How Teamsters Local 2010 Coordinated a System-Wide CSU Strike
About 1,100 skilled trades workers across California’s 23-campus State University system walked off the job, launching a statewide strike. Their demand was straightforward: enforce the contractual salary increases that CSU had withheld for over seven months. The work stoppage, called an Unfair Labor Practice strike (meaning the employer broke labor law) and authorized by 94 percent of union members, represented one of the most coordinated labor actions ever attempted across California’s geographically dispersed public university system.
At Cal Poly, Teamsters Local 2010 members picketed from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. near the Slack Street campus entrance. Similar picket lines materialized at facilities from San Diego to Arcata. The dispute centers on a promise CSU made during 2023-24 labor negotiations: permanent 5 percent salary increases and salary step increases, but only if the state provided at least $227 million in new permanent funding from the state’s general budget.
When California’s proposed 2025-26 state budget implemented a 3 percent reduction to CSU’s base funding—about $144 million—rather than the promised increase, the university declined to implement the scheduled raises. Instead, CSU offered a one-time 3 percent bonus. Union leadership rejected it as providing far less long-term financial benefit, particularly for workers whose state pension benefits, which are calculated based on final salary, depend on final salary calculations.
Seven Months of Escalating Tension
The strike represented the culmination of months of escalating tension rooted in CSU’s interpretation of its contractual obligations. The origins trace back to November 2023, when Teamsters Local 2010 held a one-day statewide strike protesting what the union characterized as multiple unfair labor practices and bad-faith bargaining.
Following sustained pressure through strikes and coordinated organizing across multiple CSU unions, the Teamsters ratified a contract in February 2024 that union officials described as “the strongest contract in unit history.” The agreement featured the restoration of salary steps after 28 years of absence and cumulative salary increases averaging over 16 percent over the contract’s three-year term. But there was a catch: the agreement included language making these raises contingent only if the state provided at least $227 million in new permanent funding from the state’s general budget.
This contingency wasn’t an arbitrary union demand. It reflected contractual negotiations in which both parties agreed that salary increases would be triggered only if the state delivered permanent new funding rather than temporary measures or loans.
When California’s proposed 2025-26 budget cycle unfolded, the state didn’t provide the promised 5 percent annual base funding increase to CSU. Instead, it proposed a 3 percent reduction totaling about $144 million. However, the state offered CSU a zero-interest loan equal to the reduction amount, which would be repaid by July 1, 2026. This distinction—between new, ongoing funding and temporary loans—became the critical point of contractual dispute.
CSU Chancellor’s Office interpreted the zero-interest loan as not constituting “new, ongoing support” and therefore determined that the contractual conditions for implementing the promised salary increases hadn’t been met. In lieu of the permanent raises, CSU proposed a one-time 3 percent bonus to all employees.
Union leaders rejected this position. The one-time bonus structure reflected a decades-long pattern that building services engineer Paul Fahy documented when he discovered a letter from 1999 offering “one-time bonuses” instead of permanent raises—a practice repeated across his 30-year career at the institution. For workers depending on salary progression for retirement planning, the distinction between permanent and temporary compensation holds profound long-term consequences.
The contractual impasse proceeded through established legal channels under state law governing university labor relations. On February 11, 2026, CSU and Teamsters Local 2010 representatives met with a state mediator to try to resolve the dispute, a required step before striking when both sides say they’re stuck and can’t agree. Following this unsuccessful fact-finding session, the union membership voted to authorize the strike action, with 94 percent of members voting in favor.
On February 17, the strike commenced across the entire 23-campus CSU system. Workers at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly Pomona, San Diego State, San Francisco State, Fresno State, and all other campuses in the system walked off the job, with picket lines appearing at main entrances and service areas. The strike was called an unfair labor practice strike, a legal category that matters because workers in these strikes can’t be fired and have the right to return to their positions following strike conclusion, though they don’t receive compensation for time spent on strike.
Building the Organizational Infrastructure
The strike reflected the organizational capacity and strategic vision of Teamsters Local 2010, a union representing skilled trades workers across California’s public higher education system. Local 2010 traces its origins to an earlier organization representing state civil service and CSU trades workers, originally formed as LiUNA Local 1268 in 1976. The union organized to represent state and CSU skilled trades workers throughout the late 1970s, executing a statewide trades strike in 1979 that affected California state agencies and won the right to represent CSU’s skilled trades workers in 1982.
