5 Escalation Tactics CSU Workers Could Borrow from Historic Labor Wins

More than 1,000 skilled trades workers walked off the job across California State University’s 23 campuses on February 17, 2026, testing whether a public university could change what contracts mean whenever it wanted.

The four-day strike over what they say are illegal employer actions, with 94 percent of union members voting for the strike, emerged from a straightforward dispute: CSU claimed a zero-interest state loan didn’t trigger contractually promised salary increases. The union argued this was a legal loophole designed to avoid paying what staff had already negotiated.

While the strike generated substantial media coverage and multi-union solidarity pledges, classes continued, buildings stayed operational, and CSU showed no signs of giving in. Which raises the question: what escalation tactics could transform a symbolic action into genuine leverage?

The Contract Dispute That Started It All

The roots trace back to May 2022. Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration and CSU leadership finalized a multi-year funding agreement promising five percent annual base increases for five years. The agreement established that salary increases would kick in when the state provided at least $227 million in new permanent state funding.

The state’s 2025-26 budget cut CSU’s regular funding by three percent—about $144 million—instead of increasing it. The state offered a zero-interest loan equal to the reduction, repayable by July 1, 2027.

CSU’s position? The loan didn’t count as permanent new money, so no increases. The union’s counter? That’s the kind of accounting tricks that lets employers dodge contractual obligations whenever convenient.

By July 2025, when increases were withheld, CSU offered a one-time 3 percent bonus instead. Union leadership rejected it immediately. One-time payments don’t permanently raise your pay, don’t increase your pension, and don’t compound in future years.

Paul Fahy, a building services engineer at Cal Poly with 30 years at CSU, found a 1999 letter in university records offering the same “one-time bonus” substitute. Three decades of the same playbook.

Meanwhile, CSU approved five to twenty percent increases for university presidents in November 2025 and four to seventeen percent increases for vice chancellors in January 2026. That contrast—executives getting substantial permanent increases while staff got offered temporary bonuses—became the union’s most effective messaging.

Why the Initial Strike Had Limited Leverage

The strike launched with a well-organized effort. Picket lines went up simultaneously at San Diego State, Cal Poly Humboldt, Fresno State, and twenty other locations. Local television news across California covered it extensively. The Faculty Association announced faculty would honor picket lines. Other CSU unions issued solidarity statements.

But classes continued. Buildings stayed open. Maintenance proceeded with managers and non-union workers.

Unlike transit strikes that immediately halt service or healthcare strikes that create patient care crises, skilled trades workers in higher education can delay maintenance for days or even weeks without things breaking down. Heating systems don’t fail overnight. Electrical infrastructure doesn’t collapse in four days.

The strike’s real power lay in how long it could last, not its immediate disruption. A prolonged action would eventually force campus systems to degrade to the point where things stop working. But the four-day framework with $600 strike fund payments suggested the union was testing the strategy, not committing to indefinite action.

Five Escalation Tactics from Historic Labor Victories

1. Rolling Strikes at Selected Campuses

The 1997 UPS Teamsters strike offers a blueprint. Rather than striking everywhere at once, the union focused on the busiest shipping centers. When those hubs shut down, UPS’s delivery system broke down within days. The 15-day strike cost the company over $600 million and ended with big wins for the union.

CSU staff could adopt a similar approach—strike two or three campuses each week, rotating which sites participate. Start with San Diego State’s research enterprise, Cal Poly SLO’s engineering programs, or sites hosting major events. Target facilities where maintenance disruption causes bigger problems.

Rolling strikes maintain the strike fund’s sustainability while extending economic pressure across weeks or months. CSU can’t permanently hire replacement staff at all 23 locations simultaneously. The hassle of dealing with rotating strikes keeps administrators focused on the problem. And local media coverage concentrates on specific sites rather than spreading thin across the system.

The challenges? Keeping everyone committed when only some sites participate at any given time makes it harder for workers to stick together. Staff at non-striking locations might feel tempted to work while others sacrifice income. And CSU could use the rotation as a negotiation advantage, claiming operations continue normally when strikes pause.

2. Pressuring Companies That Work With CSU

The United Farm Workers successfully used boycott strategies by targeting stores rather than farms directly. When Delano grape growers refused recognition in 1965, Cesar Chavez’s organization selected Schenley Industries—the second-largest grower with national liquor sales—as the boycott target. Because everyone knew the brand, public pressure worked.

