Resolution to Abolish the Institution of Uncompensated Labor in Social Work
WHEREAS, social and economic justice is a core social work competency; and
WHEREAS, field placement work completed by students, no matter how educational, constitutes labor, and uncompensated labor constitutes exploitation; and
WHEREAS, exploitation of student and worker labor opposes our core social work values; therefore be it
RESOLVED, the School of Social Work will convene a twelve (12)-person working committee by the 6th of September 2017 that will meet for two (2) hours twice a month on days agreed upon during the initial committee planning and this committee will create short and long term implementation proposals to abolish the institution of uncompensated labor in social work field placements by the 31st of October 2017; and be it
RESOLVED, five (5) of the twelve (12) committee members will be students, plus one (1) University of Michigan School of Social Work alum; students at the University of Michigan School of Social Work will choose all five (5) of the students and the one (1) alum who will represent their interests; upon the October 31, 2017 deadline, two (2) first-year MSW graduate students will be elected by the standing MSW graduate student committee members in an advisory capacity; and be it
RESOLVED, in order to meet the tight timeline, research and working groups may be commissioned by the committee and may be populated by non-committee members; and be it
RESOLVED, each of the five (5) students on the committee will hold the power to veto proposals, amendments, extensions, etc. in the working committee but the faculty members will not; and be it
RESOLVED, the five (5) selected committee member students and any students hired to do research for the committee will all be fairly compensated by the School of Social for their contributions; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan to restructure the University of Michigan School of Social Work’s financial aid to be entirely need-based starting the 2018-2019 academic year; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan by the University of Michigan School of Social Work to restructure its peer facilitation education model to conform to the standards of GEO negotiated GSI contracts, or abolish it; and be it
RESOLVED, the proposal will detail a commitment on the part of the University of Michigan School of Social Work to advocate to make fair compensation for field placements CSWE accreditation policy; and be it
RESOLVED, the University of Michigan School of Social Work will commit to advocate for the fair compensation of social workers and will work to make this a top priority for the NASW.
WHEREAS, field placement work completed by students, no matter how educational, constitutes labor, and uncompensated labor constitutes exploitation; and
WHEREAS, exploitation of student and worker labor opposes our core social work values; therefore be it
RESOLVED, the School of Social Work will convene a twelve (12)-person working committee by the 6th of September 2017 that will meet for two (2) hours twice a month on days agreed upon during the initial committee planning and this committee will create short and long term implementation proposals to abolish the institution of uncompensated labor in social work field placements by the 31st of October 2017; and be it
RESOLVED, five (5) of the twelve (12) committee members will be students, plus one (1) University of Michigan School of Social Work alum; students at the University of Michigan School of Social Work will choose all five (5) of the students and the one (1) alum who will represent their interests; upon the October 31, 2017 deadline, two (2) first-year MSW graduate students will be elected by the standing MSW graduate student committee members in an advisory capacity; and be it
RESOLVED, in order to meet the tight timeline, research and working groups may be commissioned by the committee and may be populated by non-committee members; and be it
RESOLVED, each of the five (5) students on the committee will hold the power to veto proposals, amendments, extensions, etc. in the working committee but the faculty members will not; and be it
RESOLVED, the five (5) selected committee member students and any students hired to do research for the committee will all be fairly compensated by the School of Social for their contributions; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan to restructure the University of Michigan School of Social Work’s financial aid to be entirely need-based starting the 2018-2019 academic year; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan by the University of Michigan School of Social Work to restructure its peer facilitation education model to conform to the standards of GEO negotiated GSI contracts, or abolish it; and be it
RESOLVED, the proposal will detail a commitment on the part of the University of Michigan School of Social Work to advocate to make fair compensation for field placements CSWE accreditation policy; and be it
RESOLVED, the University of Michigan School of Social Work will commit to advocate for the fair compensation of social workers and will work to make this a top priority for the NASW.
Explanation of the Resolution to Abolish the Institution of Uncompensated Labor in Social Work
Introduction
As part of our effort to work effectively with the administration of the University of Michigan School of Social Work, and also to generate conversation about labor organizing in the field of social work, the Committee on Fair Labor in Social Work would like to provide an explanation of our specific asks in the Resolution to Abolish the Institution of Uncompensated Labor in Social Work. We understand that some students and faculty may not be familiar with the specific organizing techniques and strategies that we are employing, and we see this as an opportunity to learn together as a school and develop a more robust and sustainable conversation and movement.