However, by the early 2000s, the organization struggled to represent workers, with workers losing confidence in leadership during periods of weak bargaining and extended contracts without raises. The transformation occurred when former independent unions representing UC and CSU workers affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, starting with the University of California clerical and administrative workers in 2010 and progressing through CSU skilled trades units voting to join Teamsters Local 2010 between 2016 and 2021. When the final skilled trades affiliation was confirmed by membership vote, Local 2010 had grown to represent nearly 23,000 workers, with about 1,100 skilled trades workers in the CSU unit.
Local 2010 invested in strike preparation through two separate training sessions held in early February 2026. Sixty Southern California Unit 6 Teamsters attended a Friday training where members practiced picketing tactics, legal rights during strikes, picket line management, and conversations with students, police, and other union members about respecting strike lines. Northern California strike captains underwent parallel training, with the union ensuring that all 22 picket lines were ready with trained leadership and clear tactical guidelines.
Coalition Building Across Multiple Unions
The strike didn’t unfold as an isolated union action but rather as part of a broader coalition of CSU labor organizations. Multiple unions representing different employee categories at CSU had negotiated contracts containing similar contingency language regarding state funding. These included the California Faculty Association (CFA), representing about 29,000 faculty members across CSU campuses; the California State University Employees Union (CSUEU), representing clerical and administrative workers; Academic Professionals of California (APC); and other employee organizations.
In the months preceding the strike, these unions coordinated their public messaging and bargaining strategies. The CFA announced that while faculty couldn’t legally go on strike in conjunction with Teamsters, CFA members should honor picket lines and show solidarity. CFA leadership framed the support as mutual aid, noting that “when we do so, we strengthen collective power across our unions and send a clear message that an injury to one is an injury to all.”
The California Labor Federation (the state’s main labor organization), encompassing nearly 2.5 million workers across all sectors of the California economy, officially supported the Teamsters strike. Teamsters Joint Councils 7 and 42 (regional Teamsters organizations), representing all Teamsters Local Unions in Northern and Southern California respectively, provided organizational infrastructure and solidarity pledges.
The coalition extended beyond traditional public sector allies to include unions representing different workforce categories. Unions representing autoworkers, police departments, and other occupational groups issued solidarity pledges, signaling broader labor movement support. General President Sean O’Brien of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appeared in California to support the strike, participating in a February 17 rally at San Francisco State University alongside California Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, a sign of both labor movement unity and political endorsement from elected officials. The State Building & Construction Trades Council of California also advised their members not to cross Teamsters picket lines, potentially affecting construction and delivery services to campuses.
How the Strike Unfolded Across 23 Campuses
The February 17-20, 2026 strike unfolded across all 23 CSU campuses according to a coordinated schedule, with picketing occurring from early morning through mid-afternoon at most locations. At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, the strike’s most visible location in media coverage, Teamsters Local 2010 members established picket lines from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. near the Slack Street campus entrance, the primary vehicle access point to campus. Similar picket schedules and locations were established across the system.
Cal Poly Humboldt featured picket lines outside the College Creek Marketplace at 4:45 a.m., with union steward Phillip Bradley arriving in hailstorm conditions to initiate the morning shift. San Diego State University experienced traffic impacts along Interstate 8 adjacent to campus as strike activity affected campus access routes. Fresno State saw organized picketing during the morning hours, with the local union coordinating member schedules. The geographic distribution of action across the sprawling CSU system—stretching from San Diego in the south to Arcata in the north, and inland to Bakersfield—presented significant logistical coordination challenges.
The strike’s operational parameters were carefully structured to maximize impact while maintaining worker safety and legal compliance. The 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. picket schedule aligned with standard work hours for skilled trades workers, allowing participation during what would have been regular work time while leaving evening hours for other union organizing activities and family time. The timing also meant picketing during peak campus activity, when students, faculty, and delivery services would encounter strike activity.
The union deliberately trained picket captains on how to engage with different constituencies—students, faculty, delivery drivers, and campus police—with the message that workers’ strike action was based on contractual rights and fair labor practices.
