Home / Top Stories / Postdoc Union Clashes with UC
Postdoc Union Clashes with UC
After completing a PhD, which takes on average between 5 to 7 years, scientists continue to work in academic labs as “postdocs” in order to further establish themselves within the scientific community. This postdoc experience is, more often than not, a necessary requirement for obtaining the end goal of a tenure-track academic job or industrial position. Postdoc appointments can last between 1 to 5 years, with the average time typically being around 2.5 years, depending upon one’s particular field.
Postdoctoral researchers contribute heavily to academic publications and are critical to the advancement of science in the US. According to a press release by the UAW:
Postdocs play a critical role in the University’s world-renowned research operations: performing complex research in diverse fields, ranging from AIDS and cancer research to developing improved technologies and addressing climate change; publishing scholarly articles; and writing grant proposals. All of this work helps bring more than three billion dollars in grants and contracts to the 10 UC campuses each year. The vast majority of this money comes from federal sources such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), whose budgets have increased recently as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to reprioritize federal funding of scientific research for its own sake as well as to stimulate economic growth.
A recent survey found that Postdocs were the primary author on 43% of the articles in Science magazine, the premiere research journal in the world.
Despite their critical importance to the academic machine, postdoctoral researchers have not been granted many of the basic benefits that most other employees at universities enjoy. As a result of these disparate benefits, postdocs in California unionized a few years ago, joining the PRO/UAW union, which now represents over 5,000 postdocs working for UC schools. Negotiations between UC and the PRO/UAW have been ongoing since December of 2008, but right now it looks like negotiations have stalled over wages, as UC President Mark Yudof doesn’t want to budge on this issue. Here are some of the benefits the postdocs are seeking:
1. paid leaves of absence for the following: maternity and paternity leave, sick leave, child care, bereavement, and disability
2. Guaranteed worker’s compensation
3. Health insurance on par with other UC employees
4. Cost-of-living adjustments in wages and wages commensurate with level of experience and education
5. Workload protections (for example, postdocs are often required to work 70 to 80 hours per week)
6. Access to childcare
7. Adequate protections against all forms of discrimination, including sexual harassment and discrimination based upon pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender
8. Fair grievance procedures
9. Safe working environment
10. Intellectual property rights regarding their IP contributions
We think it is absurd that postdocs have had to unionize in order to get the fair treatment they certainly deserve. These are the best and brightest people in America, and yet they receive far fewer benefits than a Starbucks barista. In fact, when one considers the average number of hours worked per week, the majority of these postdocs are not even making minimum wage. We don’t know who would want to pursue a scientific career these days when faced with this kind of dismal future. And considering that in this economy it is virtually impossible to get a job without postdoctoral experience, this issue should hit home with all current and future scientists.
It is also obvious how guaranteeing maternity and paternity leave, along with access to childcare, would be critical to retaining women in science. Numerous studies have shown that women leave scientific research during the postdoctoral stage. Could the lack of benefits at the postdoc stage be causing women to leave science? Since most female postdocs are in their late twenties to early thirties, it becomes a critical issue for them as to whether they will be able to have babies when doing a postdoc.
By not guaranteeing these benefits, we are telling our brightest American women that they cannot have children if they want to excel in science. That is just ridiculous and harmful to our national interest. After we have committed 10 plus years of education and funding to the development of these scientists, we shouldn’t let it all go to waste because of inadequate benefits during the postdoctoral research appointment.
We support the PRO/UAW in their negotiations and wish them the best of luck!
Photo source: http://www.prouaw.org/home/home.php
April 28th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
I respectfully disagree. The only goal of UAW in their postdoctoral unionization effort is getting approximately 5000 UC postdocs to pay around $300 annually.
How do I know this?
I was a postdoc at UC and witnessed first hand the fraud that was called “authorization card collecting by union reps”. They were lying about the purpose of signing the cards, and as a result most postdocs did not know that by signing the card they effectively voted for the union. See other first hand accounts on several UC campuses on http://ucpostdocs.wordpress.com/ which is a website set up by concerned UC postdocs who question the motivation and behavior of UAW reps.
In addition, I know from the UC administration that UAW Bargaining Team members explicitly stated that their only goal is getting the approximately $300 annual fees from all postdocs. This means that the UC administration has to pay this extra $300 every year, otherwise the salary of postdocs would go down, which surely wouldn't look good for the union.
