In April, Georgetown’s resident assistants (RAs) launched a petition through the Georgetown Resident Assistant Coalition (GRAC) criticizing Georgetown for “union-busting activities” and calling for changes to Residential Living’s treatment of RAs including higher compensation, job security, and a voice in the policies governing their work. A semester later, some RAs say the protections they fought for have not resolved many day-to-day frustrations of the job.
Despite receiving greater compensation and protections through their first union contract over a year ago, current and former RAs described persistent communication breakdowns within the office of Residential Living, frequent turnover among professional staff, anxiety surrounding disciplinary action, and policy changes they say are made with little input from the students they affect.
While RAs acknowledged that unionizing has brought meaningful changes, including the introduction of a stipend and more resources in disciplinary proceedings, they say tensions with Residential Living have persisted into the new academic year. Due to concerns of potential workplace repercussions for students interviewed, they have been granted anonymity by the Voice and each assigned a random initial.
Improvements and discontent after union contract
RAs’ relationship with Georgetown has changed substantially since organizing and negotiations with the university began in March 2024.
Unionization created formal channels through which RAs can raise workplace concerns. GRAC-elected steward and Georgetown RA Victoria Allen (CAS ’27) pointed to GRAC’s Labor-Management Committee, created in Sept. 2024, which brings RAs and university officials together to discuss workplace issues and develop labor proposals, as well as RA participation in training committees and a formal complaint procedure for disciplinary action.
“The university, prior to the union, did not have to listen to RA concerns, but now we have avenues to voice grievances,” Allen wrote.
But the contract has not eliminated all disputes over how Residential Living manages RAs. Georgetown RA F, who was among the RAs who supported last semester’s GRAC petition, said that outside individuals have pointed out the university’s contentious relationship with RAs.
“[Our parent union] works with multiple unions, and student labor unions and multiple RA unions across whatever colleges that they represent, and they have let us know that Georgetown University is more on the union-busting side, in the realm of the students that they work with,” F said.
Nevertheless, F expressed that the union has been beneficial for RAs, giving them greater security in challenging disciplinary decisions and helped secure changes including stipends and expanded eligibility for RAs studying abroad or enrolled part-time.
Allen similarly emphasized GRAC’s role in representing individual RAs when workplace disputes arise. The union can accompany an RA from an initial grievance meeting through arbitration, she said, with its parent union, Office and Professional Employees Professional International Union, providing additional assistance if an RA chooses to pursue arbitration.
Still, for K, a first time RA, the enduring tensions from past disputes between RAs and Residential Living have shaped their experience. K entered the position following the implementation of the CBA, yet hearing returning RAs’ experiences has made them more conscious of the consequences of making mistakes as they learn the job.
“Making mistakes and learning is part of the process,” K said. “But just hearing how they’re being more strict with enforcing whatever accountability process makes you less willing to take a risk or just scared to ask questions.”
A university spokesperson wrote to the Voice affirming the university’s commitment to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the four-year contract ratified in May 2025 between the university and GRAC which outlines RA duties, management policies, and employee protections.
“We deeply value the contributions of Resident Assistants (RAs) to our living and learning communities. We are committed to upholding Georgetown’s Just Employment Policy and honoring the [CBA] between the university and [GRAC],” the spokesperson wrote.
Policy changes raise questions among RAs
For F, the concern is not the protections contained in the CBA, but that a rigid interpretation of the agreement can sometimes undermine those protections in practice, which they say has sometimes worked against the RAs it was negotiated to protect.
“Even though the point, the purpose of the contract was to benefit RAs, it’s sort of being followed in a way that doesn’t guarantee benefits for us still,” F said.
One recent point of contention has been holiday duty, where RAs from each residence hall must decide who will stay on campus for each holiday break. F said that before the CBA, multiple residence halls could be grouped into one community, meaning fewer RAs were required to stay on campus. Under Residential Living’s current interpretation, they said at least one RA from each building must remain on campus, meaning more RAs have to give up portions of Thanksgiving, Easter, and spring breaks. GRAC’s Labor Management Committee (LMC) recently put forward a holiday duty proposal submitted jointly by union and university representatives calling for a change in policy, which they say was rejected by Residential Living.