Impact on Campus Operations
The strikes’ impact on campus operations varied by location and service type. CSU administration communicated that campuses would remain open and that classes and student services would continue during the strike. However, campus facilities and maintenance services experienced documented disruptions. Systems potentially affected included elevators, lighting, electrical infrastructure, heating and cooling systems, plumbing, and restroom maintenance—all services dependent on skilled trades workers.
At Cal Poly Humboldt, a water leak in the kinesiology building forced non-union maintenance staff to cross the picket line early in the morning strike. The broader implication of these facility disruptions underscored the interdependency of campus operations on skilled trades workers, despite these workers remaining largely invisible to students focused on classroom instruction.
Participants articulated their strike rationale through both formal union messaging and personal testimony. Paul Fahy, the building services engineer at Cal Poly who discovered the 1999 letter documenting decades of bonus-instead-of-raise practice, stated his rationale clearly: “I’m striking so that we can get what the CSU agreed to, which is our steps. The CSU has been doing this since I started 30 years ago. I found a letter from 1999 saying ‘this is your one time bonus’ instead of a raise. It’s ridiculous.”
Jeff Robinson, a striking painter at Cal Poly Humboldt, expressed frustration about the pattern of workplace treatment: “We want what we were promised. We signed a deal. They call us when they need us. There’s a lot of mechanics and electricians on odd hours, and when things happen they give us a call, give us praise for that, but whenever it comes time for money, we don’t get anything.”
Another striker, identified as Jefferson, connected the wage dispute to broader economic survival: “That raise means security. I’ve been a painter most of my life, and it feels like we’re always on the back end of catching things. You get caught up—and then things cost more.”
The union provided material support to strikers during the action. All Unit 6 Teamsters who honored the strike and joined the picket line for all four days of the strike would receive a strike benefit of $600 from International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Local 2010 strike funds. This payment reflected union strategy to sustain participation among workers facing immediate financial hardship from lost wages and acknowledged the economic sacrifice inherent in strike action. Workers’ need to sign in and out at picket lines, with the requirement to complete full shifts all four days, created both accountability and a mechanism for documenting participation.
Tactical Strengths and Structural Obstacles
The core demand was unambiguous: implementation of the promised 5 percent permanent salary increases and salary step increases that had been negotiated in the 2024 contract. Other demands included stopping CSU from converting permanent raises into one-time bonuses and establishing contractual language to prevent this substitution practice in future negotiations.
The strike demonstrated significant tactical strengths in coordination and legal positioning. The 94 percent strike authorization vote reflected high rank-and-file mobilization. The ULP classification provided legal advantages: workers can’t be permanently replaced and possess guaranteed right-to-return after strike conclusion. The system-wide scope of the strike, affecting all 23 campuses simultaneously, prevented CSU from fixing problems at a few campuses.
Skilled trades workers proved difficult to replace quickly—emergency repair contractors may exist, but coverage of electrical, plumbing, HVAC, locksmith, and mechanical services across 23 campuses can’t be instantly substituted through temporary staffing. The timing during the academic semester, with students on campus and classes in session, caused the most disruption to CSU’s main job of educating students and political visibility.
Media coverage achieved substantial reach and mostly told the story from the union’s perspective. Stories emphasized workers’ decades of wage stagnation and the broken promise narrative, with Paul Fahy’s historical letter serving as a powerful visual and narrative element demonstrating CSU’s longstanding practice. Coverage noted the disparity between CSU’s treatment of skilled trades workers and the administration’s simultaneous approval of substantial executive salary increases, a comparison that made the union’s case stronger. Photographs of early-morning picketers in hailstorms and established workers with deep campus ties humanized the strike and disrupted narratives that might otherwise characterize labor actions as self-interested demands.
Constraints and Challenges
However, the strike also faced significant structural obstacles that limited potential impact. Skilled trades workers, despite their role in campus operations, lack the direct visibility that faculty or service workers possess in students’ daily experience. While electrical or plumbing disruptions might cause inconvenience, they don’t immediately prevent classroom attendance in the way that faculty strikes would. CSU’s communication strategy—emphasizing that classes would continue and that campuses would remain open—reduced how much the strike threatened the university.
One-time bonuses, while far inferior to permanent raises in long-term financial value, provide immediate cash that some workers facing economic hardship might find compelling, creating potential for union solidarity fractures. CSU’s position, while contractually disputed, had some logic behind it about the distinction between permanent funding and temporary loans, even if that interpretation disadvantaged workers.