The Committee on Fair Labor in Social Work does not presume to have all the answers, but we do feel that we have an opportunity here to apply some of the skills and tools we have been given during our MSW education. We hope that the presentation of these points will both answer and generate questions, and that our resolution will become only a starting point for a robust and critical application of social change theory and tools.
The Committee on Fair Labor in Social Work does not presume to have all the answers, but we do feel that we have an opportunity here to apply some of the skills and tools we have been given during our MSW education. We hope that the presentation of these points will both answer and generate questions, and that our resolution will become only a starting point for a robust and critical application of social change theory and tools.
We Are Asking for a New Standing School of Social Work Committee
There are several components to our ask in the Resolution. Central among these are the points that request a committee and specify the structure and processes of that committee. This may seem like a strange ask in general, because we have all heard the adage that committees are where bills go to die. We understand that this is frequently the case, but we also highly value the ideal of working together with the power brokers of the school and engaging administration in a thoughtful, solutions-oriented conversation about what can be done. We see the commissioning of a committee as a step the administration can take towards creating a standing space for an ongoing conversation. The pressing deadline of having an implementation proposal by October 31st is our way of saying, “This isn’t going to be your typical committee. This committee is going to talk solutions and produce results."
The other asks related to the proposed committee’s structure are our attempts to get at the issue of the power dynamics that often lead to poor committee outcomes. One solution we propose is to have an equal ratio of students/alum to administration/faculty. We were surprised to learn that this is not already the typical structure of all School of Social Work committees and believe that this is a process issue that could be rectified by the School across all committees. Having a less than equal ratio of students on a committee that is discussing student issues seems to us an indicator of the style of participation the school is accustomed to engaging in. Referring to Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, we believe the existing type of committee structure would rank somewhere around the Consultation level, or at least certainly in one of the three levels that Arnstein categorizes as Tokenism. Our request to have an equal number of students and faculty is just one way to move the existing committee structure into the higher participation Citizen Power category.
The other asks related to the proposed committee’s structure are our attempts to get at the issue of the power dynamics that often lead to poor committee outcomes. One solution we propose is to have an equal ratio of students/alum to administration/faculty. We were surprised to learn that this is not already the typical structure of all School of Social Work committees and believe that this is a process issue that could be rectified by the School across all committees. Having a less than equal ratio of students on a committee that is discussing student issues seems to us an indicator of the style of participation the school is accustomed to engaging in. Referring to Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation, we believe the existing type of committee structure would rank somewhere around the Consultation level, or at least certainly in one of the three levels that Arnstein categorizes as Tokenism. Our request to have an equal number of students and faculty is just one way to move the existing committee structure into the higher participation Citizen Power category.
Another ask for the proposed committee is that the students on the committee will possess veto powers while the faculty members will not. This may seem unfair on the surface, but equipping the most marginalized members of a group with veto powers is actually a commonly employed technique in radical organizing. It is one of many possible ways to address the power imbalances inherent in any group. While many different types of power imbalances will exist in a committee made up of people with such widely varying positionalities as this committee is likely to include, we feel that the dynamic we must prioritize is that between administration/faculty and students/alum. We hope the committee will work to address other power dynamics including those of race, gender, age, etc. once it has been established.
The people with the most at stake, the people who are the most marginalized, and the people making the most sacrifices for the cause are often one and the same. "
Finally, we ask in our resolution that participating students be fairly compensated for their contributions.
There are several reasons we feel this request is appropriate. First, as we are sure marginalized folks will attest, it is the people who are the most marginalized who usually end up bearing the greatest burden in a change process. The people with the most at stake, the people who are the most marginalized, and the people making the most sacrifices for the cause are often one and the same. We know that change does not come without a cost, but our request for the students on the committee to be paid is our attempt to ensure that the folks who represent this issue are not worse off for it. We believe that justice is a process as well as a goal, and we see this mechanism as a way to create a more just process.
