Proposed NLRB Rule Would Revoke Graduate Students’ Union Rights

A changed playing field as graduate student union, Harvard negotiate

Massachusetts Hall

Photograph by Muns/Wikipedia

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will publish a proposed rule on Monday that would exempt university students who conduct paid teaching and research from the right to form a labor union, a right guaranteed to most other private-sector workers. If approved, it would be the fourth time since 2000 that the federal agency has flipped its position on graduate-student unionization, and would mean that private universities are no longer required to bargain with student unions. The rule could have wide-ranging consequences for private universities where grad students have already formed unions, including Harvard—where the union and the University are in protracted negotiations over an initial contract. 

Harvard graduate students voted to form union in April 2018, after building support through a years-long organizing drive. A 2016 NLRB decision had ruled that private university graduate students were employees and thus entitled to collective bargaining rights, which meant that their employers had to recognize and bargain with democratically elected unions. According to the NLRB’s proposed view announced today, which would in effect reverse the 2016 decision, “students who perform services—including teaching and/or research—for compensation at a private college or university in connection with their studies are not ‘employees’” under the National Labor Relations Act.

After the 2018 election, Harvard announced it would bargain with the Harvard Graduate Student Union-UAW (HGSU-UAW), and the two parties have been negotiating over an initial contract since last fall. Now, after today’s NLRB announcement, University spokesman Jonathan Swain said, “We are reviewing the proposed rule to assess what implications it may have on the University’s ongoing negotiations with the Harvard Graduate Student Union-UAW.”  

“This proposed rulemaking by the Trump NLRB is a naked attempt to crush our growing movement,” HGSU-UAW tweeted this morning. “But it won’t stop us from fighting for a fair contract, and it won’t stop the thousands of student workers who are organizing across the country.”

“In the past 19 years, the Board has changed its stance on this issue three times,” NLRB chairman John Ring, who was appointed in 2018 by President Donald Trump, said in a news release. “This rulemaking is intended to obtain maximum input on this issue from the public, and then to bring stability to this important area of federal labor law.” Members of the public are invited to make comments on the proposal for 60 days after its publication.  

Read more articles by Marina N. Bolotnikova

You might also like

Are Creators the Future of Democracy?

A Harvard panel considers how “parasocial relationships” might drive democratic engagement.

Harvard Board of Overseers Candidates Describe Priorities

Alumni will vote for the University governing board in April and May.

Five Questions with Dick Friedman

Harvard Magazine’s longstanding football editor reflects on his career in journalism.

Most popular

Mark Carney on the Limits of Soft Power

At the 2026 Davos summit, the Canadian prime minister echoes Harvard’s Joseph Nye.

Why Men Are Falling Behind in Education, Employment, and Health

Can new approaches to education address a growing gender gap?

A Flu Vaccine That Actually Works

Next-gen vaccines delivered directly to the site of infection are far more effective than existing shots.

Explore More From Current Issue

Man in a suit holding a pen, smiling, seated at a desk with a soft background.

A Congenial Voice in Japanese-American Relations

Takashi Komatsu spent his life building bridges. 

Two bare-knuckle boxers fight in a ring, surrounded by onlookers in 19th-century attire.

England’s First Sports Megastar

A collection of illustrations capture a boxer’s triumphant moment. 

Four men in a small boat struggle with rough water, one lying down and others watching.

The 1884 Cannibalism-at-Sea Case That Still Has Harvard Talking

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens changed the course of legal history. Here’s why it’s been fodder for countless classroom debates.