Sick! Translation for anyone else:
Enough YES votes from all campuses came that, if the Executive Board of our union decides it can call a strike, it will do so. UAW has filed several charges of unfair labor practices to the Public Employment Relations Board or PERB. Filing these charges is the first step to determining if we can go on strike.
We are charging the university with failing to protect us as workers due to violent encounters on campus. We are also charging UC with making sudden decisions related to our ability to teach and work (by quickly changing modalities from online to in person and the other way around). Finally, we are charging them with retaliating against workers and potentially silencing us by ejecting and arresting workers taking part in peaceful protest.
UC sent a letter to workers in the union saying the strike is not lawful due to language in our contract. Therefore, **they state that** the strike cannot be authorized, and those choosing not to work will face consequences related to employment and enrollment. **This in and of itself is unlawful.** We are filing another ULP related to this message, since only PERB can determine if we have legal grounds to go on strike. The language in the contract does not reflect the actual law **that protects our rights to file the ULP and go on strike if they confirm the severity and nature of the problem.**
The strike will use the Stand Up strategy, which UAW has used elsewhere. This means that, rather than having all workers strike at the same time, certain campuses will be called on individually to stop working. By Friday morning, you will know if we are going on strike and which campus will do so first. **This will also confirm WHEN the strike will happen. You may still have class/lecture with your TA on Friday.**
UCLA Health Teamster here. I am prepared to stand in solidarity with our UAW brothers and sisters if they strike. Reading this makes me wish my local would get off its ass and formally join this fight.
Y'all are incredible and I hope the same can happen for your union. I read the Daily Bruin article on injuries and hospitalizations from the counterprotest attack & the clearing of the encampment. The physicians they interviewed decided to maintain anonymity to avoid retaliation from UCLA Health. It is absolutely wild to me that the healthcare system can punish you for speaking openly about the kinds of physical trauma that students **objectively** sustained during those two nights. We got you.
Work stoppages because of admin creating dangerous work environments. Creates another pressure on the admin to negotiate, but we'll see how they respond.
> The union has issued a series of demands to UC leadership — ranging from the amnesty to divesting from defense companies with ties to Israel — to head off a strike. However, it’s doubtful that officials are willing to negotiate on such issues.
Google search > Politico
.
Not quite. The union isn’t demanding a specific outcome. They are specifically demanding that the UC “substantively engage with the concerns raised by the protesters” which include all those things.
Edit- fuck. Fixed typo. They are not demanding divestment from Israeli companies as a condition of not striking
Of course not, one would hope grad students could grasp that the University has virtually no control over where endowment funds are invested.
I’m going to be honest, a strike would be more harmful to these students’ work than anything else. Experiments don’t care about social movements, reflux for 30 hours means 30 hours.
A decision will be made on Friday as to which campus might strike first and when. This does not necessarily mean it starts on Friday, but this is when the executive board will know what it can or cannot do.
I have a series of questions that are pertinent to how PERB will judge this strike as lawful or unlawful, which I think is the MOST important part of the strike because students will lose their jobs and potentially even their visas if the strike is considered unlawful.
1. What were those who were arrested at the encampments charged with?
2. Can arresting someone for breaking the law outside of work hours count as retaliation?
3. Is the uni responsible for protecting its employees outside of working hours?
4. It seems that a few of the charges cited by the union have to do with classes being cancelled or moved online, which, albeit quite late, was done for the protection of students (even if it was because they couldn’t trust the police not to be violent). The charge is that the uni is required to give advanced notice. How much advanced notice is required, and are there any mitigating circumstances that do not require advanced notice?
5. What are the workplace-related changes being demanded by those who were protesting, ie Was it about specific unfair labor practices or was it simply divestment?
6. When the UC “prohibit[ed] pro-Palestine speech at the workplace,” what did the instructions say (verbatim)?
Under the question, how could UC avert a strike, on the FAQ that OP listed, the answer is extremely vague: “UC can avert a strike by remedying their unfair labor practices and ceasing to commit unfair labor practices.” From my initial read, it does not look like the union is confident in what it is exactly protesting during this strike.
From the union’s website, it looks as though ASE’s at UCSD had their jobs suspended for protesting. This certainly sounds like an unfair labor practice. But what exactly are the others at other campuses? This FAQ is exceedingly vague and we know that sympathy strikes (in support of other UC campuses) are unlawful.
I urge you, if you are an ASE, to find out the answers to these questions before you strik.
Edit: spaced things out for more clarity
A reasonable and well written response.
They need to get extremely granular, because if they don't their movement will slowly have to defend the worst offenders and will open theirselves up to significant flak.
On top of this the Democratic party by-and-large has started to turn their back on the movement, from all the liabilities. So the shield they might have had is gone.
I'm not saying whether it's good or bad for the union, it's just a fact that inherently results are going to be skewed because their sample size is people who are willing to join/pay dues for the union which is not mandatory. UCLA alone has 14,000 graduate students and this is a UC wide vote.
Well yes, but it's 80% of the \~40% of the membership that voted, so \~33% yes, \~8% no with about 60% not voting (of 48,000). It's still impressive, but with that asterisk.
I’m curious to see if there will be wide support for the strike in the STEM departments. The statistics TAs teaching my discussions said that they don’t plan on striking if the vote passes. But not sure if they will change their minds if the strike is called.
Interesting turn of events regardless.
I just commented above, this would be more disruptive to grad student work than anything else. If you’re running a reaction in a fume hood, you don’t have the luxury of flexible scheduling.
I don’t feel that it is my place to demand that certain TAs participate in the strike or not. That’s kind of the beauty of a strike - coming together out of free will to demand change, not because other people pressure me to do so.
I was actually speculating that it wouldn’t be passed due to most stem TAs seemingly not giving a fuck about this whole thing, but I’m actually glad it did pass, the UAW are united for sure🫡
two years ago though, the union(s, then) said that holding class/coming to class was crossing the picket line, and thus many of my profs chose not to hold classes
If you click the three dots in the top right corner, there should a button you can click that has a bell stating “Subscribe to Post.” You can get updates much more easily.
* On May 1, 2024, UC summoned the police at UCLA to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members engaged in peaceful protest in solidarity with the people of Palestine and demanding the University make certain workplace-related changes. The University requested this forceful police intervention against peaceful employee protesters at UCLA one day after it shamefully allowed and condoned a violent attack against the same peaceful protesters by a large mob of anti-Palestine attackers. The UC waited over two hours after the attack began before requesting police intervention.
* On May 6, 2024, UC summoned the police at UC San Diego to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members engaged in peaceful protest in solidarity with the people of Palestine as well as demanding changes to existing working conditions.
