As we emerge from a long Labor Day holiday weekend, during which the press spent considerable time lauding the current trendiness and popularity of labor unions, they devoted little time to discussing the downside of labor unions.
Unions supposedly exist for one primary reason: To provide workers with protection and a collective voice. But like any institution, unions are run by people, and people do not always get it right. Sometimes, the very structures meant to shield employees from unfair treatment end up exposing them to a different kind of risk.
Two recent cases, one at Stanford University and another in Colchester, Connecticut, illustrate what happens when unions drift away from their claimed responsibility of representing members fairly.
Stanford: When Dissent Becomes a Liability
At Stanford, graduate students organized in 2023 and quickly reached their first contract. That should have been a milestone for student workers, who often juggle low pay and high workloads. But the contract also came with strings attached.
As doctoral candidate Jon Hartley explained in the Wall Street Journal, graduate assistants were told they must pay union dues to keep their teaching jobs. For students who disagreed with the union’s political stances, that requirement felt like more than collective bargaining. It felt like being forced to underwrite speech they actively opposed.
The union had adopted an anti-Israel resolution in 2023, in line with its national affiliate, which supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Jewish students and others who opposed BDS suddenly faced a choice: contribute financially to the cause or lose their positions.
Hartley, a practicing Roman Catholic, sought a religious exemption. Stanford told him the union had the final say. In other words, the group demanding his financial support also held the power to veto whether his objection would be honored.
For some, that was a bridge too far. What began as an effort to secure better conditions for graduate workers instead became a test of ideological loyalty.
Similar arguments are being made by graduate students at the University of Chicago, who are taking their union to federal court, arguing that being forced to support the union violates their constitutional rights.
Colchester: When Coverage Disappears
In Colchester, Connecticut, a different story unfolded. Mary Williamson, the town of Colchester’s finance director, was initially covered by a Memorandum of Understanding that placed her job inside the union’s bargaining unit. Finance directors in both the town and the Board of Education had historically been included.
But after a restructuring that eliminated the CFO role above her, a new agreement quietly removed Williamson’s position. The town argued she now met the definition of “department head,” a category excluded from union coverage under state law. That reclassification left her without representation.
The timing raised questions. Williamson had recently raised concerns about budgeting practices. Soon after, she found herself both outside the union and facing disciplinary charges. She was eventually fired due to allegations of benefit misuse and unauthorized purchases.
The Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations backed the town, saying Williamson’s role was legitimately excluded. But the Board did not weigh in on whether the process of removing her from the bargaining unit was fair. Williamson has since appealed to the Superior Court, arguing the ruling was “arbitrary and capricious.” As reported by the Connecticut Inside Investigator, she claims that she lost union protections at the very moment she needed them most.
The case underscores a gray area in labor law. A union owes a duty of fair representation to everyone in its bargaining unit. But if an employer and union agree to redefine who belongs in that unit, the individual can be left out altogether.
The Bigger Picture
Stanford’s dispute revolves around compelled inclusion. Colchester’s fight revolves around exclusion. However, the through line remains the same: when unions prioritize ideology or expedience over fair treatment, individuals ultimately bear the consequences.
This is not a new pattern. Across industries, workers have seen:
- Dissenters sidelined for challenging leadership
- Deals cut with management that sacrifice a few for the benefit of the whole
- Grievances are ignored because pursuing them would disrupt internal politics
The irony is that unions supposedly exist to protect workers from arbitrary treatment by management. Yet, without accountability, unions can perpetuate the same kind of inequities they purport to address.
Even politicians are starting to take notice. Rep. Scott Perry has introduced the Freedom from Union Violence Act to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Enmons. That ruling carved out a loophole in federal law by holding that violence committed in pursuit of “legitimate union objectives,” such as higher wages during a strike, did not qualify as extortion under the Hobbs Act.
Since then, critics say Enmons has shielded union-related violence from prosecution, with more than 12,000 incidents, including over 200 deaths and thousands of injuries, going largely unpunished.
Placed alongside the other cited stories, Perry’s bill highlights a broader concern: unchecked union power can harm members not just through coercion or exclusion, but also by creating legal cover for physical intimidation and violence.
Real representation does not mean forced dues or quietly excluding inconvenient members, or worse. It means ensuring that workers can dissent without fear of retaliation, and that their representation is not negotiable based on other agendas.