CSU skilled trades staff could use the same approach. Many campus construction projects employ unionized electricians, carpenters, and equipment operators. Food and supply vendors serving campus dining face union workers who receive deliveries. Sacramento Regional Transit provides bus service to major locations with union drivers.

The 1990s Justice for Janitors campaigns pressured building owners who hired janitorial companies rather than the companies themselves. During the 2023-24 CFA faculty strike, union members successfully coordinated with Sacramento transit union members to honor picket lines, denying campus transit service.

Construction halts would directly impact CSU’s capital projects and visible infrastructure development. Vendor delivery disruptions create evidence of campus disruption that students and media can’t ignore. Working with other unions turns a skilled trades strike into broader labor action with multiple pressure points.

But laws that limit boycotts against companies that aren’t directly involved require careful strategy. Federal law bans some types of boycotts against third-party companies, though specifics vary. The risk of injunctions limiting secondary tactics is real. And some companies connected to CSU might lack sufficient leverage over the university to justify the legal risk.

3. Legislative Campaigns to Change the Law

The 2018-2019 West Virginia teachers strike succeeded through legislative pressure rather than workplace disruption. Teachers pressured politicians, needing state laws to fix pay problems across all districts simultaneously.

CSU also needs the legislature to approve funding. The Teamsters could coordinate with the Labor Federation and allied unions to launch a statewide campaign demanding lawmakers pass a law that clarifies the 2022 funding agreement, removing CSU’s ability to reinterpret it.

Movement in this direction already exists. Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens introduced Assembly Bill 1831 to limit CSU executive pay to 125 percent of the governor’s salary and prevent executive increases during years when student tuition increases. The Faculty Association sponsored it.

The Teamsters could expand this approach. Proposed bills could require CSU to provide annual increases tied to cost-of-living inflation, end the difference between bonuses and raises, or let the legislature oversee CSU pay decisions.

Laws passed by the legislature would go around CSU’s negotiators completely, making CSU follow the law instead of winning through strikes. California enjoys relative fiscal health compared to many states, making CSU increases legislatively achievable. Governor Newsom’s January 2026 budget proposal included additional CSU funding, suggesting willingness from legislators.

The downsides? Legislative campaigns require keeping people active and involved for months, testing worker patience more than short-term strikes. CSU has influence with politicians in Sacramento. Timeline is uncertain—legislative solutions could take years. And laws might be weakened through compromise, producing only partial solutions.

4. Work-to-Rule Slowdowns

British postal workers once used a highly effective tactic: they arrived at official start times rather than an hour early, stopped working when their shift ended instead of working extra unpaid hours, only used the vans they were officially assigned, and weighed mailbags to follow safety rules. The result? A 10-14 day delivery backlog that hurt the company without workers losing pay.

During a French railroad dispute in the 1950s, workers stopped at every bridge to inspect safety conditions precisely as rules required, creating massive delays while technically following all protocols.

CSU skilled trades staff could follow every safety rule, maintenance protocol, and operational standard. Rather than doing routine maintenance quickly based on experience, demand written permission for every job. Document every safety check as the rules require. Don’t do any work without clear written approval.

Following the schedule for heating and cooling maintenance, electrical code requirements, and plumbing standards would slow routine operations. Systems start breaking down without making things break right away. Ask for written permission before fixing emergencies, requiring management to directly approve and oversee all work rather than workers making their own decisions.

Work-to-rule lets workers keep their jobs and paychecks while making things harder for management. Management can’t punish workers for following the rules. The strategy avoids the legal problems of regular strikes. And it can continue indefinitely—weeks or months without workers going broke.

The challenges? It takes longer to have an effect, requiring patience from members used to strikes that work quickly. CSU could hire private contractors to do maintenance faster, potentially getting around the slowdown. And it’s legally unclear whether workers are following rules if management claims staff are deliberately slowing operations.

5. Building Occupations with Faculty and Students

The 1936 Flint sit-down strike succeeded partly because workers could occupy factories that employers desperately needed operational. On December 30, 1936, approximately 50 UAW assembly-line workers suddenly took over Fisher Body Plant 3 in Flint, Michigan. Within days, the sit-down expanded to 2,000 workers occupying three GM plants simultaneously.