The state budget context constrained CSU’s room to negotiate unilaterally. CSU gets its money from the state budget, and if campus administrators raised wages on their own, they might anger state legislative response or executive pressure. However, the January 2026 budget proposal from Governor Newsom that projected $365.7 million in additional, ongoing CSU funding for 2026-27 substantially undermined CSU’s resource constraint argument. Union bargaining team members raised this point: by CSU’s own estimates, implementing the July 2025 raises would amount to about 1 percent of the projected new funding increase, making the position appear increasingly indefensible.
Historical Precedents That Shaped the Strategy
The University of California academic workers’ strike of 2022 is the most recent similar example for understanding system-wide higher education labor actions. That strike, which began November 14, 2022, involved about 48,000 academic workers organized in three separate United Auto Workers locals representing graduate student researchers, teaching assistants, readers, postdoctoral scholars, and academic researchers. The strike lasted six weeks and disrupted grading, research activities, and instruction at all UC campuses simultaneously.
Union demands focused on wage increases, childcare subsidies, family leave protections, and transit subsidies, reflecting concerns about the high cost of living in California university towns, particularly as early-career scholars struggled to afford housing on modest wages. The strikers achieved favorable outcomes: UAW members ratified contracts providing 20-23 percent salary increases for postdocs and academic researchers, and minimum pay increases from $23,250 to $34,000 for nine months of part-time work for graduate student employees—an 80 percent increase for the lowest-paid workers.
Researchers have documented that this strike succeeded partly because academic workers’ absence from grading and research directly stopped the university from teaching students, and because faculty showed support by canceling classes and withholding grades in solidarity. This precedent demonstrated that system-wide higher education strikes can achieve substantial results, though the UC strike involved academic workers whose absence from grading duties and instructional responsibilities created immediate educational crisis, potentially providing greater leverage than skilled trades workers possessed.
The CSU Faculty Association strikes provide a more direct parallel to the skilled trades action, though working under different laws. The California Faculty Association represents about 29,000 faculty members across all 23 CSU campuses and has engaged in multiple work actions since 2022. Faculty union activities included participation in the 2023 and 2024 strikes alongside other CSU unions, demonstrating the pattern of multi-union coordination that the Teamsters strike built upon.
Lessons from West Virginia and Justice for Janitors
Beyond the CSU system, the 2018-2019 West Virginia teacher strikes offer instructive historical comparison, particularly regarding coordination across geographically dispersed locations and how workers organized themselves beyond what union leaders planned. West Virginia teachers, operating in a state where teacher strikes are illegal, nonetheless organized three successive strikes beginning in February 2018, with the statewide action emerging from initial regional strikes that demonstrated support.
The strikes were organized substantially through social media and Facebook groups, with livestreaming allowing teachers across the state to feel connected despite geographic distance. Teachers in West Virginia secured a 5 percent pay increase after nine days of statewide closure, despite facing a Republican governor and legislature opposed to the action. The historical record indicates that teachers continued striking even after union leadership accepted initial offers, demonstrating the power of rank-and-file mobilization to push negotiations beyond initial agreements.
The Justice for Janitors campaigns of the 1990s and ongoing efforts offer historical precedent for organizing workers in occupations traditionally deemed difficult to unionize and lacking public visibility. In 1990, SEIU Local 399 in Los Angeles launched Justice for Janitors campaigns focused on the most marginalized workers in the janitorial industry—often immigrant workers, many undocumented, employed by multiple contractors rather than the institutions themselves.
The campaigns used protests like occupying buildings and street theater, coalition building with community and faith groups, focusing pressure on major employers, and media campaigns that showed janitors’ poverty wages and labor despite their invisibility. Justice for Janitors succeeded in organizing more than 225,000 janitors across the United States, with California remaining the strongest base with more than 20,000 represented workers.
What Justice for Janitors figured out was that making “invisible” workers visible through public campaigns, documenting their role in institutional function, and building community alliances could overcome the traditional weakness of workers in marginal positions. The Teamsters skilled trades strike borrowed this approach: by documenting how maintenance, repair, and infrastructure workers are needed for campus function, emphasizing the decades of wage suppression documented in historical letters, and building broad coalition support, the strike challenged the invisibility that had previously undermined these workers’ bargaining position.