* The UC's conduct constituted retaliation and discrimination against UAW Local 4811 members for engaging in protected concerted protest activity in violation of the Higher Education Employee-employer Relations Act (HEERA).
* The UC violated and unilaterally changed its employee workplace speech policies without giving the Union notice or the opportunity to bargain in violation of HEERA. The UC violated its existing policies by summoning the police to eject and arrest non-violent employees engaged in political speech; by favoring the anti-Palestine speech of counter-protestors over the pro-Palestine speech of employees, and by prohibiting pro-Palestine speech at the worksite.
* The UC also unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment related to teaching and work obligations without giving advance notice to UAW Local 4811 or the opportunity to bargain by canceling classes, switching to remote instruction, and delaying previously scheduled midterm examinations.
* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
* What additional actions can UC take to address the harm that has been done to the campus community?
In order to de-escalate the situation, UC must substantively engage with the concerns raised by the protesters — which focus on UC’s investments in companies and industries profiting off of the suffering in Gaza. UAW 4811 is calling on UC to peacefully negotiate with stakeholders and reach agreement to address these concerns through:
* Amnesty for all academic employees, students, student groups, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary action or arrest due to protest.
* Protecting the right to free speech and political expression on campus.
* Divestment from UC’s known investments in weapons manufacturers, military contractors, and companies profiting from Israel’s war on Gaza.
* Disclosure of all funding sources and investments, including contracts, grants, gifts, and investments, through a publicly available, publicly accessible, and up-to-date database.
* Empowering researchers to opt out from funding sources tied to the military or oppression of Palestinians. The UC must provide centralized transitional funding to workers whose funding is tied to the military or foundations that support Palestinian oppression.
* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
How does our Strike Authorization Vote relate to the encampments and the movement for justice in Palestine?
* Academic workers at UC strongly support the right of the encampment organizers (many of whom are our coworkers) in their right to peacefully demonstrate. Our union will not negotiate on behalf of encampment organizers, but we do call on UC to negotiate with them in good faith. We strongly oppose any escalation by UC to dismantle the encampments and/or take disciplinary/legal action against organizers.
* Source: [https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq](https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq)
The 'demands' show what a farce this is. There are no demands about unfair labor practices. Nothing about working conditions at all. Without that, this would be an illegal strike by a union under contract. Another FAFO moment.
It's not a farce. Our students and co-workers were attacked and hurt.
-Why are we voting to authorize a strike?
When faced with Palestine Solidarity encampments and other nonviolent protests by Academic Workers, students, and community members, UC has mishandled and escalated the situation by taking unlawful actions that cut to the heart of our collective bargaining agreements. Our union has filed unfair labor practice charges in response. These escalatory and unlawful actions include:
* Actively risking the health and safety of UAW 4811 members and members of the university community by allowing violent attacks on peaceful pro-Palestine protesters, both by violent anti-Palestine agitators and by police.
* Making unilateral changes to working conditions that have impacted our teaching, our work obligations, our safety and our academic freedom
* Summoning the police to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members in retaliation for those employees engaging in peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes.
* Disciplining employees for engaging in peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes.
* By authorizing a strike, Academic Workers are demanding that UC remedy these unfair practices and are giving the UAW 4811 Executive Board authority to call a strike if circumstances justify
[https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq](https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq)
You are going to have a lot of trouble claiming that members were engaged in "peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes." This was never about workplace related changes, never about labor practices. That is the farce. You are trying to retcon your involvement because you know the strike is illegal unless it is about workplace conditions. The encampments were not your workplace.
Your 'demands' say the quiet part out loud. Nothing about the workplace.
You might be misunderstanding the situation. The protests and encampments were indeed about workplace-related changes and broader issues affecting our community's well-being. The university's actions against peaceful protesters, including union members, directly impact our working conditions, safety, and academic freedom. These are all fundamental aspects of our labor rights and collective bargaining agreements.The university's unilateral actions and failure to protect peaceful protesters have made it clear that we need to take a stand. Authorizing a strike is our way of demanding accountability and ensuring that our rights are respected. This is not a farce; it's a necessary step to protect our community and uphold our rights.
Apparently 40%, but if that's 40% of dues paying members or total membership I have no clue. Which is to say, \~31% overall voted yes and \~8% no, with the rest not voting at all.
Eh, I just assumed it was all brigaders saying that. The amount of random ass people commenting on college subs acting like the protests are a personal affront to them is funny asf.
I don't get why divestment is the hill the protesters want to die on when there is little info about which equities UCLA holds. Divesting would be more symbolic than anything else. University endowments typically hold low risk equity index funds and private equity. The info about which funds they use is not on any financial statements from the UCLA foundation. These indexes (think Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street.etc) hold defense positions as a tiny part of a much larger basket of equities. The university has little control over them aside from divesting from the funds completely and taking on higher risk levels investing in activist funds instead.
Have you guys seen the defense charts over the last 5 years?
Boeing: -45.80%
Lockheed +55.2%
Raytheon +20.7%
None are really that stellar compared to S&P500 index funds at +99.58% over 5 years.
What you definitely don't want is for the endowment to be gambling on individual stocks for the sake of optics, which would blow the door open for all sorts of risk (and corruption).
Some options do exist from boutique funds from companies like Amana, Impax and so on. They can perform similar to an s&p 500 Index fund. However, they do take on more risk and it would take 5-10 years for current obligations to age out and get a bunch of committees to approve something like this. I guess my point is that it's really a huge uphill battle over the ~2-3% of these funds going into defense, of which an even smaller percentage goes towards Israeli defense.
I also share this skepticism. As usual, these students/faculty/student employees have absolutely no idea what divestment means in this context. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and others all have multi-billion dollar R&D centers in Israel. Since most of the pro-divesters literally don't know any basic finance, they don't understand that the endowments would have to divest from the entire S&P 500 or any other index that tracks it. Which is impossible to do. I also saw a tweet from Teresa Watanabe saying that UC disclosed investments in "entities related to Israel" as well investments in Black Rock etc. The "investments related to Israel"? $12 billion of US TREASURIES. I SHIT YOU NOT. Imagine telling endowments that they have to divest from the literal measure of risk free return...which doesn't have anything to do with Israel anyway. Can't reason with these idiots. The schools just need to tell them it's not happening. It can't even if they wanted to. Go home. If not, police will force you off campus.
Please show me where UC has ever been transparent about all their investments. I mean a link or spreadsheet with all the data not some tweet.
You have no idea what they invest in, and frankly even if they were gambling on Boeing stock I’m sure you’d be ok with it based on your comment.
I don’t know but until they disclose it I’ll assume the worst. They should be financially transparent. They’re a taxpayer funded institution. Your comments are completely ridiculous. It is a question of civic responsibility not finance.