Workers set up groups to handle food, bathrooms, and entertainment. They made rules: no alcohol, no violence, no breaking things. By occupying the factories, they stopped management from bringing in other workers or moving work to other factories. Forty-four days after the occupation began, GM gave in.

Skilled trades staff could coordinate with faculty and students to occupy administration buildings—particularly the CSU Chancellor’s Office in Long Beach or key campus administrative centers.

The 2011 Wisconsin Capitol occupation demonstrated how powerful occupations can be when dealing with politicians. Students and faculty regularly occupy administrative facilities on American campuses. Faculty willing to hold classes at the occupation site, students providing food and supplies, and using the occupied space for union meetings would transform occupation from protest to a working alternative to normal operations.

Occupations are impossible to ignore—media can’t ignore people physically present in administrative spaces. The tactic shows serious commitment, possibly changing negotiations when management sees how determined workers are. And partnering with faculty and students turns a workers’ strike into a bigger movement with different groups.

But the legal risks are big. Occupation likely breaks building rules and possibly trespassing laws. CSU could get a judge to order everyone out immediately, leading to confrontations with police. Keeping an occupation running for weeks requires complicated planning. And news coverage could change from sympathetic labor struggle to disruptive occupation hurting campuses.

What History Teaches About Strike Success

Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan on peaceful protest movements found that nonviolent campaigns were more than twice as successful as violent campaigns at reaching political and labor goals. Their analysis of campaigns between 1900 and 2006 showed nonviolent movements attracted broader participation, came up with better tactics, and found more ways to disrupt normal life.

The 1997 UPS strike succeeded partly because the public supported Teamster strikers over the company by a two-to-one margin according to Gallup polling. The 2019 Chicago Teachers Strike secured increases, smaller class sizes, and increased support staff after a 10-day strike approved by 94 percent of members—the same authorization percentage as the CSU action. Thousands of parents and community members joined the strike in solidarity because teachers presented it as a fight for better schools that would help students and families.

Unions need more than stopping work. They require public sympathy, support from other groups, and showing how what workers want helps the whole community.

The November 2022 University of California strike involving nearly 48,000 graduate students and researchers showed this at California universities. The six-week strike won pay increases big enough that minimum base pay for teaching assistants rose from $24,000 to $36,000 by end of 2024, plus a $2,000 per semester childcare subsidy. While the contract meant some staff get paid less than others for the same job, the strike proved unions’ ability to win big improvements even against powerful employers with lots of money.

The Broader Stakes

As the strike entered its fourth day on February 20, 2026, negotiations were stuck. CSU’s fundamental position—that the zero-interest loan doesn’t constitute permanent new money—remained unchanged. The Teamsters stood firm demanding retroactive 5 percent increases beginning July 2025.

But this dispute extends beyond immediate compensation. It’s about whether employers can change what contracts mean on their own whenever budget problems make promises expensive. It’s about whether executive compensation grows while worker compensation stagnates. And it’s about whether unions can force employers to honor negotiated agreements.

Teamsters Local 2010’s January 2024 victory winning major contract improvements—including brought back automatic annual raises after 28 years—showed the union could keep fighting. The 94 percent strike authorization vote indicated almost all members were committed. Support from faculty, staff, other employees, and even police unions created pressure from different groups.

The February 2026 strike represented the second major CSU labor action within a year. Faculty had struck in 2023-2024, securing substantial gains. If CSU’s strategy was to wait out strikes assuming staff would eventually give up, this strike was big enough and had enough support to prove that wrong.

A union victory would strengthen unions across the state, showing that even when budgets are tight, unions can force employers to pay what they promised. A defeat would slow down union progress as university workers across the country think about forming unions. The outcome will affect university workers, affecting chances of forming new unions at other universities and institutions.

The tactical choices available to the Teamsters—rolling strikes, secondary pressure, legislative campaigns, work-to-rule compliance, occupation strategies—all worked in past labor fights. Each approach has different pros and cons, legal risks and practical problems.

Which tactics the union employs, if any beyond the current four-day strike, will shape both how this dispute ends and how government unions work and negotiate in California for years to come. History suggests that escalation works when it combines disruption with building alliances, when it shows how what workers want helps everyone, and when it shows workers can hold out longer than the employer.

The question isn’t whether CSU staff have tactical options. It’s whether they’re willing to use them.

This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.