Journal of Science Policy & Governance
​Volume 20, Issue 02 | May 16, 2022

Paper Competition Second Place Winner
Policy Position Paper: To Strengthen the American STEM Workforce, Empower Workers

Justin Lee (1),  Carolyn Amir (2)
  1. Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, CA
  2. University of California, Los Angeles, Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, Los Angeles, CA

​Corresponding author: [email protected]​
Keywords: science; technology; STEM workforce; education; unions; labor rights; collective bargaining
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG200205 ​

Executive Summary

A just, healthy, and robust science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce is vital to social organization and human well-being in the modern world. However, economic elites can shape scientific and technological priorities by defining the “national interest” and “needs” of the market, which greatly influences the future of human power relations and material conditions. When contemporary policy debates in STEM education and workforce development focus on how K-12, university, and technical education can provide a workforce for businesses and advance the “national interest”, the resulting policy agenda centers the interests of these socio-economic elites. This paper seeks to reframe debate on STEM education and workforce development policy from a paradigm of nation-state competitiveness and market demand to one centered on workers and democracy. We argue that “who governs” the science and technology workforce and “who benefits” from the status quo of STEM education and workforce development policy is not who should govern and who should benefit, but rather the political and economic elites which steer the world’s largest companies and states. This reframing not only recognizes the fundamental interdependence of economic and political power, but that power is a feature of a social order co-produced with and through scientific inquiry, technological change, and knowledge creation. We advocate for the reimagination of the status quo to recognize that the STEM workforce is composed of, first and foremost, working people. We argue for science and technology workers to recognize common solidarity with all workers and organize to determine their own futures. Lastly, we propose a policy agenda which would empower them to do so by strengthening labor rights and expanding the worker-owned economy.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of flickr
Justin Lee is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Public Policy Analysis Program at Pardee RAND Graduate School in Santa Monica, CA. He studies the politics of the policy process, with a focus on science and technology, the politics of expertise, and elite networks. Justin earned a BA from Carleton College in Physics, Political Science and International Relations.
​
Carolyn Amir is a Ph.D. student in the Neuroscience interdepartmental Program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She studies the biological mechanisms underlying neural trajectories using neuroimaging and genetics approaches. Carolyn is the Deputy of Government Relations in the Science Policy Group at UCLA and a Contributing Editor at Knowing Neurons.

