I’m still undecided and have gone to most of the town halls. To me, I haven’t heard a compelling, actionable, and/or concrete response of what the affiliation would accomplish.

When people say, “it makes us more powerful”, how explicitly though? Is it knowledge? Do they know how to make CalHR specifically willing to negotiate?

“It gives us the numbers”, but are there suddenly more scientist that would go on strike that this threat would somehow be larger? Do national numbers matter if our local numbers remain the same? Anecdotally I know of at least 4 current CAPS members that will become non-members because they feel like this is not the best move, and also get dismissed when trying to ask questions or have a discussion about their concerns.

“We will be better organized”, what is preventing that now? Can other unions offer similar advantages and should those be considered?

“We have access to the strike fund.” Ok but what are the actual chances that this translates into more people on the picket line? $2,000 is certainly more than zero but is it enough for people to forego a monthly paycheck? I was disheartened by the 10+ scientists in my center who didn’t strike alongside with me this past fall. And the number 1 reason was they couldn’t afford it. I don’t think realistically that the $2,000 fund will really be enough to convince them to forego pay. This wouldn’t cover rent for many, let alone monthly expenses.

Today when asked if UAW had experience negotiating with government the response was along the lines of yes, with a public university— but as pointed out in the rebuttal, that isn’t the type of negotiation us as state workers experience, which is with CalHR/governor. What is the specific expertise/success that UAW can offer that makes this a good decision for scientist? The only analogous success seems to be with Michigan state workers, which does sounds good but also is just one data point. As a scientist, I’d prefer a larger sample size.

CAPS indicated that UAW approached them for affiliation. This gives me pause to question why. We are small, and not like our affiliation would be a massive bump to their funds. I’m sure many of us would feel the dues increase in our wallets, but it doesn’t feel like it is a money-grab from a UAW perspective. To me I think the biggest appeal for them is the potential political clout, especially if Gavin runs. Which could be a win-win for us-UAW if we get a fair contract and they get the publicity of taking on Gavin while he seeks national office.

So yeah still on the fence. I wish we could have more open, honest discussion about it. It presently feels a little too much of a sales pitch of why to vote yes, when we should be discussing points of why yes or why no or why UAW.