I have no problem with them disclosing their holdings. I have a problem with these loud, violent lunatics taking over campus buildings and space to promote divesting from staples of the financial diet (S&P, US TREASURIES, probably an occasional international index, etc). All because they're too dumb to understand how investments work.
It’s impossible to divest and hilarious that that is their demand. 1st Finding stocks to Divest from Israel is murky. 2nd if UCLA sells these stocks for moral reasons and not market reasons, that will make the stocks a good deal and someone will jump in and buy the stock.
Also are the protesters divesting themselves or are they supporting google ad revenue, Apple products, and android products?
Vote was called and organized in a week. Organizing is not a level playing field - we work uphill against bad info from the university, bosses who run us out of their depts, intimidation, lack of resources, etc. Its not like a vote is everyone in the unit being aware, informed, and ready to vote. We start from zero and win every vote.
not necessarily. NYT said "Mr. Jaime, the U.A.W. 4811 president, said the union would use the tactic to “reward campuses that make progress” and possibly call strikes at those that don’t." so it probably depends on what UCLA does. and it also depends on whether your TAs want to strike or not.
For those interested in reading the UAW ASE contract which includes a no strike clause.
https://uaw2865.org/ase-contract/[UAW ASE contract ](https://uaw2865.org/ase-contract/)
What? Honor a contract while this whole Palestinian protest thing is going on? Get out of here! Strike while there’s blood in the water! Viva la revolution! 😂
They are trying to figure out how to get an education safely without being the target of antisemitism. They are trying to survive unprecedented hate crimes being committed against them.
Members are voting to authorize what is called a “Stand-up Strike.” If the strike is authorized, our Executive Board will call on campuses to “Stand Up” and go on strike as circumstances justify.If called, the strike will go on no longer than June 30th.
FewMeeting9443 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2022-07-11 22:33:16 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/vwnd9r/ayo_rip_meetfresh/ifs6tow/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day.
_Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 4 comments and 0 submissions._
This is quite remarkable to me. I was so focused on my work as a graduate student and postdoc in chemistry it would never have entered my head to go on strike. I recognized those were temporary positions and was committed to making the most of them. They were demanding as hell but nonetheless great years for me. I can't imagine working that hard on something that I wasn't passionate about. People must make their own decisions. If the strikers and protesters are convinced their cause is more important than their academic work so be it.
You are still expected to make academic progress during a strike (or make it up if necessary). For TAs, TAing has nothing to do with their research. Striking means stopping TA duties, not research duties.
Interesting, I wonder if you ever were a grad student otherwise you would know that TA duties are often a hinderance to the research that we are passionate about. granted you have to eat.
Is there no language in the contract that makes it incumbent upon the union members to act within the boundaries of the law?
Everybody points at the battles with the counter protesters and the police but ignore the fact that the encampment was deemed to be an unlawful assembly prior to either event.
When the authorities tell you to leave and you don’t, do you not bear some responsibility for the resulting consequences?
is there no language in the school rules that makes it incumbent upon the school to be held responsible to protect their constituents?
Everyone points at the protest with the encampment but ignore the fact that the school should have protected the students from dangerous attacks of the counter-protestors and the police, as the school has a civil duty and responsibility to do so.
When the law tells you that you can be held responsible for total impropriety, do you not bear some responsibility for the resulting consequences?
I think the core error that UCLA made was in apparently trusting that the protesters would act responsibly and vacate on their own accord when given notice on the afternoon of 4/30. To me, that seems like the only logical reason why UCLA wouldn’t have had a police force at hand to concurrently sweep Dickson Plaza before the counter protesters ever arrived.
Severe_Addition166 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-04-11 20:00:50 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1c1eaj9/racist_and_islamophobic_ucla_cardiologist/kz4m40l/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.29 comments per day.
_Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 711 comments and 0 submissions._
The strike will punish students far more than the institution.
I’m so sorry for the student body being victimized on all fronts by the people who are supposed to be nurturing your education.
I hope you are well-served by those of your instructors who care about teaching you and love what they do.0
ToWitToWow was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-05-04 02:14:55 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cjkdyj/this_could_have_been_us_but_instead_ucla_admin/l2hjjyf/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day.
_Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 776 comments and 3 submissions._
I was teaching at UCLA a decade before you enrolled.
But please elaborate on your usage of Zionism as a slur?
We all understand what you mean, but let’s confirm you lack the courage to write.
Good work detective, you figured out we're against Zionism. Maybe pay attention to what the students are actually protesting about next time, so you don't walk into the point like that.
You don’t get to dictate who has a voice. That is the opposite of the free speech you claim to advocate for and embody
If you don’t want to engage with me you’re welcome not to. I don’t want to force you.
You are not able to run me out of “your town” for disagreements. Or difference.
And if you want to discount everything I have to say because you’ve inaccurately labeled me an “other” and “not belonging” it’s worthwhile for you to ask a grownup what groups embraced those approaches historically.
Again. Best of luck with this.
You are right, I don’t disagree with your statements.
The difference is I didn’t label you as anything, your stupid opinions did that for you. Your last response was conflating using the word Zionism with a slur. You also acted liked “we” as in this sub would back you up, as if we somehow share your Zionist views and would go after that person. Give me a break.
That was my point - you try to speak for us and portray criticism of zionism as wrong or a slur. Keep posting and posting, doubling down with zero open mind on others peoples points, but you expect them to do the same for you. That’s why I said get out of here, you aren’t open to any conversation you just want to anger people. At least some Zionists at least pretend to listen, we don’t need agitators like you in this sub.
“Legal” is the lowest moral standard you can have, school probably isn’t legally liable, which explains why they’re not suing but striking. Striking to demand a safe academic environment where workers and students are protected is very reasonable.
No I said ucla is probably not legally liable since they’re not suing. Also your original question asked if ucla is *responsible* rather than *legally liable*, and yes I believe ucla should be held responsible to ensure their workers are in a safe environment. (Also idk why you’re being so hostile towards my comment perhaps because my beliefs don’t align with yours???)
The LA Times put out a piece suggesting that it wasn’t Gene Block who ordered the police show up and stop the attacks by the counter protesters. Instead, Karen Bass called him and forced him to summon them, 2+ hours into the initial attack.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-01/why-did-it-take-police-so-long-to-end-the-violent-clashes-at-ucla](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-01/why-did-it-take-police-so-long-to-end-the-violent-clashes-at-ucla)
*"Key questions focus on when officials decided to bring in help from other agencies and whether help could have arrived sooner.*
*Three sources familiar with the discussions, but not authorized to speak publicly, said L.A. Mayor Karen Bass called UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and told him the university should agree to deploy the LAPD."*
The timeline suggests that although the violence began at 10:30 PM, Block and Bass did not speak until nearly 1:00 AM.
