4 ms·

The pressure that a union can place on the NIH is not cutting off production. If basic bioscience research stopped, it would be years before the effects trickle

The pressure that a union can place on the NIH is not cutting off production. If basic bioscience research stopped, it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly. The pressure instead is social and political. Union-friendly politicians would haul the NIH administrators in to grill them about why they're blocking cures and cheating scientists. Thus, if some of the scientists in the union continue to work surreptitiously, it would have little impact on the effectiveness of the strike.

MontyCarloHall 3y ago
Activists can apply social and political pressure without being in a union. The distinguishing aspect of union activism is the union's ability to collectively bargain, backed by its ability to collectively strike, with grave consequences to the employer. As you say, even "if basic bioscience research stopped [in its entirety], it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly." If the consequences of a strike are not grave to the employer (even if you could get everyone on board), then the power backing the union is greatly diminished. Edit: as I wrote in another post, academic union strikes can be quite effective at universities, where many academics teach in addition to performing research. A instructor strike can have extremely grave consequences to the university. But the NIH is purely a research institute, so this does not apply.
- jancsika 3y ago
  Everything you claim here applies to the careers of members of the writers guild. It takes years to release movies/shows. Yet somehow the power backing their union has historically not been "greatly diminished," at least not compared to other unions.
  - MontyCarloHall 3y ago
    There are many key differences: * A movie/show being delayed mostly has extreme financial consequences for the studio employer, not for the individual writer employees. By contrast, a scientific publication being delayed mostly has extreme career consequences for the individual scientist employees, not for their employer institution. * The NIH's funding comes from the US government. A studio's revenue comes from the audience. NIH funding is unlikely to decrease as the result of a researcher strike, whereas a studio's revenue will unequivocally decrease as the result of a writer strike. * Few people outside of the scientific community will directly perceive the consequences of NIH research being postponed for a few months. On the other hand, many people who enjoy watching movies/TV will directly feel the impact of favorite shows being postponed or cancelled. * As demonstrated in [0], the effects of the strike are already glaringly evident after just a month, and will be even more evident after a few more months. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_productions_impacted_by_the_2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_productions_impacted_b...
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  A union's power is not solely in the ability to threaten to strike. Collective bargaining, for one. Right now, there is zero bargaining for postdocs over salary or benefits. You start work and you get the salary on the chart for your years of experience. How were those numbers decided? I don't know, but actual current postdocs had zero input. Simply forcing the NIH to have to sit down at a table and justify their (unjustifiable) numbers with the union would be a win.

MontyCarloHall 3y ago

Activists can apply social and political pressure without being in a union. The distinguishing aspect of union activism is the union's ability to collectively bargain, backed by its ability to collectively strike, with grave consequences to the employer. As you say, even "if basic bioscience research stopped [in its entirety], it would be years before the effects trickled out publicly." If the consequences of a strike are not grave to the employer (even if you could get everyone on board), then the power backing the union is greatly diminished. Edit: as I wrote in another post, academic union strikes can be quite effective at universities, where many academics teach in addition to performing research. A instructor strike can have extremely grave consequences to the university. But the NIH is purely a research institute, so this does not apply.

jancsika 3y ago
Everything you claim here applies to the careers of members of the writers guild. It takes years to release movies/shows. Yet somehow the power backing their union has historically not been "greatly diminished," at least not compared to other unions.
- MontyCarloHall 3y ago
  There are many key differences: * A movie/show being delayed mostly has extreme financial consequences for the studio employer, not for the individual writer employees. By contrast, a scientific publication being delayed mostly has extreme career consequences for the individual scientist employees, not for their employer institution. * The NIH's funding comes from the US government. A studio's revenue comes from the audience. NIH funding is unlikely to decrease as the result of a researcher strike, whereas a studio's revenue will unequivocally decrease as the result of a writer strike. * Few people outside of the scientific community will directly perceive the consequences of NIH research being postponed for a few months. On the other hand, many people who enjoy watching movies/TV will directly feel the impact of favorite shows being postponed or cancelled. * As demonstrated in [0], the effects of the strike are already glaringly evident after just a month, and will be even more evident after a few more months. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_productions_impacted_by_the_2023_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_productions_impacted_b...
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
A union's power is not solely in the ability to threaten to strike. Collective bargaining, for one. Right now, there is zero bargaining for postdocs over salary or benefits. You start work and you get the salary on the chart for your years of experience. How were those numbers decided? I don't know, but actual current postdocs had zero input. Simply forcing the NIH to have to sit down at a table and justify their (unjustifiable) numbers with the union would be a win.