The only real topic of the discussions is exactly this, how to get this $300 annually for all postdocs. If it can not be done, the union is not interested in the lofty goals you mention above. If it can be done, UAW is very much interested in creating the union. This would mean extra costs for UC, which ultimately will mean that they have to take away costs from some other area.
In any case, check out http://ucpostdocs.wordpress.com/ where you can also read about the failed 2006 attempt of UAW, when postdocs were more alert and fought back and defeated the unionization drive. Decertification of the union is still an option though, hopefully this is what will happen.
May 16th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Xi Ping,
We checked out the website you provided and found it to be a little confusing. The allegations of fraud are quite serious and you should certainly file a lawsuit against the UAW if that is happening. From what we understand, the fraudulent behavior alleged is that union reps had people sign something that committed them to joining the union but lied to them about that fact. Nothing you had on your website convinced us that this was the case and we have to wonder if it wasn't simply a problem of poor communication. A lot of postdocs are not native English speakers, and we do wonder whether the problem was simply one of poor communication and not outright fraud.
The fact that the union dues are $300 doesn't seem ridiculous. Unions need money to operate. We don't understand what you mean when you say that UC has to pay $300 per postdoc. The employer shouldn't be paying union dues. Only union members pay union dues.
Anyway, it sounds like you don't want to have anything to do with unionization. Unfortunately, that means that you will simply stand idly by and continue to get the substandard treatment that you are currently getting from the university. That is, and should be, your choice.
We don't see how, without unionization, conditions will ever be improved. If the current union leadership is corrupt, then we suggest you start a new union.
June 22nd, 2010 at 7:56 am
Hi,
Thanks for the reply.
The allegation of fraud are indeed quite serious, I would not use this term without firm justification. I repeat, I have been a postdoc at UC and have been approached by union reps in my office who were lying about the authorization cards. Although my mother tongue is not English I am 100% fluent in this language. I understood 100% what they were saying and even asked for clarification. They explicit said that signing the card is not a vote for the union. When in fact it is. And this description matches with nearly all descriptions that I heard from fellow postdocs. Hence I use the term ‘fraud’ and again, I don’t use this term lightly, but with firm justification.
You suggested filing a lawsuit. This is indeed a good idea, I even tried it myself together with other fellow (pretty upset) postdocs. Trouble is the statue of limitations has expired already, we checked with PERB. Actually this is part of UAW’s strategy, since they forcefully suppressed every possible public debate about the issue. Postdocs only got to know that the union exists when it was already too late to file a complaint with the PERB. How else do you explain that even though, for example at the UC Davies campus, postdocs wanted to organize workshops/seminars/meetings/etc where postdocs could debate openly whether to unionize or not, this idea was explicitly rejected by UAW reps, saying and I quote literally “we are not interested in a public debate”.
You wrote “We don’t understand what you mean when you say that UC has to pay $300 per postdoc. The employer shouldn’t be paying union dues.”
Let me explain: the UC administration pays a certain salary to postdocs before unionization. After unionization postdocs (not only union members, more on it later) are required to pay around $300 annually to the union. If this is taken from their salary, they effectively suffer a salary cut. This does not look good for the union, because postdocs will be unhappy with their salary cuts. Hence the union tells UC: increase the salary of postdocs by $300 annually, so if we get our $300, the salary that goes into the pocket of postdocs is not decreased after unionization. Hence effectively UC will have to pay the $300 annually for each postdoc. Please let me know if this point is still not clear.
You also write “Only union members pay union dues.”. Unfortunately, this is false. Every member of the Unit pays union dues, regardless of whether he/she is a member or not. In fact, this is a decision by the union. The union would be free to charge only members but it chooses to charge everybody. If the vast majority of postdocs want to have a union and are happy to contribute to its legitimate operations, why not charge only members?
You also write “…continue to get the substandard treatment…”. Let me stress again, I have been a postdoc at UC for 2 years and I was very happy with my salary, benefits and the general work environment as a whole. It is a gross distortion to call UC postdoc environment ‘substandard’. Why do you use this term? Did you compare the situation of postdocs at UC with other institutions across the US or the world in great detail? I have been a postdoc in both Europe and the US and can honestly say that the best treatment (salary, benefits, etc) I have received was at UC.
Best wishes,
Xi Ping