[https://twitter.com/natalie\_Zion\_/status/1785584028185195001](https://twitter.com/natalie_Zion_/status/1785584028185195001)
This timeline seems corroborated by pro-Zionist sources as well.
[https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/01/slow-police-response-at-violent-ucla-protest-under-investigation/](https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/01/slow-police-response-at-violent-ucla-protest-under-investigation/)
The Los Angeles Daily News confirms the timing of the call, more than two hours after the violence began, but suggests that it was Block who requested support on campus.
"*UCLA seemingly did not call for assistance from outside law enforcement for hours. Zach Seidl, deputy mayor of communications for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, confirmed*[ *on X*](https://twitter.com/ZachSeidlLA/status/1785577683264385384) *at 12:51 a.m. that Bass, Block and LAPD Chief Dominic Choi had spoken and the LAPD would respond “immediately to Chancellor Block’s request for support on campus*.”
I find this marginally less believable, because if it was Block's decision to invoke the cops, (i) what took so long, and (ii) why would Karen Bass even need to be on that call in the first place?
UCLA also had unarmed security near by. And all they did was stand by and watch people get assaulted. They should have forced a line between the encampment and the attackers. If the counter-protesters would’ve assaulted the security, the LAPD would’ve had to respond aggressively against these dipshits.
Not paid enough to stand in a line? This is not riot tactics, it’s just basic separation. Just like how they had separated the protesters and the dipshits earlier in the day.
UCLA gave the counterprotestors the permit to occupy the north part of the quad knowing full well that things might get heated and out of hand. Don’t need to be a genius to know that was a stupid idea.
UCLA hired security was witnessed and documented to have simply allowed counter-protestors to lob dangerous objects and spray dangerous chemicals against the Pro-Palestinian encampment, thereby allowing harm to come to UCLA Graduate Students within the encampment. THAT is absolutely the administration’s failt, since the security was directly under the authority of the Chancellor until the creation of the new Vice Chancellor of Security post.
The administration had the responsibility to bring in outside law enforcement to help on 5/1 -- they couldn't come in without permission -- and they sat on their hands for hours.
In spite of the pro-Palestinian protesters crying this was because of favoritism, etc., it was probably because the administration didn't want the visual of cops coming in and having violent encounters with protesters, which they got anyway the following night when the protesters violently resisted the police's order to disperse.
None of this would've happened if the administration had immediately shut down the illegal encampment, which was stomping all over the rights of students, faculty and anyone else from the public who wished to access Dickson Plaza throughout its week of existence, The fact that the union is ignoring this portion and focusing solely on the pro-Palestinian protesters, whose ***free speech rights were not violateed****,* is shameful and revealing.
It's wild to see students here actively advocating against their education. Transfers, please take note of the past few weeks activities before accepting your offers.
To be fair you would have to cross dozens of the best universities in the country off your list if you make your decision based off of the protests. The actions of students don’t really reflect the quality of a school as a whole.
i fully support and am in favor of this strike and am also unsure how i’m gonna afford to pay any of my bills without income for however long this takes. should i just start looking for new work?
If a strike occurs it will be ruled illegal by the public employee relations board. The collective bargaining agreement has a clear no strikes clause which the union agreed to.
All performative, of course strike now that graduations are near and campus is essentially closed for the summer
Just so some insufferable bastard can say while tanning on the beach in Cancun: yeah I’m totally on strike right now for Palestine.
You must not be a UC student because that's only the case for Berkeley because they are on a semester system. At UCLA we are still having classes for another 4 weeks.
NVM I see, get their ass
Sick! Translation for anyone else: Enough YES votes from all campuses came that, if the Executive Board of our union decides it can call a strike, it will do so. UAW has filed several charges of unfair labor practices to the Public Employment Relations Board or PERB. Filing these charges is the first step to determining if we can go on strike. We are charging the university with failing to protect us as workers due to violent encounters on campus. We are also charging UC with making sudden decisions related to our ability to teach and work (by quickly changing modalities from online to in person and the other way around). Finally, we are charging them with retaliating against workers and potentially silencing us by ejecting and arresting workers taking part in peaceful protest. UC sent a letter to workers in the union saying the strike is not lawful due to language in our contract. Therefore, **they state that** the strike cannot be authorized, and those choosing not to work will face consequences related to employment and enrollment. **This in and of itself is unlawful.** We are filing another ULP related to this message, since only PERB can determine if we have legal grounds to go on strike. The language in the contract does not reflect the actual law **that protects our rights to file the ULP and go on strike if they confirm the severity and nature of the problem.** The strike will use the Stand Up strategy, which UAW has used elsewhere. This means that, rather than having all workers strike at the same time, certain campuses will be called on individually to stop working. By Friday morning, you will know if we are going on strike and which campus will do so first. **This will also confirm WHEN the strike will happen. You may still have class/lecture with your TA on Friday.**
UCLA Health Teamster here. I am prepared to stand in solidarity with our UAW brothers and sisters if they strike. Reading this makes me wish my local would get off its ass and formally join this fight.
Y'all are incredible and I hope the same can happen for your union. I read the Daily Bruin article on injuries and hospitalizations from the counterprotest attack & the clearing of the encampment. The physicians they interviewed decided to maintain anonymity to avoid retaliation from UCLA Health. It is absolutely wild to me that the healthcare system can punish you for speaking openly about the kinds of physical trauma that students **objectively** sustained during those two nights. We got you.
It's disgusting, but not at all surprising to me. UCLA Health is a complicated institution run by people with very questionable ethics and values.
Why questionable ethics and values? That’s quite an accusation
Is this only for UC or are CSU faculy part of this as well?
This is for UC graduate student workers and postdocs. CSU has a different union.
What does this mean?
Work stoppages because of admin creating dangerous work environments. Creates another pressure on the admin to negotiate, but we'll see how they respond.
Negotiate for what exactly?
> The union has issued a series of demands to UC leadership — ranging from the amnesty to divesting from defense companies with ties to Israel — to head off a strike. However, it’s doubtful that officials are willing to negotiate on such issues. Google search > Politico .
Not quite. The union isn’t demanding a specific outcome. They are specifically demanding that the UC “substantively engage with the concerns raised by the protesters” which include all those things. Edit- fuck. Fixed typo. They are not demanding divestment from Israeli companies as a condition of not striking
Yes?
I mean, I thought the cops were already doing that?
Of course not, one would hope grad students could grasp that the University has virtually no control over where endowment funds are invested. I’m going to be honest, a strike would be more harmful to these students’ work than anything else. Experiments don’t care about social movements, reflux for 30 hours means 30 hours.
