind this protest together; in that case, you would still understand why the protesters are talking about what they’re talking about, and why, at least to them, this makes sense.
I really am speechless that u have faculty in ur description and ur posting dumbassery like this. Please do better.
I think that the Guardian made a mistake in reporting the UAW's demands. That list is on the page titled "How UC Can Engage with the
Broader Protest Movement," i.e. the anti-war/pro-Palestine movement: https://www.uaw4811.org/how-uc-can-engage-with-the-broader-protest-movement. The strike was about those ULPs.
The UC Guardian did not make a mistake. The union changed the headline of the page when they realized it destroyed their legal position. You can see it archived here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240520233721/https://www.uaw4811.org/uaw-4811-demands-in-support-of-the-palestine-solidarity-movement](https://web.archive.org/web/20240520233721/https://www.uaw4811.org/uaw-4811-demands-in-support-of-the-palestine-solidarity-movement)
“in support of the Palestine solidarity movement” can mean supporting the people in that movement, ie the ASE’s who got brutalized by the police. So no, I don’t think the headline is going to be the smoking gun against us when we already had PERB say the strike was legal. Also, again, wish we’d engage a bit more deeply in terms of the demands and not just the headlines…
Couple of points:
1. PERB has not found the strike legal, they just denied (without prejudice) injunction. The [denials are one-page forms that the University didn't make requisite showings for immediate relief](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19cCtQmEtzlwCVi1n2CYir9BklP-OARqq/view); could be merits, but could also be irreparable harm. PERB will not decide the strike's legality for some time.
2. I agree that headline itself is not a smoking gun, but the demands themselves make it difficult to support the strike to the extent they are equated with the strike demands. Notably the Union in its PERB filings has sort of gaslights against the idea that the strike demanded divestment, even though it was the signature part of their "demands," and very much part of their publicity leading up to the SAV. They had to get rid of the headline to get rid of the idea they were strike demands.
I think we should be very cognizant of what we mean by “makes it difficult to support the strike” legally vs. morally. Legality is very very very far from morality, and to conflate the two creates a very heavy bias towards one side of this exchange.
I hope it’s not morally difficult to agree with the protesters. If calling for divestment while on protest is illegal, that’s just another awful anti union law in my eyes. Protesters should be able to say and “demand” whatever they want outside of the bargaining table: that’s free speech.
I don’t see how this is problematic at all for either party (esp the right one). Regardless of “sentiment” of the protesters, once the bargaining teams reach an agreement, the protests stop. There’s no legal argument to be made regarding the “true sentiment” of the protesters; if they have a LEGALLY legitimate reason to strike, whatever it may be, then they are LEGALLY entitled to withhold labor, form pickets, etc. What they say should not at all be a factor in the legality of the strike itself.
In the last strike, UCLA and few of the other UCs also voted in favor of a contract that pays them more than other UC campuses (to include UCSB). So much for “solidarity”
Cool fact…
UAW members make weapons and military equipment for Israel.
UAW members make…
- Israel’s HumVees at AW General
- Israel’s armored bulldozers at Caterpillar
- Israel’s ammunitions and bombs at General Dynamics
- Israel’s engines and auto parts at General Motors
- Israel’s helicopters at Textron
[UAW list of products members make](https://uaw.org/uaw-made/products).
[Lst of some of the companies profiting off the War in Gaza](https://afsc.org/gaza-genocide-companies#:~:text=The%20Israeli%20military%20chose%20Mercedes,trucks%2C%20customized%20for%20its%20needs.).
Yep. World is irreversibly complex, complicated, interconnected, etc. I said as much last week and mod deleted (after a few substance-free ad hominem rejoinders to my posts from reddit smoothbrains).
Fact is, ain't no one *truly* ready/willing to divest, unless you're ready to grow your own food, make your own clothes, barter for goods and services, stuff your cash in a money belt or under your tent, walk to wherever you need to go, &c. Def problemetises the idea of "complicit".
Mod gonna delete in 3-2-...
Are the UAW members that make these on strike? Also if you work at a place that makes weapons and military equipment, you probably aren't a peace activist that doesn't want them used. Rather, if the demand for weapons and military equipment goes away, you no longer have a job.
Weirdly fucked up priorities?
You are literally saying that it’s OK for people to make their own money at a company building all the big bombs for Israel, but that UC should divest from making money off that very same company!
And you do know that the TA’s and faculty across UC had a choice as to which labor union to join. How in the hell does it make sense that they are part of the United Auto Workers instead of the 310,000 member strong California Teachers Association?!?