Strategies for Amplifying Impact
Create a “Cost of Denial” Public Accounting Campaign
Rather than presenting salary demands in isolation, develop public accounting showing the cumulative cost to workers of CSU’s decades of denying permanent raises in favor of one-time bonuses. Calculate compound lost wages over workers’ careers, retirement security impacts under CalPERS formulas, and comparison to living cost escalation. Do this by working with academic researchers, community organizations, and legislative staff to reframe the dispute from “workers demanding more” to “documenting systematic wage suppression and breach of contract obligation.”
The 2022 UC academic workers’ strike built substantial momentum by documenting the housing insecurity crisis among graduate students and early-career scholars, with visual campaigns showing individuals living in vehicles despite being employed by a wealthy institution. Using this data changed how people talked about it from “are these workers’ demands reasonable?” to “what systemic injustice enables these conditions?”
Paul Fahy’s historical letter documenting the same bonus-instead-of-raise practice in 1999 provides compelling evidence of systemic repetition. Research analysts could calculate that a worker who in 1999 missed a 3 percent permanent raise versus accepting a 1 percent one-time bonus would, by 2026, be about 20+ percent behind in cumulative compensation due to compound effects, pension impacts, and inability to negotiate raises from a suppressed base.
Launch a “Services Watch” Public Awareness Campaign
Coordinate with students, faculty, and parents to systematically document and publicize campus facility degradation that results from deferred skilled trades maintenance. Create social media account aggregating photos of broken facilities, malfunctioning systems, deferred repairs. Show that CSU administration’s refusal to pay maintenance workers is bad money management creating infrastructure crisis. Partner with campus environmental and sustainability groups to document how deferred HVAC and infrastructure maintenance increases carbon footprint.
The West Virginia teacher strikes succeeded partly because school closures created public pain for families—students without meals, childcare disruptions, accumulated instructional losses—that translated into powerful political pressure. Similarly, when public transit workers strike, the immediate disruption to commuters creates political urgency that can’t be ignored.
Skilled trades work is typically invisible until it fails—a broken elevator, nonfunctional restroom, failed heating system, or malfunctioning lighting suddenly becomes visible to all campus users. A systematic documentation campaign could demonstrate that CSU’s refusal to invest in skilled trades worker wages directly translates to campus conditions that undermine educational quality.
Establish a “Skilled Worker Dignity Fund”
Create a solidarity fund separate from union strike benefit, partnering with community organizations, faith communities, and student groups to provide emergency assistance to striking workers facing hardship. Call this “community investment in worker dignity” rather than union charity. Use fundraising to build political relationships beyond labor movement and demonstrate that broader publics support worker positions.
The 2022 UC academic workers’ strike built substantial community support through undergraduate and graduate student organizations, faculty groups, and community organizations providing material support during the action. Labor publications documented how community support—through childcare, meals, mutual aid, and direct financial contributions—sustained strikers across the six-week action.
Skilled trades workers often have deep community ties—they’re parents in local schools, homeowners in surrounding communities, members of churches and neighborhood associations. A “Skilled Worker Dignity Fund” that invites community members to invest in their neighbors’ economic security could build political relationships beyond labor movement.
Coordinate with Student Worker Movements
Building on the 2022 UC student worker strike, create shared demands where CSU Teamsters link their wage and benefits fights to demands for improved student worker conditions, graduate student support, and contingent faculty compensation. Organize joint picket lines, unified messaging, and coordinated bargaining around a “CSU Labor Justice” framework that treats all worker categories as part of single justice struggle.
The 2022 UC academic workers’ strike succeeded partly through coordination across multiple union categories—postdocs, teaching assistants, graduate student researchers—showing workers united instead of divided. The more recent rise of higher education labor organizing nationally has increasingly emphasized ‘wall-to-wall’ unionism (where all types of workers unite) around shared justice framework rather than narrowly protecting craft interests.
Student worker movements have proven particularly effective at mobilizing constituencies (students, faculty mentors) with institutional power and media access. By linking skilled trades demands to student worker justice, the strike frames itself as part of broader challenge to CSU’s labor model rather than isolated labor grievance.