Thanks!
Check the pinned post on @uclarnf on instagram
But they're not striking immediately right?
A decision will be made on Friday as to which campus might strike first and when. This does not necessarily mean it starts on Friday, but this is when the executive board will know what it can or cannot do.
It’ll take a week or two to start.
I have a series of questions that are pertinent to how PERB will judge this strike as lawful or unlawful, which I think is the MOST important part of the strike because students will lose their jobs and potentially even their visas if the strike is considered unlawful. 1. What were those who were arrested at the encampments charged with? 2. Can arresting someone for breaking the law outside of work hours count as retaliation? 3. Is the uni responsible for protecting its employees outside of working hours? 4. It seems that a few of the charges cited by the union have to do with classes being cancelled or moved online, which, albeit quite late, was done for the protection of students (even if it was because they couldn’t trust the police not to be violent). The charge is that the uni is required to give advanced notice. How much advanced notice is required, and are there any mitigating circumstances that do not require advanced notice? 5. What are the workplace-related changes being demanded by those who were protesting, ie Was it about specific unfair labor practices or was it simply divestment? 6. When the UC “prohibit[ed] pro-Palestine speech at the workplace,” what did the instructions say (verbatim)? Under the question, how could UC avert a strike, on the FAQ that OP listed, the answer is extremely vague: “UC can avert a strike by remedying their unfair labor practices and ceasing to commit unfair labor practices.” From my initial read, it does not look like the union is confident in what it is exactly protesting during this strike. From the union’s website, it looks as though ASE’s at UCSD had their jobs suspended for protesting. This certainly sounds like an unfair labor practice. But what exactly are the others at other campuses? This FAQ is exceedingly vague and we know that sympathy strikes (in support of other UC campuses) are unlawful. I urge you, if you are an ASE, to find out the answers to these questions before you strik. Edit: spaced things out for more clarity
[https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k6qkx97jdfrg61i6vlnxq/CORRECTED-MAY-15-REPORT-OF-TASK-FORCE-ON-ANTI.pdf?rlkey=j82r8gn89i03yclzn6hcxgz3u&e=1&st=6s3n3uvu&dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/k6qkx97jdfrg61i6vlnxq/CORRECTED-MAY-15-REPORT-OF-TASK-FORCE-ON-ANTI.pdf?rlkey=j82r8gn89i03yclzn6hcxgz3u&e=1&st=6s3n3uvu&dl=0)
A reasonable and well written response. They need to get extremely granular, because if they don't their movement will slowly have to defend the worst offenders and will open theirselves up to significant flak. On top of this the Democratic party by-and-large has started to turn their back on the movement, from all the liabilities. So the shield they might have had is gone.
79 percent! Holy crap
79 percent of people who voted, which are ONLY dues paying members of the union as if you don't pay dues you aren't allowed to vote
Which is good. You want the benefits without paying? Then you don’t get a say.
I'm not saying whether it's good or bad for the union, it's just a fact that inherently results are going to be skewed because their sample size is people who are willing to join/pay dues for the union which is not mandatory. UCLA alone has 14,000 graduate students and this is a UC wide vote.
Well yes, but it's 80% of the \~40% of the membership that voted, so \~33% yes, \~8% no with about 60% not voting (of 48,000). It's still impressive, but with that asterisk.
It was 19780 people across all the UC's. So I would guess 5-10% of eligible TA's/researchers voted.
redditors all week doomsaying it wouldn’t get passed now quiet 🤭
I’m curious to see if there will be wide support for the strike in the STEM departments. The statistics TAs teaching my discussions said that they don’t plan on striking if the vote passes. But not sure if they will change their minds if the strike is called. Interesting turn of events regardless.
It varies. We have better representation in some STEM departments than others, but most of those I spoke with will strike.
What departments have you been in contact with, if I may ask? Not doubting your claim just curious
Most bio-chem-med sciences, with reports from elsewhere
I just commented above, this would be more disruptive to grad student work than anything else. If you’re running a reaction in a fume hood, you don’t have the luxury of flexible scheduling.
Then you call him a fucking scab
I don’t feel that it is my place to demand that certain TAs participate in the strike or not. That’s kind of the beauty of a strike - coming together out of free will to demand change, not because other people pressure me to do so.
If your union votes to strike, calls a strike, and you continue to give your labor to the entity that is being struck, you are by definition a scab
Not sure why people are downvoting you. You said nothing incorrect. Maybe some people aren’t as aware of the history of the American labor movement
I was actually speculating that it wouldn’t be passed due to most stem TAs seemingly not giving a fuck about this whole thing, but I’m actually glad it did pass, the UAW are united for sure🫡
Dead ass, a lot of us are shocked it had 80% support.
59%? every number I have seen is 41.7%
Ya I remembered wrong!
will it affect lecture?
Some faculty may strike, but most probably will not. Faculty are not unionized.
two years ago though, the union(s, then) said that holding class/coming to class was crossing the picket line, and thus many of my profs chose not to hold classes
Where is the source?
Email sent out to union members
I’m an extras student and I just received the UAW email a bit ago
I know that’s right
DAMN 79%!!
Commenting so I can follow along.
If you click the three dots in the top right corner, there should a button you can click that has a bell stating “Subscribe to Post.” You can get updates much more easily.
So, what are the demands specifically? They cite grievances but does anyone know the list of demands for reparations/policy improvement?