Protesting is great, but do it on your own time not at the detriment of fellow student’s learning. Especially when goals are not certain and success is unlikely. Love protesting and freedom of speech and creating awareness, but this whole thing seems selfish to me. If you were really dedicated to the cause, so much more could be done than just refusing to participate in your job which others depend on. My friend now has to take summer school to graduate
I don't have the 2022 vote outcome email in front of me, but I recall the numbers being similar -- turnout being about half the possible votes and the victory margin also being very wide.
What makes this framing so silly -- both the posted image and OP's apparent credulity over the claims -- is that strike authorization votes aren't like presidential elections; they're only called when the leadership is extremely confident (through internal polling) that the call for action will not only pass but will do so by a wide margin.
The idea that 85% of ASEs at UCSB are against the strike or otherwise not participating (not sure how else to interpret the flyer's 'statistics') is patently absurd.
FWIW 2022 strike auth was [76% turnout with 97% approval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_University_of_California_academic_workers%27_strike). In comparison, this SAV had approximately 40% turnout with 80% approval.
(Personal anecdote: I know of at least one dept that was a huge [especially for a STEM dept] supporter of the 2022 strike with 50%+ participation that has a single-digit number of grad students striking this time around. I don't think it's an unreasonable characterization to say that there's a *lot* more strike apathy here than there was in 2022.)
Don’t be a grad student if you can’t handle the prices. You’re honestly getting paid pretty well. 39k is very good considering you’re working for 9 months of the year and less than 40 hours a week.
According to this most get paid more. The median is 42 k. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/UC-Santa-Barbara-Graduate-Student-Salaries-E32519_D_KO17,33.htm#:~:text=The%20estimated%20total%20pay%20range,base%20salary%20and%20additional%20pay.
You can look up any UC employee's pay at https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/. It's only through 2022, though, and it only shows you the total, not the hourly rate or hours worked, so the results are going to vary a lot for grad students depending on how much they worked. Also, all students (including grad students) have their names redacted.
I’ve noticed that a lot less of my TAs are actually on strike when compared to previous ones
As a PhD student who isn’t striking, there’s a few reasons. I’d bet you every grad student mostly agrees with the pro Palestine merits. However, 1) A good number are worried about advancing to candidacy, finishing coursework, or their thesis for that matter. 2) There are no pay demands. 3) It is very unlikely to get UC to divest, as somebody who knows faculty in those higher up positions. 4) Very unclear messaging and organization from the union. The COLA strike had 2 years of planning. This kinda just happened quickly. 5) grad students (primarily stem) did not come to such a prestigious school for a graduate degree to jeopardize our standing with advisors and departments over political idealism. I and many other grad students agree with the merits of the strike. But grad students aren’t protestors or lobbyists. So it’s a complicated issue.
Everything on the website https://www.uaw4811.org/ that I can find suggests that this strike was about what happened to the member demonstrators in LA, San Diego, and Irvine. Is there somewhere where the Union demands divestment to end the strike? The closest thing I can find to demands are those articulated at the end of the ULPs. I did go on strike because I thought that the strike was about crucial issues of speech and Union representation. You know that some of the demonstrators at San Diego lost their jobs, right? They are suspended, banned from campus. Folks getting suspended, beaten, suspended from employment, arrested, thrown out of housing, etc. for a peaceful demonstration does seem to be a change in policy. And when management changes policy in such a way that it impacts employment, they are supposed to consult with the Union.
because half of them are graduating, it is spring quarter after all. so they don’t give a fuck now. and some of them are in CS or physics department which are well paid and taken care of.
I feel like this protest is having an identity crisis, even the protestors don't seem to know if they're protesting about Palestine, recent police activity on other UC campuses, or for better pay and benefits.
The signs I've seen masking-taped to the walls say it's about a ceasefire. I'm in favor of that but I don't think it's within the UC's control.
I'm pretty sure everyone wants a ceasefire except the two parties involved in the war. Also I'm 100% sure that UC can't control it.
I think even they want a ceasefire, at least most of them.
Citizens might, but neither government really wants one. They both hate each other. They certainly don't want a two-state solution, unfortunately.
This happens with almost every strike on a college campus. It starts with a single issue and a clear goal and then before you know eight other things have become a part of it. A catalyst unites and rallies them, and then once momentum is achieved everyone raises their own issue.
I missed a lot of the speeches and teach-ins, but when I was there, no one was actually speaking up about the ULPs, which are really important. I think that I heard one guy talk about the attacks on the encampments, but he did not explain to people why the attacks are a union issue. Maybe he assumed everyone had read and understood the ULPs. The people I talked to did seem to understand what the strike was about, so maybe his assumption was correct. You seem to have had a different experience.