Other reasons for asking for compensation for students include:
There are several reasons we feel this request is appropriate. First, as we are sure marginalized folks will attest, it is the people who are the most marginalized who usually end up bearing the greatest burden in a change process. The people with the most at stake, the people who are the most marginalized, and the people making the most sacrifices for the cause are often one and the same. We know that change does not come without a cost, but our request for the students on the committee to be paid is our attempt to ensure that the folks who represent this issue are not worse off for it. We believe that justice is a process as well as a goal, and we see this mechanism as a way to create a more just process.
Other reasons for asking for compensation for students include:
- Some students are already reimbursed for their efforts for the school, for example Student Union members;
- Faculty participate in committees as part of their paid working hours, but students do not;
- Asking for students to be compensated for our labor is the central purpose of this committee in the first place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we believe that a truly collaborative solutions-finding process can only occur in an environment where a) there is a table, and b) all parties are coming to the table as equals. In order to address the power imbalances that are inherent in this proposed committee, we have asked the administration not only to form a new committee, but to structure it in a way that empowers students and gives us a more equal presence and voice at the proposed table. We know that even these changes will not comprise an ideal structure, but we do hope that the resulting committee will be reasonably identifiable as a Partnership, the lowest degree of participation in the Citizen Power category of Arnstein’s Ladder. Furthermore, we argue that anything less than a
Partnership will represent, at best, Tokenizing of students by the school, and we argue that within the current context this represents an oppressive status quo. Recognizing that we do ourselves and our peers no favors by failing to challenge the status quo, we are understandably unwilling to “work with” the school within any structure that could reasonably be deemed Tokenism or Non-Participation. We are optimistic that the school will recognize the value of a real Partnership and will be willing to make the necessary accommodations for that to be possible.
We also encourage conversations around what could be done to make this process even more participatory. What would Delegated Power look like in the School of Social Work context? What would Citizen Control mean? These are exciting imaginations that we hope will be spurred on by the present conversation.
Partnership will represent, at best, Tokenizing of students by the school, and we argue that within the current context this represents an oppressive status quo. Recognizing that we do ourselves and our peers no favors by failing to challenge the status quo, we are understandably unwilling to “work with” the school within any structure that could reasonably be deemed Tokenism or Non-Participation. We are optimistic that the school will recognize the value of a real Partnership and will be willing to make the necessary accommodations for that to be possible.
We also encourage conversations around what could be done to make this process even more participatory. What would Delegated Power look like in the School of Social Work context? What would Citizen Control mean? These are exciting imaginations that we hope will be spurred on by the present conversation.
We Are Asking That the Committee’s Proposal Meet Certain Criteria
The following items in the Resolution comprise an ask that criteria be applied to judge whether the committee’s proposal is successful. These include:
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan to restructure the University of Michigan School of Social Work’s financial aid to be entirely need-based starting the 2018-2019 academic year; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan by the University of Michigan School of Social Work to restructure its peer facilitation education model to conform to the standards of GEO negotiated GSI contracts, or abolish it; and be it
RESOLVED, the proposal will detail a commitment on the part of the University of Michigan School of Social Work to advocate to make fair compensation for field placements CSWE accreditation policy; and be it
RESOLVED, the University of Michigan School of Social Work will commit to advocate for the fair compensation of social workers and will work to make this a top priority for the NASW.
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan to restructure the University of Michigan School of Social Work’s financial aid to be entirely need-based starting the 2018-2019 academic year; and be it
RESOLVED, a criterion for the successful proposal will be a plan by the University of Michigan School of Social Work to restructure its peer facilitation education model to conform to the standards of GEO negotiated GSI contracts, or abolish it; and be it
RESOLVED, the proposal will detail a commitment on the part of the University of Michigan School of Social Work to advocate to make fair compensation for field placements CSWE accreditation policy; and be it
RESOLVED, the University of Michigan School of Social Work will commit to advocate for the fair compensation of social workers and will work to make this a top priority for the NASW.
We want to make it clear that these delineations of criteria represent an entirely different goal than the resolutions that request the creation of a committee. They go beyond our statement that we want a committee that will produce results and assert that we want a committee that will produce good results.
The inclusion of these criteria was controversial in our organizing group and we would like to clarify our intentions.