Develop a “Taxpayer Investment” Campaign
Frame skilled trades workers as managers of massive public capital investment (campus facilities, infrastructure) and show that CSU’s refusal to pay maintenance workers is bad money management of taxpayer assets. Partner with fiscal analysis organizations to document that deferred maintenance—resulting from inadequate skilled trades staffing and turnover due to low wages—creates far greater public costs through emergency repairs, infrastructure failures, and reduced facility lifespan.
Environmental and infrastructure advocates have reframed public sector budget fights in fiscal sustainability terms, moving beyond labor union rhetoric. Public employee union campaigns in this decade have increasingly emphasized “taxpayer investment returns”—arguing that wages invested in public workers generate economic benefits through consumer spending, reduced turnover costs, and improved service quality.
A sophisticated fiscal argument about deferred maintenance costs and infrastructure reliability could appeal to taxpayer constituencies otherwise skeptical of “labor demands.” By demonstrating that $50 million invested in permanent skilled trades positions across 23 campuses saves $200 million+ in emergency repairs and infrastructure replacement avoided, the campaign shows wage increases as smart infrastructure spending.
What Comes Next
The Teamsters Local 2010 strike represents a critical juncture in the ongoing negotiation between CSU management and skilled trades workers, with several possible outcomes depending on what the union does and employer response. The immediate aftermath of the strike will likely feature either rapid settlement negotiations if CSU, facing sustained disruption and political pressure, returns to the bargaining table with substantive movement, or an extended strike that tests worker solidarity and financial capacity.
The Governor’s announcement of $365.7 million in additional CSU funding for 2026-27 fundamentally shifts the political context, as CSU’s primary argument about financial constraints becomes substantially less credible. Union representatives noted that by CSU’s own calculations, implementing the disputed raises would require less than 1 percent of the projected new funding, leaving CSU without a believable money excuse.
The California Labor Federation and Teamsters Joint Councils 7 and 42 have established infrastructure for coordinating statewide labor activity and maintaining pressure beyond the immediate strike. Assembly Bill 1831, introduced by Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens with California Faculty Association sponsorship, will advance through legislative committees, creating potential for legal constraints on CSU executive compensation practices and formal prohibition of executive salary increases during years in which student tuition increases. This law shows how the strike turned into political power, even if immediate wage settlement doesn’t occur.
Coalition relationships built during the strike will likely persist through ongoing CSU labor negotiating cycles. CFA, CSUEU, APC, and Teamsters have demonstrated capacity for coordinated action and public solidarity that will carry forward to 2025 contract negotiations for faculty and non-Teamsters CSU employees. The precedent of system-wide coordinated action across different union categories sets an example for future fights between workers and management at CSU.
CSU management faces strategic choices about whether to treat the strike as isolated incident to be managed administratively or as sign that labor relations are changing and CSU needs to rethink its approach. Historical precedent from the 2022 UC academic workers’ strike suggests that institutions facing organized labor pressure with broad coalition support often find it administratively cheaper and politically necessary to settle rather than sustain indefinite conflict. However, CSU’s position within state budget frameworks limits what CSU management can decide on its own that UC system didn’t face, possibly limiting what administrators can do.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters leadership’s public support and General President Sean O’Brien’s appearance in California signal commitment to sustaining the strike action if necessary. The union has demonstrated capacity to maintain strike funds, coordinate across 23 geographically dispersed campuses, and integrate this action within broader labor movement solidarity. Historical precedent from sustained public sector strikes demonstrates that unions with strong institutional backing and member commitment can sustain work stoppages for extended periods when leadership and membership remain unified.
Research documenting the growth of higher education worker organizing indicates that universities, long seen as professional workplaces where workers didn’t organize or strike, have increasingly become sites of worker organizing and labor action. The CSU system’s combination of state employment status, substantial workforce, geographic dispersion across California, and growing financial pressures creates conditions for ongoing labor mobilization.
If Teamsters Local 2010 enforces contract terms through strike action, the precedent will strengthen organizing of other skilled trades workers in public higher education systems nationally, while demonstrating that even workers in “invisible” occupations can exercise bargaining power through coordinated action. The strike shows other types of workers how to organize previously treated as marginal or powerless, showing that well-organized, system-wide collective action can challenge decades of wage suppression and contractual evasion.
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.