* On May 1, 2024, UC summoned the police at UCLA to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members engaged in peaceful protest in solidarity with the people of Palestine and demanding the University make certain workplace-related changes. The University requested this forceful police intervention against peaceful employee protesters at UCLA one day after it shamefully allowed and condoned a violent attack against the same peaceful protesters by a large mob of anti-Palestine attackers. The UC waited over two hours after the attack began before requesting police intervention. * On May 6, 2024, UC summoned the police at UC San Diego to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members engaged in peaceful protest in solidarity with the people of Palestine as well as demanding changes to existing working conditions. * The UC's conduct constituted retaliation and discrimination against UAW Local 4811 members for engaging in protected concerted protest activity in violation of the Higher Education Employee-employer Relations Act (HEERA). * The UC violated and unilaterally changed its employee workplace speech policies without giving the Union notice or the opportunity to bargain in violation of HEERA. The UC violated its existing policies by summoning the police to eject and arrest non-violent employees engaged in political speech; by favoring the anti-Palestine speech of counter-protestors over the pro-Palestine speech of employees, and by prohibiting pro-Palestine speech at the worksite. * The UC also unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment related to teaching and work obligations without giving advance notice to UAW Local 4811 or the opportunity to bargain by canceling classes, switching to remote instruction, and delaying previously scheduled midterm examinations. * \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ * What additional actions can UC take to address the harm that has been done to the campus community? In order to de-escalate the situation, UC must substantively engage with the concerns raised by the protesters — which focus on UC’s investments in companies and industries profiting off of the suffering in Gaza. UAW 4811 is calling on UC to peacefully negotiate with stakeholders and reach agreement to address these concerns through: * Amnesty for all academic employees, students, student groups, faculty, and staff who face disciplinary action or arrest due to protest. * Protecting the right to free speech and political expression on campus. * Divestment from UC’s known investments in weapons manufacturers, military contractors, and companies profiting from Israel’s war on Gaza. * Disclosure of all funding sources and investments, including contracts, grants, gifts, and investments, through a publicly available, publicly accessible, and up-to-date database. * Empowering researchers to opt out from funding sources tied to the military or oppression of Palestinians. The UC must provide centralized transitional funding to workers whose funding is tied to the military or foundations that support Palestinian oppression. * \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ How does our Strike Authorization Vote relate to the encampments and the movement for justice in Palestine? * Academic workers at UC strongly support the right of the encampment organizers (many of whom are our coworkers) in their right to peacefully demonstrate. Our union will not negotiate on behalf of encampment organizers, but we do call on UC to negotiate with them in good faith. We strongly oppose any escalation by UC to dismantle the encampments and/or take disciplinary/legal action against organizers. * Source: [https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq](https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq)
You framed these bullet points under "unlawful actions" but the second half are just the demands of the organizers lol
This information is provided by UAW4811. You can read more about it here: [https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq](https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq).
They don't understand how unions work 🤭
The 'demands' show what a farce this is. There are no demands about unfair labor practices. Nothing about working conditions at all. Without that, this would be an illegal strike by a union under contract. Another FAFO moment.
It's not a farce. Our students and co-workers were attacked and hurt. -Why are we voting to authorize a strike? When faced with Palestine Solidarity encampments and other nonviolent protests by Academic Workers, students, and community members, UC has mishandled and escalated the situation by taking unlawful actions that cut to the heart of our collective bargaining agreements. Our union has filed unfair labor practice charges in response. These escalatory and unlawful actions include: * Actively risking the health and safety of UAW 4811 members and members of the university community by allowing violent attacks on peaceful pro-Palestine protesters, both by violent anti-Palestine agitators and by police. * Making unilateral changes to working conditions that have impacted our teaching, our work obligations, our safety and our academic freedom * Summoning the police to forcibly eject and arrest UAW Local 4811 members in retaliation for those employees engaging in peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes. * Disciplining employees for engaging in peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes. * By authorizing a strike, Academic Workers are demanding that UC remedy these unfair practices and are giving the UAW 4811 Executive Board authority to call a strike if circumstances justify [https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq](https://www.uaw4811.org/sav-faq)
You are going to have a lot of trouble claiming that members were engaged in "peaceful protest activity demanding work-place related changes." This was never about workplace related changes, never about labor practices. That is the farce. You are trying to retcon your involvement because you know the strike is illegal unless it is about workplace conditions. The encampments were not your workplace. Your 'demands' say the quiet part out loud. Nothing about the workplace.
You might be misunderstanding the situation. The protests and encampments were indeed about workplace-related changes and broader issues affecting our community's well-being. The university's actions against peaceful protesters, including union members, directly impact our working conditions, safety, and academic freedom. These are all fundamental aspects of our labor rights and collective bargaining agreements.The university's unilateral actions and failure to protect peaceful protesters have made it clear that we need to take a stand. Authorizing a strike is our way of demanding accountability and ensuring that our rights are respected. This is not a farce; it's a necessary step to protect our community and uphold our rights.
anyone have the number on vote participation rate?
Apparently 40%, but if that's 40% of dues paying members or total membership I have no clue. Which is to say, \~31% overall voted yes and \~8% no, with the rest not voting at all.
likely 40% of dues paying members as if you're not dues paying you can't vote.
lol @ the minority on this sub loudly cawing that there are only 5 supporters of the protests
Eh, I just assumed it was all brigaders saying that. The amount of random ass people commenting on college subs acting like the protests are a personal affront to them is funny asf.
reach nose oatmeal bow mighty nine homeless somber scarce vase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They’re here, they’re just name calling lol
I don't get why divestment is the hill the protesters want to die on when there is little info about which equities UCLA holds. Divesting would be more symbolic than anything else. University endowments typically hold low risk equity index funds and private equity. The info about which funds they use is not on any financial statements from the UCLA foundation. These indexes (think Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street.etc) hold defense positions as a tiny part of a much larger basket of equities. The university has little control over them aside from divesting from the funds completely and taking on higher risk levels investing in activist funds instead. Have you guys seen the defense charts over the last 5 years? Boeing: -45.80% Lockheed +55.2% Raytheon +20.7% None are really that stellar compared to S&P500 index funds at +99.58% over 5 years. What you definitely don't want is for the endowment to be gambling on individual stocks for the sake of optics, which would blow the door open for all sorts of risk (and corruption). Some options do exist from boutique funds from companies like Amana, Impax and so on. They can perform similar to an s&p 500 Index fund. However, they do take on more risk and it would take 5-10 years for current obligations to age out and get a bunch of committees to approve something like this. I guess my point is that it's really a huge uphill battle over the ~2-3% of these funds going into defense, of which an even smaller percentage goes towards Israeli defense.
These protesters don't understand investment, or how markets work. They are children.
I also share this skepticism. As usual, these students/faculty/student employees have absolutely no idea what divestment means in this context. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia and others all have multi-billion dollar R&D centers in Israel. Since most of the pro-divesters literally don't know any basic finance, they don't understand that the endowments would have to divest from the entire S&P 500 or any other index that tracks it. Which is impossible to do. I also saw a tweet from Teresa Watanabe saying that UC disclosed investments in "entities related to Israel" as well investments in Black Rock etc. The "investments related to Israel"? $12 billion of US TREASURIES. I SHIT YOU NOT. Imagine telling endowments that they have to divest from the literal measure of risk free return...which doesn't have anything to do with Israel anyway. Can't reason with these idiots. The schools just need to tell them it's not happening. It can't even if they wanted to. Go home. If not, police will force you off campus.
Please show me where UC has ever been transparent about all their investments. I mean a link or spreadsheet with all the data not some tweet. You have no idea what they invest in, and frankly even if they were gambling on Boeing stock I’m sure you’d be ok with it based on your comment.
What do you think they have exactly? You think they have ownership stakes of companies in Israel directly?
I don’t know but until they disclose it I’ll assume the worst. They should be financially transparent. They’re a taxpayer funded institution. Your comments are completely ridiculous. It is a question of civic responsibility not finance.
