No Kings 2.0, July 17, 2025. Send tips to Glen McGhee at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.
Search This Blog
Thursday, October 10, 2024
Labor, Big Tech, and A.I.: The Big Picture (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies)
1:00pm - 2:30pm
Lunch will be served. Free and open to all.25 West 43rd Street, 18th floor, New York, NY 10036 (map)
*In-person* only in Midtown Manhattan.
REGISTER:
https://slucuny.swoogo.com/30October2024/register
Join us for a conversation with Alex N. Press, staff writer at Jacobin magazine and Edward Ongweso Jr., senior researcher at Security in Context and a co-host of the podcast This Machine Kills; moderated by New Labor Forum Editor-at-Large Micah Uetricht.
The discussion will address major issues confronting the labor movement with the development and use of artificial intelligence, surveillance, automation of work generally, and the rise of Big Tech’s control over large segments of the U.S. workforce. This conversation is the first in what will be an ongoing series focusing on the impact of Big Tech and AI on the labor movement and strategies for organizing to build worker power.
Presented in collaboration with New Labor Forum (NLF), this program connects to the fall 2024 issue of NLF, which features the special section, “Labor and the Uncertain Future of Artificial Intelligence,” and includes the article, “How the U.S. Labor Movement Is Confronting A.I.,” by Alex N. Press.
Speaker Bios:
Edward Ongweso Jr. is a senior researcher at Security in Context and a co-host of This Machine Kills, a podcast about the political economy of technology. His work has appeared in The Guardian, Baffler, Logic(s), Nation, Dissent, Vice, and elsewhere.
Alex N. Press is a staff writer at Jacobin magazine. Her writing has appeared in New Labor Forum, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Nation, among other places, and she is currently writing her first book, What We Will: How American Labor Woke Up.
Micah Uetricht is Editor-at-Large of New Labor Forum, a national labor journal produced by the Murphy Institute at CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies and host of SLU’s podcast Reinventing Solidarity. Uetricht is also the editor of Jacobin and the author of two books: Strike for America: Chicago Teachers Against Austerity; and Bigger than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism (co-authored by Meagan Day).
REGISTER:
https://slucuny.swoogo.com/30October2024/register
Friday, January 24, 2025
Frances Perkins, Secretary if Labor (Friday's Labor Folklore)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, July 7, 2025
Harvard Removes 800 Graduate Students From Union, Citing Employment Status
Harvard University has removed roughly 800 graduate students from the Harvard Graduate Students Union–United Auto Workers (HGSU-UAW), asserting that they are not employees and therefore not entitled to union representation. The move has drawn criticism from labor advocates and student organizers and raises broader questions about the future of graduate labor rights in U.S. higher education.
According to The Harvard Crimson, the affected students receive research-based stipends but do not hold formal teaching or administrative appointments. In recent communications to faculty and the union, Harvard administrators stated that these students “are not employees under the National Labor Relations Act and do not have the right to unionize.” The university said that its position is based on recent rulings by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), including decisions involving similar cases at MIT and Brown University.
Harvard’s message to the union and faculty further claimed that “Harvard has never agreed that non-employees should be included in the unit.” This interpretation removes a substantial portion—approximately 15 percent—of the union’s former membership, weakening its bargaining position just as the union’s initial contract expired at the end of the 2025 fiscal year.
Union leaders have pushed back. Sara V. Speller, president of the HGSU-UAW, told The Crimson that the union is “working closely with the UAW and exploring our options.” The union has previously challenged Harvard’s stance in arbitration and won a favorable ruling related to the inclusion of research-focused psychology graduate students, though that case is now under federal review.
Harvard’s reclassification is not occurring in isolation. It comes in the context of ongoing efforts by elite universities to limit the reach of graduate student unions by drawing a line between academic training and paid labor. While the 2016 Columbia decision by the NLRB affirmed that graduate students at private universities could be classified as employees, recent decisions under a changing board composition have opened the door for reinterpretation. Harvard's legal strategy appears aligned with these more conservative rulings.
The Higher Education Inquirer has long supported the labor rights of contingent faculty, staff, and student workers, including graduate students whose research and teaching responsibilities serve as critical infrastructure in the academic enterprise. The removal of 800 graduate students from union protections reflects a broader pattern of university administrations attempting to limit collective bargaining power and redefine the boundaries of academic labor.