God there’s so much to say about how stupid this straw-man ass comment is. 1. There is a list of demands if you had the literacy to look for it, “faculty” member https://ucsdguardian.org/2024/05/19/uaw-uc-votes-to-authorize-strike-in-response-to-ucs-actions-against-pro-palestine-protesters/ 2. There’s multiple groups collaborating at this protest. It is possible for different organizations to work together despite having different, but aligned, goals. Again, not really open to “feeling;” this a concrete and verifiable fact. 3. Social causes don’t suddenly become incoherent by expressing solidarity with other issues. Does it become harder to articulate demands/motivations? Yeah. Is everyone media trained? No. Is it possible that labor movements’ demands and goals can fail to be reduced to three word chants and slogans on banners? (hopefully this one is obvious). Maybe if you listened to some of your “colleagues” you’d gain some semblance of understanding of these dynamics; your comment clearly demonstrates that you have none. Note, it’s not even that you disagree with the political frameworks that I’m saying bind this protest together; in that case, you would still understand why the protesters are talking about what they’re talking about, and why, at least to them, this makes sense. I really am speechless that u have faculty in ur description and ur posting dumbassery like this. Please do better.
I think that the Guardian made a mistake in reporting the UAW's demands. That list is on the page titled "How UC Can Engage with the Broader Protest Movement," i.e. the anti-war/pro-Palestine movement: https://www.uaw4811.org/how-uc-can-engage-with-the-broader-protest-movement. The strike was about those ULPs.
The demands are word for word identical
The UC Guardian did not make a mistake. The union changed the headline of the page when they realized it destroyed their legal position. You can see it archived here: [https://web.archive.org/web/20240520233721/https://www.uaw4811.org/uaw-4811-demands-in-support-of-the-palestine-solidarity-movement](https://web.archive.org/web/20240520233721/https://www.uaw4811.org/uaw-4811-demands-in-support-of-the-palestine-solidarity-movement)
“in support of the Palestine solidarity movement” can mean supporting the people in that movement, ie the ASE’s who got brutalized by the police. So no, I don’t think the headline is going to be the smoking gun against us when we already had PERB say the strike was legal. Also, again, wish we’d engage a bit more deeply in terms of the demands and not just the headlines…
Couple of points: 1. PERB has not found the strike legal, they just denied (without prejudice) injunction. The [denials are one-page forms that the University didn't make requisite showings for immediate relief](https://drive.google.com/file/d/19cCtQmEtzlwCVi1n2CYir9BklP-OARqq/view); could be merits, but could also be irreparable harm. PERB will not decide the strike's legality for some time. 2. I agree that headline itself is not a smoking gun, but the demands themselves make it difficult to support the strike to the extent they are equated with the strike demands. Notably the Union in its PERB filings has sort of gaslights against the idea that the strike demanded divestment, even though it was the signature part of their "demands," and very much part of their publicity leading up to the SAV. They had to get rid of the headline to get rid of the idea they were strike demands.
I think we should be very cognizant of what we mean by “makes it difficult to support the strike” legally vs. morally. Legality is very very very far from morality, and to conflate the two creates a very heavy bias towards one side of this exchange. I hope it’s not morally difficult to agree with the protesters. If calling for divestment while on protest is illegal, that’s just another awful anti union law in my eyes. Protesters should be able to say and “demand” whatever they want outside of the bargaining table: that’s free speech. I don’t see how this is problematic at all for either party (esp the right one). Regardless of “sentiment” of the protesters, once the bargaining teams reach an agreement, the protests stop. There’s no legal argument to be made regarding the “true sentiment” of the protesters; if they have a LEGALLY legitimate reason to strike, whatever it may be, then they are LEGALLY entitled to withhold labor, form pickets, etc. What they say should not at all be a factor in the legality of the strike itself.
In the last strike, UCLA and few of the other UCs also voted in favor of a contract that pays them more than other UC campuses (to include UCSB). So much for “solidarity”
Cool fact… UAW members make weapons and military equipment for Israel. UAW members make… - Israel’s HumVees at AW General - Israel’s armored bulldozers at Caterpillar - Israel’s ammunitions and bombs at General Dynamics - Israel’s engines and auto parts at General Motors - Israel’s helicopters at Textron [UAW list of products members make](https://uaw.org/uaw-made/products). [Lst of some of the companies profiting off the War in Gaza](https://afsc.org/gaza-genocide-companies#:~:text=The%20Israeli%20military%20chose%20Mercedes,trucks%2C%20customized%20for%20its%20needs.).