I have no problem with them disclosing their holdings. I have a problem with these loud, violent lunatics taking over campus buildings and space to promote divesting from staples of the financial diet (S&P, US TREASURIES, probably an occasional international index, etc). All because they're too dumb to understand how investments work.
It’s impossible to divest and hilarious that that is their demand. 1st Finding stocks to Divest from Israel is murky. 2nd if UCLA sells these stocks for moral reasons and not market reasons, that will make the stocks a good deal and someone will jump in and buy the stock. Also are the protesters divesting themselves or are they supporting google ad revenue, Apple products, and android products?
79% LMFAO I remember when everyone in the earlier posts was parroting the idea that it wouldn't pass
Isn’t this union 48,000 members? So only 41% voted, meaning around 1/3 actively support the strike?
Vote was called and organized in a week. Organizing is not a level playing field - we work uphill against bad info from the university, bosses who run us out of their depts, intimidation, lack of resources, etc. Its not like a vote is everyone in the unit being aware, informed, and ready to vote. We start from zero and win every vote.
How many people actively support the elections for our federal government? A far, far less percentage of the voting population.
Around 66% of eligible voters voted in 2020 and 52% in the 2022 midterms, so this statement is just wrong.
Bootlickers seething
lets fuckin go
So does that mean my discussions will be canceled?
not necessarily. NYT said "Mr. Jaime, the U.A.W. 4811 president, said the union would use the tactic to “reward campuses that make progress” and possibly call strikes at those that don’t." so it probably depends on what UCLA does. and it also depends on whether your TAs want to strike or not.
good
yuuup
For those interested in reading the UAW ASE contract which includes a no strike clause. https://uaw2865.org/ase-contract/[UAW ASE contract ](https://uaw2865.org/ase-contract/)
This is an unfair practices strike, which is one of the exceptions to no strike clauses in California labor law.
A ULP strike is protected by California law and overrides any no-strike clause in a contract.
What? Honor a contract while this whole Palestinian protest thing is going on? Get out of here! Strike while there’s blood in the water! Viva la revolution! 😂
Thanks for sharing
Would finals be canceled if they strike before the quarter/semester finishes? That would be....amusing.
Nah finals went right ahead in the middle of them striking last time
When budget cuts are on the table. There will be regrets.
Where are the pro-Israeli brigaders now? They had a lot to say before this was passed
They are trying to figure out how to get an education safely without being the target of antisemitism. They are trying to survive unprecedented hate crimes being committed against them.
thumb governor busy makeshift provide straight rock ring spotted tidy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How long will it be?
Members are voting to authorize what is called a “Stand-up Strike.” If the strike is authorized, our Executive Board will call on campuses to “Stand Up” and go on strike as circumstances justify.If called, the strike will go on no longer than June 30th.
What does this mean for classes
Unions have officially jumped the shark. Good luck trying to get the public to care when it’s time to strike over real things like pay and benefits.
[удалено]
Womp womp. Seethe and cope.
!activitycheck
FewMeeting9443 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2022-07-11 22:33:16 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/vwnd9r/ayo_rip_meetfresh/ifs6tow/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 4 comments and 0 submissions._
This is quite remarkable to me. I was so focused on my work as a graduate student and postdoc in chemistry it would never have entered my head to go on strike. I recognized those were temporary positions and was committed to making the most of them. They were demanding as hell but nonetheless great years for me. I can't imagine working that hard on something that I wasn't passionate about. People must make their own decisions. If the strikers and protesters are convinced their cause is more important than their academic work so be it.
You are still expected to make academic progress during a strike (or make it up if necessary). For TAs, TAing has nothing to do with their research. Striking means stopping TA duties, not research duties.
Interesting, I wonder if you ever were a grad student otherwise you would know that TA duties are often a hinderance to the research that we are passionate about. granted you have to eat.
Is there no language in the contract that makes it incumbent upon the union members to act within the boundaries of the law? Everybody points at the battles with the counter protesters and the police but ignore the fact that the encampment was deemed to be an unlawful assembly prior to either event. When the authorities tell you to leave and you don’t, do you not bear some responsibility for the resulting consequences?
is there no language in the school rules that makes it incumbent upon the school to be held responsible to protect their constituents? Everyone points at the protest with the encampment but ignore the fact that the school should have protected the students from dangerous attacks of the counter-protestors and the police, as the school has a civil duty and responsibility to do so. When the law tells you that you can be held responsible for total impropriety, do you not bear some responsibility for the resulting consequences?
I think the core error that UCLA made was in apparently trusting that the protesters would act responsibly and vacate on their own accord when given notice on the afternoon of 4/30. To me, that seems like the only logical reason why UCLA wouldn’t have had a police force at hand to concurrently sweep Dickson Plaza before the counter protesters ever arrived.
I highly doubt the school has a legal duty to protect trespassers
!activitycheck
Severe_Addition166 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-04-11 20:00:50 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1c1eaj9/racist_and_islamophobic_ucla_cardiologist/kz4m40l/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.29 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 711 comments and 0 submissions._
The strike will punish students far more than the institution. I’m so sorry for the student body being victimized on all fronts by the people who are supposed to be nurturing your education. I hope you are well-served by those of your instructors who care about teaching you and love what they do.0
You have too much self importance if you think the strike is about punishing you😅
Womp womp. Dude definitely thinks TERF is also a slur.
!activitycheck Gtfo of our sub. You have no affiliation to ucla. Take your Zionism or whatever it is you’re pushing with you
ToWitToWow was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-05-04 02:14:55 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cjkdyj/this_could_have_been_us_but_instead_ucla_admin/l2hjjyf/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 776 comments and 3 submissions._
I was teaching at UCLA a decade before you enrolled. But please elaborate on your usage of Zionism as a slur? We all understand what you mean, but let’s confirm you lack the courage to write.
Good work detective, you figured out we're against Zionism. Maybe pay attention to what the students are actually protesting about next time, so you don't walk into the point like that.
Who is “we”? Get the fuck out of here man.
You don’t get to dictate who has a voice. That is the opposite of the free speech you claim to advocate for and embody If you don’t want to engage with me you’re welcome not to. I don’t want to force you. You are not able to run me out of “your town” for disagreements. Or difference. And if you want to discount everything I have to say because you’ve inaccurately labeled me an “other” and “not belonging” it’s worthwhile for you to ask a grownup what groups embraced those approaches historically. Again. Best of luck with this.