The implications of Harvard’s decision go beyond Cambridge. As other universities monitor the fallout, they may follow suit, especially as labor board interpretations shift with the political winds in Washington. In this climate, labor unions representing graduate students, adjunct faculty, and staff will need to navigate an increasingly complex terrain—one where administrative classification may determine who gets a voice at the bargaining table.
Graduate students affected by the reclassification may continue receiving stipends and conducting research, but they will no longer have access to grievance procedures, union-led negotiations, or other protections afforded to employees. Those who also serve as teaching fellows or hold research assistantships tied to grants will retain their union eligibility—for now.
For many observers, this case underscores the fragility of labor rights in higher education. It also reveals the persistent tension between the educational missions universities claim to uphold and the employment realities that sustain their operations. As Harvard redefines its labor boundaries, the national debate about who counts as a worker in academia grows sharper—and more urgent.
Saturday, June 28, 2025
Doing Good? How Nonprofits Exploit the Tax System, Pay Low Wages, and Undermine Labor Rights
The American nonprofit sector, comprising everything from social justice nonprofits to right-wing think tanks, is widely seen as a moral compass in public life. These organizations claim to serve the common good, benefiting from tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code. But beneath the image of benevolence lies a complex ecosystem where low wages, union resistance, and the concentration of wealth and power are all too common. Whether left-leaning or conservative, many nonprofits operate like corporations in all but name—exploiting public subsidies while avoiding the labor and tax obligations of the private sector.
While liberal nonprofits often claim moral high ground, conservative nonprofits such as the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, and Turning Point USA are even more explicit in using their nonprofit status for ideological gain. These organizations are generously funded by a network of wealthy donors and dark money, benefiting from laws that shield donor identities while still providing tax breaks. The New York Times and ProPublica have both documented how right-wing nonprofit networks use complex legal structures to move billions in untraceable funds through donor-advised funds and shell charities to influence elections, judiciary appointments, and public policy—while maintaining nonprofit status.
The 2018 creation of the Marble Freedom Trust, which received $1.6 billion in a single donation from electronics magnate Barre Seid, is one of the most striking examples of how conservative nonprofits benefit from the tax system. The money went to Leonard Leo, architect of the conservative judicial movement, and is being used to reshape American courts and governance—all tax-exempt. These conservative nonprofits rarely face scrutiny from the IRS, while progressive nonprofits, especially those tied to activism or labor organizing, often face intense bureaucratic hurdles or audits.
Despite their wealth, conservative nonprofits are not known for paying living wages to their rank-and-file employees. Just as with liberal nonprofits, a culture of ideological commitment is often used to justify stagnant salaries, limited benefits, and the absence of unions. At places like the Leadership Institute or the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, workers may be expected to accept lower compensation for the “privilege” of advancing a conservative mission. Few, if any, of these organizations are unionized. Interns and entry-level employees are often underpaid, even as their organizations maintain multi-million-dollar budgets and highly paid executive teams.
Meanwhile, liberal and progressive nonprofits often mirror this dynamic. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club have all faced internal revolts from underpaid and overworked staff seeking union protections and better pay. Despite progressive missions, many of these organizations have resisted unionization, hired union-busting consultants, and continued to pay senior leadership six- or seven-figure salaries. The exploitation is bipartisan, rooted not in ideology but in structure: the tax system enables and incentivizes this behavior.
Across the political spectrum, nonprofits depend heavily on unpaid or underpaid labor. Interns, volunteers, and junior staff are routinely told that their sacrifices serve a greater cause, whether that cause is climate justice or dismantling “woke” education. The result is the same: a hollowing out of labor rights under the banner of purpose. The nonprofit sector has become a vehicle for elite influence—liberal and conservative alike—rather than a true instrument of public good.
Unionization in the nonprofit world remains low. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonprofit union membership has barely increased over the past three decades. And while there has been an uptick in union drives at liberal nonprofits, conservative organizations have largely avoided these movements altogether. In fact, many conservative nonprofits are actively hostile to organized labor as a matter of principle. The Heritage Foundation, for example, has long opposed the expansion of labor rights and has advised Republican administrations on how to weaken collective bargaining in the public sector.
As nonprofit wealth grows—particularly through endowments, real estate holdings, and tax-exempt investments—workers at the bottom continue to struggle. In higher education, many private nonprofit colleges and universities pay adjunct professors poverty wages while top administrators earn corporate-level compensation. Religious nonprofits, too, have been found to exploit workers under the guise of spiritual service. Megachurches and faith-based charities sometimes use volunteer labor as a substitute for paid employment, all while claiming tax benefits and avoiding federal labor laws.