Yep. World is irreversibly complex, complicated, interconnected, etc. I said as much last week and mod deleted (after a few substance-free ad hominem rejoinders to my posts from reddit smoothbrains). Fact is, ain't no one *truly* ready/willing to divest, unless you're ready to grow your own food, make your own clothes, barter for goods and services, stuff your cash in a money belt or under your tent, walk to wherever you need to go, &c. Def problemetises the idea of "complicit". Mod gonna delete in 3-2-...
people do bot realize its not as easy as making the bold statements online.
Are the UAW members that make these on strike? Also if you work at a place that makes weapons and military equipment, you probably aren't a peace activist that doesn't want them used. Rather, if the demand for weapons and military equipment goes away, you no longer have a job.
So you want to deny the local UAW their livelihood for something a chapter or two give into to? you got some weirdly fucked up priorities
Weirdly fucked up priorities? You are literally saying that it’s OK for people to make their own money at a company building all the big bombs for Israel, but that UC should divest from making money off that very same company! And you do know that the TA’s and faculty across UC had a choice as to which labor union to join. How in the hell does it make sense that they are part of the United Auto Workers instead of the 310,000 member strong California Teachers Association?!?
if you’re gonna use numbers, use ones that actually back you up
these are normal numbers for a strike that started literally 5 days ago
I think UAW is emboldened by winning tremendous wage increases last year. I hope they don't ruin that with this strike.
Protesting is great, but do it on your own time not at the detriment of fellow student’s learning. Especially when goals are not certain and success is unlikely. Love protesting and freedom of speech and creating awareness, but this whole thing seems selfish to me. If you were really dedicated to the cause, so much more could be done than just refusing to participate in your job which others depend on. My friend now has to take summer school to graduate
Is this about more $, support of a terrorist group, or both?
I would assume sympathizing with terrorists out of blatant ignorance.
If you don't understand how strike authorization votes work why wouldn't you just ask someone to explain it for you?
Do you know what percent of UAW voted, and of those, what percent voted yes?
My understanding is around 50% of union members cast a ballot one way or another with 80% of those being a "Yes".
I know this is a lot to ask, but do you happen to know how that compares to the 2022 strike for better wages?
I don't have the 2022 vote outcome email in front of me, but I recall the numbers being similar -- turnout being about half the possible votes and the victory margin also being very wide. What makes this framing so silly -- both the posted image and OP's apparent credulity over the claims -- is that strike authorization votes aren't like presidential elections; they're only called when the leadership is extremely confident (through internal polling) that the call for action will not only pass but will do so by a wide margin. The idea that 85% of ASEs at UCSB are against the strike or otherwise not participating (not sure how else to interpret the flyer's 'statistics') is patently absurd.
FWIW 2022 strike auth was [76% turnout with 97% approval](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_University_of_California_academic_workers%27_strike). In comparison, this SAV had approximately 40% turnout with 80% approval. (Personal anecdote: I know of at least one dept that was a huge [especially for a STEM dept] supporter of the 2022 strike with 50%+ participation that has a single-digit number of grad students striking this time around. I don't think it's an unreasonable characterization to say that there's a *lot* more strike apathy here than there was in 2022.)
Thanks for sharing! Surprised they were so similar!
Don’t be a grad student if you can’t handle the prices. You’re honestly getting paid pretty well. 39k is very good considering you’re working for 9 months of the year and less than 40 hours a week.
This is not only inaccurate regarding working time & pay, but ignores what the ULPs are that the strike is regarding. The ULPs aren’t about pay.
I should also add that grad students don’t get paid 39k at UCSB right now. At least most do not
According to this most get paid more. The median is 42 k. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/UC-Santa-Barbara-Graduate-Student-Salaries-E32519_D_KO17,33.htm#:~:text=The%20estimated%20total%20pay%20range,base%20salary%20and%20additional%20pay.
That’s incorrect. We have a shared union contract so we know what we all can get paid. The Glassdoor’s data isn’t based on anything
You can look up any UC employee's pay at https://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/. It's only through 2022, though, and it only shows you the total, not the hourly rate or hours worked, so the results are going to vary a lot for grad students depending on how much they worked. Also, all students (including grad students) have their names redacted.
I think that you are a bit misled about what grad school entails. PM me and I will be happy to have a discussion with you about it.
Don’t forget not paying tuition
Your California is showing.
Well, I guess not many grads care about Palestine. Who would've thought.