We were wary to enter into this conversation with specific solutions in mind, because we want this process to be as collaborative, big-thinking, and creative as possible. However, we are also extremely concerned that students’ priorities be addressed, because we know that many students are truly suffering and struggling to survive this program and this will continue to be the case as long as we put off this conversation.
We have therefore included asks related to specific criteria by which we would like to see a successful proposal measured. Good results for the committee, to us, are represented, at a minimum, by a proposal that provides for the significant restructuring of financial aid; addressing the “peer facilitator” model; and commitments in writing that the school will advocate for labor issues at the CSWE and NASW level. The criterion that the successful proposal outline a plan for the abolition of the institution of unpaid labor in social work is the core purpose of the committee and is mentioned in Resolution 1.
The inclusion of these criteria was controversial in our organizing group and we would like to clarify our intentions.
We were wary to enter into this conversation with specific solutions in mind, because we want this process to be as collaborative, big-thinking, and creative as possible. However, we are also extremely concerned that students’ priorities be addressed, because we know that many students are truly suffering and struggling to survive this program and this will continue to be the case as long as we put off this conversation.
We have therefore included asks related to specific criteria by which we would like to see a successful proposal measured. Good results for the committee, to us, are represented, at a minimum, by a proposal that provides for the significant restructuring of financial aid; addressing the “peer facilitator” model; and commitments in writing that the school will advocate for labor issues at the CSWE and NASW level. The criterion that the successful proposal outline a plan for the abolition of the institution of unpaid labor in social work is the core purpose of the committee and is mentioned in Resolution 1.
There are Battles We Are Choosing Not to Fight, But You Totally Should
We realize that our resolution focuses quite exclusively on fiscal and/or labor issues and excludes mention of issues related to the quality of field placements. Many people feel that a solution that does not address quality will not be a solution they can support. We understand this stance but would like to elaborate on why we are excluding the issue of improving quality of field placements and are instead focusing on the labor and fiscal issues surrounding field education.
While a quality field placement is a necessary component of a successful educational experience in field, controlling quality is a compliance and monitoring issue. This is important, but our primary concern as a Committee and what we have expressed in our Resolution is that the current implementation of field education pedagogy, by allowing for the exploitation of student labor, violates the core Social Work competency of Social & Economic Justice. This means that uncompensated labor done by social workers in field placements violates the code of ethics to which we are bound. This goes beyond the process concerns involved with ensuring people are working in good field placements. We make the, perhaps controversial, but sound, assertion that a bad field placement where the student is paid represents an ethically preferable situation to one where a student is exploited but has a good experience. This is because providing uncompensated but “educational” work “experiences” constitutes the acclimation of social workers to our own exploitative oppression.
Furthermore, we assert that all field experiences are educational, but the critical question is: What exactly are we learning? In the current structure, one of the primary lessons students learn is that social worker labor has no market value. Another is that martyrdom for a good? cause is justified. We learn that we must work to be able to pay to work. We learn poor work-life balance. We learn to practice self care rather than to change the structures that ensure our burnout. We acclimate to chronic stress, an indicator of our oppression. We learn that it is normal for people to work for free. As we accept our own exploitation, we learn to exploit others: the employees of whom we become managers; the students of whom we become administrators; and the community members we tell ourselves we’re “helping.” We perpetuate the systems that oppress us and the people we serve. We become the oppressed oppressor.
Perhaps most horrifyingly, we have become the biggest advocates for our oppression. We justify it to ourselves to take out loans to pay to work for nothing. We design systems wherein students take on debt in order to pay to work, either in field placements or as part of something called “peer facilitation.” We go without food or textbooks or safety-related car repairs so we can pay for the gas to get to our unpaid internships. We structure our financial aid to reward the most privileged among us for achieving things in a white supremacist heteronormative capitalist patriarchy and call it “merit-based financial aid.” We are proud to say that we, the number one school of social work, are not actually violating the extremely conservative labor policies in our extremely anti-labor country. We excuse ourselves from the labor rights conversation.
We state these points not to start a fight, but to start a conversation. We’re not here to blame anyone. No one living built the social services industry into what it now is. The history of social services is one of charitably-minded, wealthy, sometimes educated, mostly white, women who have relied on their own secure financial situations either through marriage or family wealth to support themselves as they helped vulnerable members of society. Most of us recognize that this model is problematic and has led to a number of issues in the field. However, until now, we haven’t known how to shift the status quo, so we have continued to perpetuate the problems we have been handed.