Reform is urgently needed. Tax exemption should come with clear standards for labor rights, wage equity, and financial transparency. The IRS must enforce restrictions on political spending by nonprofits, particularly those masquerading as educational institutions while operating as partisan arms. Donor disclosure laws should apply across the board, and tax deductions for mega-donations should be limited unless tied to measurable public benefit. If nonprofits are to retain their privileged legal status, they must meet basic ethical and democratic standards.
Until these changes occur, the nonprofit sector will remain a shadow version of the for-profit world—reaping public subsidies while delivering low wages, avoiding unions, and deepening political inequality. Whether the name on the letterhead reads “Heritage Foundation” or “ACLU,” the structure of exploitation is the same. It's not just a crisis of values. It's a crisis of accountability.
Sources
ProPublica. “How a Billionaire’s Donation Exploded the Conservative Nonprofit World.” August 2022. https://www.propublica.org/article/dark-money-leonard-leo-barre-seid
New York Times. “They Legally Moved Billions to Fund Conservatives.” October 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/05/us/politics/dark-money-nonprofits.html
Associated Press. “Why Workers at a Growing Number of Nonprofits Are Unionizing.” June 2023. https://apnews.com/article/7fd961c88c614db47db63ffcd80e084e
PayScale. “Nonprofit Pay Cut: How Much Are You Losing to Do Good?” https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/nonprofit-pay-cut
Teen Vogue. “The Nonprofit Industrial Complex: What Is It and How Does It Work?” https://www.teenvogue.com/story/non-profit-industrial-complex-what-is
Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Nonprofit Earnings and Sectoral Employment in the United States Since 1994.” https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2024/article/nonprofit-earnings-and-sectoral-employment-in-the-united-states-since-1994.htm
San Francisco Chronicle. “One of the Bay Area’s Most Progressive Nonprofits Is Warring with Itself.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/soleilho/article/nonprofit-unions-workers-20038770.php
Reddit. “Antiwork Nonprofit Volunteer Testimonies.” https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/uhnrfd
Saturday, July 5, 2025
U‑6 Unemployment Rate Inching Up: A Broader Look at Labor Market Strain
The U‑6 unemployment rate, the broadest measure of labor underutilization reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), is showing signs of upward pressure. Unlike the headline U‑3 rate, which only includes those actively seeking work, the U‑6 figure captures a more complete picture of employment. It includes discouraged workers, marginally attached individuals, and those working part-time for economic reasons.
According to the most recent data from the BLS and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the U‑6 rate inched up from 7.7 percent in June 2024 to a recent peak of 8.0 percent in February 2025. Since then, it has remained elevated, recording 7.9 percent in March and 7.8 percent in both April and May. The June 2025 figure dropped slightly to 7.7 percent but remains among the highest levels seen since 2023.
The U‑6 rate tends to rise when more people are involuntarily working part-time or when marginally attached workers reenter the job search but fail to secure full-time employment. These dynamics suggest that while headline unemployment may appear stable—hovering around 4.1 percent in June—the underlying labor market may be more fragile than it seems.
This persistence in underemployment raises concerns about the quality of jobs available, wage stagnation, and economic resilience, particularly for lower-income workers and those in precarious positions. A growing number of Americans want full-time employment but are unable to find it. Others are technically outside the labor force but remain discouraged or marginally attached to it.
In the broader context, the U‑6 rate serves as a counterbalance to optimistic economic narratives. The apparent stability in the U‑3 rate masks lingering vulnerabilities, especially as sectors like retail, hospitality, and education continue to rely heavily on part-time labor or are facing budgetary constraints. For those watching the post-pandemic economy, particularly in relation to student debt, workforce readiness, and higher education policy, these indicators suggest a structural weakness in job creation and labor absorption.
The gradual rise of U‑6 is not just a statistical footnote. It signals that the labor market is not fully healed and that a portion of the population remains economically sidelined. It is a metric worth monitoring as debates around economic recovery, fiscal policy, and employment strategies continue.
For readers of the Higher Education Inquirer, this trend reinforces the need to consider broader employment conditions when evaluating the health of the U.S. economy, particularly for recent graduates, contingent faculty, and other workers navigating a precarious job landscape.
Sources
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (FRED), U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
TradingEconomics, U‑6 Unemployment Rate: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/u6-unemployment-rate
Labor Notes
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|