References

  1. AFL-CIO, Department of Professional Employees. 2012. "The STEM Workforce: An Occupational Overview". Washington, DC: AFL-CIO. http://uwua.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/protech-The-STEM-workforce-2012.pdf.
  2. Alegria, Sharla N., and Enobong Hannah Branch. 2015. "Causes and Consequences of Inequality in the STEM: Diversity and its Discontents." International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 7, no. 3 (2015): 321-342. http://genderandset.open.ac.uk/index.php/genderandset/article/view/307/717
  3. Borgaza, Carlo, Manlio Calzaroni, Chiara Carini, and Massimo Lori. 2019. “Italian cooperatives: an analysis of their economic performances, employment characteristics and innovation processes based on combined used of official data”. CIRIEC International, Université de Liège.
  4. Buchmueller, Thomas C., John DiNardo, and Robert G. Valletta. 2002. "Union effects on health insurance provision and coverage in the US." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55, no. 4 (July): 610-627. https://doi.org/10.3386/w8238
  5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2021. "Table F. Distribution Of Private Sector Employment By Firm Size Class: 1993/Q1 Through 2021/Q1, Not Seasonally Adjusted". Accessed May 2, 2022. https://www.bls.gov/web/cewbd/table_f.txt.
  6. Cassell, Mark, and Halaseh, Odeh. 2014. "The Impact of Unionization on University Performance." Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy 6, no. 3 (2014). https://thekeep.eiu.edu/jcba/vol6/iss1/3
  7. Chandler, Paul. 2017. “Public Policies Supporting Worker Ownership at City, State, and Federal Levels”. Center for Community-Based Enterprise.
  8. Domhoff, G. William. 2019. The corporate rich and the power elite in the twentieth century: How they won, why liberals and labor lost. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
  9. Dorn, David, Johannes F. Schmieder, and James R. Spletzer. 2018. "Domestic outsourcing in the US." US Department of Labor Technical Report. Last modified January 31, 2018.
  10. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OASP/legacy/files/Domestic-Outsourcing-in-the-United-States.pdf.
  11. Eisenberg-Guyot, Jerzy, and Amy Hagopian. 2018. "Right-to-work-for-less: How Janus v. AFSCME threatens public health." NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 28, no. 3 (June): 392-399.    https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1048291118784713
  12. Farber, Henry S., Daniel Herbst, Ilyana Kuziemko, and Suresh Naidu. 2021. "Unions and inequality over the twentieth century: New evidence from survey data." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136, no. 3 (2021): 1325-1385. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24587
  13. Feigenbaum, James, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, and Vanessa Williamson. 2018. “From the bargaining table to the ballot box: Political effects of right to work laws.” No. w24259. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24259
  14. Felt, Ulrike. ed. 2016. "Chapter 2: Making Knowledge, People, and Societies." The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  15. Gibbons, Robert, and Lawrence Katz. 1992. "Does unmeasured ability explain inter-industry wage differentials?." The Review of Economic Studies 59, no. 3 (July, 1992): 515-535. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2297862?origin=JSTOR-pdf
  16. Goonen, Norma M., and Sylvia Medina-Shore. 2021. ““Hot” Issues in Workers’ Compensation in Colleges and Universities: Graduate Assistants and Teaching Assistants." Compensation & Benefits Review 53, no. 3 (2021): 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F08863687211005237
  17. Gowan, Peter. 2019. “Right To Own: A Policy Framework To Catalyze Worker Ownership Transitions.” The Next System Project. Last modified April 16, 2019. https://thenextsystem.org/rto.
  18. Hansmann, Henry. 1993. "Worker participation and corporate governance." University of Toronto Law Journal 43, no. 3 (Summer): 589-606. https://doi.org/10.2307/825721
  19. Harris, Richard. 1990. “Working-class home ownership in the American metropolis”. Journal of Urban History 17, no. 1. (November, 1990): 46-69. doi.org/10.1177/009614429001700104
  20. Hess, David J., Sulfikar Amir, Scott Frickel, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Kelly Moore, and Logan DA Williams. ed. 2016. "Chapter 11: Structural Inequality and the Politics of Science and Technology." The Handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  21. Holmström, Mark. 1985. “How the Managed Manage the Managers: Workers Co-Ops in Italy.” Anthropology Today 1, no. 6, 7–13. (1985). https://doi.org/10.2307/3033247
  22. Hurd, Richard W. 2013. "Moving beyond the critical synthesis: does the law preclude a future for US unions?." Labor History 54, no. 2 (2013): 193-200.    https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2013.773147
  23. Josephs, Mary. 2019. “For Goodness’ Sake, Start Teaching About Employee Ownership”. Forbes, October 18, 2019.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/goodness-sake-start-teaching-employee-ownership-mary-sullivan-josephs/.
  24. Konrad, Kornelia, Harro Van Lente, Christopher Groves, and Cynthia Selin. 2016. "Chapter 16: Performing and Governing the Future in Science and Technology." The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  25. Liu, Nicholas. 2021. “UC Student Researchers Union Gains Recognition - The Santa Barbara Independent.” The Santa Barbara Independent, December, 31. 2021. http://www.independent.com/2021/12/31/uc-student-researchers-union-gains-recognition/.
  26. Dubofsky, Melvyn, and Joseph A. McCartin. 2017. Labor in America: A History. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  27. Oh, Seong Soo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2011. "Stemming inequality? Employment and pay of female and minority scientists and engineers." The Social Science Journal 48, no. 2 (2011): 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.11.008
  28. Okrent, Abigail and Amy Burke. 2021. “The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers and Skilled Technical Workers”. Science and Engineering Indicators 2022. Last accessed May 2, 2022. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20212.
  29. Regmi, Krishna, and Andrew Ju. 2021. "Collective Bargaining Laws and Returns to STEM Majors in the Labor Market for Teachers." Accessed May 2, 2022. http://www.krishnaregmi.com/CB_and_STEM.pdf
  30. Schrank, Andrew. 2019. "Rebuilding labor power in the postindustrial US." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 685, no. 1 (2019): 172-188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219868672
  31. Shapley, Deborah. 1972. "Unionization: Scientists, Engineers Mull over One Alternative." Science 176, no. 4035 (1972): 618-621. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.176.4035.618
  32. Schenk Jr., Tom. 2007. “The effects of graduate-student unionization.” PhD diss., Iowa State University. https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-16029
  33. Schmitt, John. 2010. “Unions and upward mobility for immigrant workers”. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Accessed May 2, 2022. https://cepr.net/documents/publications/unions-immigrants-2010-03.pdf
  34. Stansbury, Anna, and Lawrence Summers. 2020. "Declining worker power and American economic Performance." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Accessed May 2, 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/declining-worker-power-and-american-economic-performance/.
  35. Student Researchers United. 2020. “Anti-Union Communications Student Researchers United.” Accessed August 6, 2020. https://studentresearchersunited.org/anti-union-communications.
  36. U.S. Congress. House. Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021. HR 842. 117th Cong. Introduced in House February 4, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr842/BILLS-117hr842rfs.pdf
  37. U.S. Congress. House. Worker Ownership, Readiness, and Knowledge Act. HR 2387. 115th Cong. Introduced in House May 4, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr2387/BILLS-115hr2387ih.pdf
  38. Walsh, P., Michael Peck, and Ibon Zugasti, 2018. “Why the U.S. Needs More Worker-Owned Companies.” Harvard Business Review, August 8, 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/08/why-the-u-s-needs-more-worker-owned-companies.
  39. Walters, Matthew, and Lawrence Mishel. 2003. "How unions help all workers." Economic Policy Institute, August 26, 2003. https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/.
  40. Weiss, Charles. 2005. "Science, technology and international relations." Technology in Society 27, no. 3 (2005): 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.004
  41. Vieta, Marcelo, Sara Depedri, Antonella Carrano, and CFI Cooperazione Finanza Impresa. 2016. "The Italian Road to Recuperating Enterprises and the Legge Marcora Framework: Italy’s Worker Buyouts in Times of Crisis." A EURICSE Report . Last modified March  31, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/26044213/The_Italian_Road_to_Recuperating_Enterprises_and_the_Legge_Marcora_Framework_Italys_Worker_Buyouts_in_Times_of_Crisis_Report_Summary_

DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.