Why I Voted “No” On The CA Unionization Resolution

On Dec. 1, by a vote of 16-3-9 (yes-no-abstain), the Association of Amherst Students (AAS) voted to adopt a resolution in favor of supporting community advisor (CA) unionization efforts, calling on the administration to recognize the union. I was one of the three “no” votes. Still, I understand that this vote count being so split is shocking. How could anyone, much less 12 Amherst students, not vote in favor of the Amherst CA union? Is it, as one Fizz user hypothesized, that we’re all just angling for a job at McKinsey? Why wouldn’t we want our peers to have more say in their working lives? It is these questions that have motivated so much of the hostile rhetoric around this vote in the past week, and have led some on Fizz to such drastic conclusions as, “Bring back public shaming.”

I want to explain why I voted “no” on supporting the CA union resolution. In doing so, my aim is not to convince the reader that my vote was correct, but rather that there was a thoughtful and rational basis for my and my fellow senators’ votes. In doing so, I hope to persuade readers that we should do away with the unproductive personal attacks and the damaging, hasty conclusions that have characterized conversations around the CA union vote so far, and that we should instead engage in respectful, nuanced conversations about this issue and others like it, without assuming those who seem to disagree with us are acting in bad faith.

First, why did I vote “no”? The answer, as it turns out, is not that I hate unions. In fact, I really like them. I’m only able to attend Amherst because of the money my parents saved throughout my life thanks to their stable union jobs. I’ve also spent quite literally hundreds of hours over the past year working as a research assistant and compiling my own publication about the United Farm Workers in California — a union that brought dignity and respect to hundreds of thousands of farmworkers who suffered through slave-like working conditions throughout the 20th century. That is to say, I understand the importance and necessity of such unions.

Still, I voted “no” on the resolution to call for recognition of the CA union because I felt that CA leadership did not provide a clear picture of what the CA union would actually look like in their presentation to the Senate. I felt that CA leadership was not adequately prepared to exercise the powers — such as strikes or union shop agreements — that came with union recognition. As such, I voted “no” in an attempt to avert what I saw as a premature call for recognition.

To be more specific, I was particularly worried when, during their presentation to the Senate, CA leadership was unable to offer any specific plan of action. This concern came up when a senator asked CA leadership what their first steps would be once their union was formed. CA leadership responded to this by saying that they didn’t want to speculate as to any steps the union might take after recognition. I found this answer deeply worrying because I feared that without even a very minimal plan of action, the union would flounder at its inception and fail to make any headway with the administration. While the presenters did gesture to possible steps they could take at other points in the presentation — such as speaking to the media about their grievances — it concerned me that CA leadership didn’t have an answer when explicitly asked what a possible first step would be. 

Beyond their lack of concrete plans, CA leadership didn’t seem to have an adequate understanding of what their potential union’s legal powers and responsibilities would be. Partway through their presentation, a senator asked whether the union would be able to force CAs to join the union. At first, the presenters responded by saying they didn’t think they could, but that they weren’t sure. CA leadership then referred to their notes, and, after a while, affirmed that they couldn’t force anyone to join. Another senator then corrected CA leadership, alerting both the presenters and the Senate that the union could, in fact, force new CAs to join the union by reaching an agreement with the college. With that on the table, a senator then asked if the CA union would exercise this power. CA leadership responded by acknowledging that while they could, they weren’t sure if they would. As a reminder, in a state like Massachusetts, which doesn’t have right-to-work laws, the main way a union gains real, stable power over an employer is by reaching agreements with the employer to condition employment on union membership. 

If the CA union wasn’t clear about what their negotiating tools would be and how they would utilize them, would they actually be able to effectuate any change? Yes, the CAs need bargaining power, but how was the union going to act on that power to help resolve their grievances without a firm understanding of the union’s capabilities or a minimal plan of action? 

I understood the worry that rejecting this motion would cause CAs’ organizing efforts to lose steam, especially with how high the turnover rate for the job is. But the risk of delaying recognition seemed far lower than the risk of starting a union without being prepared for what came next. Therefore, I thought that CA leadership should wait to call for recognition until they figured out what they actually wanted to do with their union beyond just abstract ideas about bargaining power. This isn’t to say that I thought CA leadership needed a step-by-step outline for each phase of negotiations — that would be too high a bar for any union — but I did think they needed a much more solidified understanding of what their powers were, and a better preliminary plan for how they were going to act on those powers. 

In the end, a delayed, but effectively run union seemed better than an immediate, but ineffectual one. I by no means speak for anyone but myself, but I believe many of my fellow senators who either voted “no” or abstained were concerned by these very same issues. 

Still, at this point, the reader may feel that my vote was wrong, even given the concerns I’ve articulated. That is okay. I’m open to the possibility that I did the wrong thing. As I said in the beginning, my goal is not to have convinced anyone that my vote was right.

Instead, whether you agree with me or not, I hope to have made one thing certain — I, and my fellow senators who did not vote “yes,” had rational, thoughtful motives for doing so. We did not vote the way we did because, as another Fizz user guessed, we were once rejected as CA applicants. Rather, we care deeply about the CAs on this campus, just like every other member of the student body. Senators who did not vote “yes” on this motion were only motivated by the desire to do right by our fellow students — not, despite what conversations on Fizz may lead you to believe, because we harbor personal hatred for our peers and a disdain for the working class.

I think the CA union is a good idea. But in order for progressive causes to succeed, we need to expect more from ourselves than just the right label. Supporting good things involves thinking critically about how to do them well, not just endorsing buzzwords. It helps no one if we assume that the only thing that could possibly be going on when we see the words “union” and “voted no” together is, to quote Fizz one last time, “... just some vile shit.” If we really want to address the issues we care about, we must approach conversations around them in good faith, with an open mind, and, above all, with the goal of finding solutions, not just stamping out disagreement.