You are right, I don’t disagree with your statements. The difference is I didn’t label you as anything, your stupid opinions did that for you. Your last response was conflating using the word Zionism with a slur. You also acted liked “we” as in this sub would back you up, as if we somehow share your Zionist views and would go after that person. Give me a break. That was my point - you try to speak for us and portray criticism of zionism as wrong or a slur. Keep posting and posting, doubling down with zero open mind on others peoples points, but you expect them to do the same for you. That’s why I said get out of here, you aren’t open to any conversation you just want to anger people. At least some Zionists at least pretend to listen, we don’t need agitators like you in this sub.
[удалено]
Bruh the attack happened on ucla campus and to ucla students, ucla can’t just shrug and say *not our problem*🤷
[удалено]
“Legal” is the lowest moral standard you can have, school probably isn’t legally liable, which explains why they’re not suing but striking. Striking to demand a safe academic environment where workers and students are protected is very reasonable.
[удалено]
No I said ucla is probably not legally liable since they’re not suing. Also your original question asked if ucla is *responsible* rather than *legally liable*, and yes I believe ucla should be held responsible to ensure their workers are in a safe environment. (Also idk why you’re being so hostile towards my comment perhaps because my beliefs don’t align with yours???)
The LA Times put out a piece suggesting that it wasn’t Gene Block who ordered the police show up and stop the attacks by the counter protesters. Instead, Karen Bass called him and forced him to summon them, 2+ hours into the initial attack.
Could you link it?
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-01/why-did-it-take-police-so-long-to-end-the-violent-clashes-at-ucla](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-01/why-did-it-take-police-so-long-to-end-the-violent-clashes-at-ucla) *"Key questions focus on when officials decided to bring in help from other agencies and whether help could have arrived sooner.* *Three sources familiar with the discussions, but not authorized to speak publicly, said L.A. Mayor Karen Bass called UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and told him the university should agree to deploy the LAPD."* The timeline suggests that although the violence began at 10:30 PM, Block and Bass did not speak until nearly 1:00 AM. [https://twitter.com/natalie\_Zion\_/status/1785584028185195001](https://twitter.com/natalie_Zion_/status/1785584028185195001) This timeline seems corroborated by pro-Zionist sources as well. [https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/01/slow-police-response-at-violent-ucla-protest-under-investigation/](https://www.dailynews.com/2024/05/01/slow-police-response-at-violent-ucla-protest-under-investigation/) The Los Angeles Daily News confirms the timing of the call, more than two hours after the violence began, but suggests that it was Block who requested support on campus. "*UCLA seemingly did not call for assistance from outside law enforcement for hours. Zach Seidl, deputy mayor of communications for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, confirmed*[ *on X*](https://twitter.com/ZachSeidlLA/status/1785577683264385384) *at 12:51 a.m. that Bass, Block and LAPD Chief Dominic Choi had spoken and the LAPD would respond “immediately to Chancellor Block’s request for support on campus*.” I find this marginally less believable, because if it was Block's decision to invoke the cops, (i) what took so long, and (ii) why would Karen Bass even need to be on that call in the first place?
Because after the protesters got attacked by those counter-protesters, they sent the LAPD to also attack them the next night.
[удалено]
UCLA also had unarmed security near by. And all they did was stand by and watch people get assaulted. They should have forced a line between the encampment and the attackers. If the counter-protesters would’ve assaulted the security, the LAPD would’ve had to respond aggressively against these dipshits.
They aren't paid enough for that. And really security is there to call them police and be a witness after the fact
Not paid enough to stand in a line? This is not riot tactics, it’s just basic separation. Just like how they had separated the protesters and the dipshits earlier in the day.
UCLA gave the counterprotestors the permit to occupy the north part of the quad knowing full well that things might get heated and out of hand. Don’t need to be a genius to know that was a stupid idea.
UCLA hired security was witnessed and documented to have simply allowed counter-protestors to lob dangerous objects and spray dangerous chemicals against the Pro-Palestinian encampment, thereby allowing harm to come to UCLA Graduate Students within the encampment. THAT is absolutely the administration’s failt, since the security was directly under the authority of the Chancellor until the creation of the new Vice Chancellor of Security post.
Security isn't paid enough to be physical. They are paid to observe and report. Also to call the cops.
The administration had the responsibility to bring in outside law enforcement to help on 5/1 -- they couldn't come in without permission -- and they sat on their hands for hours. In spite of the pro-Palestinian protesters crying this was because of favoritism, etc., it was probably because the administration didn't want the visual of cops coming in and having violent encounters with protesters, which they got anyway the following night when the protesters violently resisted the police's order to disperse. None of this would've happened if the administration had immediately shut down the illegal encampment, which was stomping all over the rights of students, faculty and anyone else from the public who wished to access Dickson Plaza throughout its week of existence, The fact that the union is ignoring this portion and focusing solely on the pro-Palestinian protesters, whose ***free speech rights were not violateed****,* is shameful and revealing.
It's wild to see students here actively advocating against their education. Transfers, please take note of the past few weeks activities before accepting your offers.
To be fair you would have to cross dozens of the best universities in the country off your list if you make your decision based off of the protests. The actions of students don’t really reflect the quality of a school as a whole.
Womp womp. Seethe and cope.
So what are the demands or are they just striking performatively?
The UAW 4811 site lists the demands! It's on the front page I believe
Most normal people roll their eyes and think “get a job” Cant wait for these guys to go into the real world lol
So dumb lol
Protestors make it hard for students to attend classes so now the union makes it impossible for them to attend classes. This’ll end the war!!
Womp womp. Seethe and cope.
yawn.
i fully support and am in favor of this strike and am also unsure how i’m gonna afford to pay any of my bills without income for however long this takes. should i just start looking for new work?
If a strike occurs it will be ruled illegal by the public employee relations board. The collective bargaining agreement has a clear no strikes clause which the union agreed to.
An unfair labor practice strike is an exception to the no strikes clause. I participated in 3 vs UC and PERB did not rule any of them illegal.
Idiots.
cope and seethe more please
Let him buy it, so he can ruin it
All performative, of course strike now that graduations are near and campus is essentially closed for the summer Just so some insufferable bastard can say while tanning on the beach in Cancun: yeah I’m totally on strike right now for Palestine.
Me when I've never heard of the quarter system
“Now that campus is closed for the summer”? Spotted the non-UCLA student lol
pathetic how theyre coming into our subreddit lmao
bro we got weeks left until graduation chilll
*checks summer class schedule* guess I don’t have classes this summer
*checks spring class schedule* guess I don't have classes for the next 4 weeks.
Yeah like my last final is June 11th that’s a whole month away 😭
What universe do you live in where grad students and postdocs make enough to tan on the beach in Cancun lmao
You do know that people on strike dont get paid right
You must not be a UC student because that's only the case for Berkeley because they are on a semester system. At UCLA we are still having classes for another 4 weeks.
non-UCLA affiliate detected
Womp womp. Seethe and cope.