Our assertion in this Resolution is that it stops here, now, with us. We see what is happening, we are calling it out, and we refuse to be complacent. We have the tools and skills necessary to solve this problem. We will not let our lack of time and energy stop us. We will think, and read, and talk, and fight if necessary. We will strategize and organize and unionize. We will do this out of self-interest, and also in the interest of all social service providers and all the individuals and communities we serve.
We would love to go about this in a more thoughtful, well-researched, careful way. But we feel the pressing urgency of generations of social workers who have gone before us, unable to topple the structures that have oppressed them. We feel responsible for the the generations of social workers who will come after us if we don’t stop, here and now, and fight. Truly we ask, if not now, when? If not us, who? If not here, where? If not for these reasons, why?
While a quality field placement is a necessary component of a successful educational experience in field, controlling quality is a compliance and monitoring issue. This is important, but our primary concern as a Committee and what we have expressed in our Resolution is that the current implementation of field education pedagogy, by allowing for the exploitation of student labor, violates the core Social Work competency of Social & Economic Justice. This means that uncompensated labor done by social workers in field placements violates the code of ethics to which we are bound. This goes beyond the process concerns involved with ensuring people are working in good field placements. We make the, perhaps controversial, but sound, assertion that a bad field placement where the student is paid represents an ethically preferable situation to one where a student is exploited but has a good experience. This is because providing uncompensated but “educational” work “experiences” constitutes the acclimation of social workers to our own exploitative oppression.
Furthermore, we assert that all field experiences are educational, but the critical question is: What exactly are we learning? In the current structure, one of the primary lessons students learn is that social worker labor has no market value. Another is that martyrdom for a good? cause is justified. We learn that we must work to be able to pay to work. We learn poor work-life balance. We learn to practice self care rather than to change the structures that ensure our burnout. We acclimate to chronic stress, an indicator of our oppression. We learn that it is normal for people to work for free. As we accept our own exploitation, we learn to exploit others: the employees of whom we become managers; the students of whom we become administrators; and the community members we tell ourselves we’re “helping.” We perpetuate the systems that oppress us and the people we serve. We become the oppressed oppressor.
Perhaps most horrifyingly, we have become the biggest advocates for our oppression. We justify it to ourselves to take out loans to pay to work for nothing. We design systems wherein students take on debt in order to pay to work, either in field placements or as part of something called “peer facilitation.” We go without food or textbooks or safety-related car repairs so we can pay for the gas to get to our unpaid internships. We structure our financial aid to reward the most privileged among us for achieving things in a white supremacist heteronormative capitalist patriarchy and call it “merit-based financial aid.” We are proud to say that we, the number one school of social work, are not actually violating the extremely conservative labor policies in our extremely anti-labor country. We excuse ourselves from the labor rights conversation.
We state these points not to start a fight, but to start a conversation. We’re not here to blame anyone. No one living built the social services industry into what it now is. The history of social services is one of charitably-minded, wealthy, sometimes educated, mostly white, women who have relied on their own secure financial situations either through marriage or family wealth to support themselves as they helped vulnerable members of society. Most of us recognize that this model is problematic and has led to a number of issues in the field. However, until now, we haven’t known how to shift the status quo, so we have continued to perpetuate the problems we have been handed.
Our assertion in this Resolution is that it stops here, now, with us. We see what is happening, we are calling it out, and we refuse to be complacent. We have the tools and skills necessary to solve this problem. We will not let our lack of time and energy stop us. We will think, and read, and talk, and fight if necessary. We will strategize and organize and unionize. We will do this out of self-interest, and also in the interest of all social service providers and all the individuals and communities we serve.
We would love to go about this in a more thoughtful, well-researched, careful way. But we feel the pressing urgency of generations of social workers who have gone before us, unable to topple the structures that have oppressed them. We feel responsible for the the generations of social workers who will come after us if we don’t stop, here and now, and fight. Truly we ask, if not now, when? If not us, who? If not here, where? If not for these reasons, why?