The proposal would have reduced the number of RAs needed to be present on campus by returning to the current building group system for holiday duty. According to the lead member of LMC and GRAC Vice President Anna Holk (CAS ’27), Residential Living management suggested that this upcoming Thanksgiving be scheduled according to last academic year’s system, but that this proposal is still being discussed.
Holk highlighted the importance of university holidays for all students, including RAs, emphasizing that “they can be students’ only chances to go home, spend time with their families, see friends, and truly recharge off campus.”
Another policy change affected RA K before the semester even began. After becoming an RA for a building with four- person suite-style living, K could only pull in their direct roommate from their previous building last semester, following the policy change decided upon in Nov. The policy ruling has affected RAs living in suites, allowing them to choose only their direct roommate, rather than all of them. Their other two intended suitemates ultimately had to live elsewhere after two other students claimed the adjoining room.
K said they have heard other RAs characterize the restriction as a retaliatory response by the university to unionization, though they do not know the university’s rationale firsthand. But still, they believe that the change ultimately stems from a lack of transparency between Residential Living staff and RAs.
Allen, however, rejected the term “retaliation” on the university’s part, as she said it would imply violation of federal law, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in their employment or working conditions in order to encourage or discourage union membership.
Instead, Allen characterizes many ongoing tensions as “disagreements over the interpretation and implementation of the CBA.” The disagreements presented to Allen include disputes over workload distribution and what constitutes reasonable expectations for RAs who are simultaneously full-time students.
Communication gaps persist
Beyond disputes over the CBA, current and former RAs described broader problems with communication and management within Residential Living.
According to P, a former RA, some RAs were not informed that their summer RA positions had been approved until a few weeks before the end of the spring semester, leaving their work and housing plans up in the air until the last minute. Documents reviewed by the Voice confirm that this was not announced until the last week of April.
Although RAs did have the option to accept or decline the position once it was offered, P said that many potential summer RAs made alternative plans when they did not hear back from the university and hence could not accept the position when it was finally offered.
And once the summer began, P described further issues. P said that summer RAs “were in charge of basically the whole campus,” including having to manage high school students in summer programs, a task outside their job description.
A university spokesperson disputed that summer RAs were responsible for managing or supervising high school students, saying summer programs employed their own staff to oversee participants. The spokesperson said summer RAs may have assisted high school students who got locked out of their rooms, but characterized this as part of RAs’ existing responsibility to assist residents with lockouts rather than an expansion of their role.
P felt this treatment was part of a recurring pattern demonstrating a lack of respect for RAs.
“I don’t think the university cares about RAs too much,” they said. “I feel like we’re always kind of an afterthought.”
Disorganized leadership
Aside from internal communication, RAs expressed concerns about gaps in administrative positions and general confusion over management protocol that add unnecessary stress to the job.
According to Allen, 19 RAs in three residential communities are missing a Community Director (CD) as of Sept. 18. CDs serve as RAs’ direct supervisors, overseeing their individual residence hall teams and acting as a primary point of contact for questions, workplace concerns, and day-to-day responsibilities. Without a consistent CD, RAs can face longer response times and greater difficulty building the manager-employee relationship that typically provides support throughout the year.
One first-time RA, J, said they view a confusing chain of command and a “revolving door” of CDs as the source of the problem.
“RAs were essentially suffering from a lack of being able to communicate directly with community directors, assistant directors, and everyone else involved in the process,” J said. “It’s the classic issue of middle management essentially also being kind of powerless to do anything except to deal with the people below them.”
Under volatile leadership, J said many issues fall through the cracks. On one occasion, for example, they were unable to obtain timely paperwork for several weeks due to the absence of a Residential Living staff member. J described frequent disorganization and poor communication from upper management as persistent problems.
“There isn’t this clear structure of who’s in charge of who, who replaces who, and how do we communicate between buildings, how do we organize things ahead of time,” they said. “It’s very much an improvising-as-we-go type of situation.”
Navigating lingering tensions
Despite remaining challenges, GRAC has seen collective pressure produce policy reversals. Allen pointed to Residential Living’s attempted changes to the RA placement process last year, which were ultimately unsuccessful following opposition from RAs and other students.
A university spokesperson wrote that the university aims to follow guidelines set in the CBA to address RA grievances.
“We regularly engage with RAs and their union in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which provides a forum for union and University representatives to come together and discuss issues of mutual interest and concern,” the spokesperson wrote. “We are committed to working in good faith through the processes established in the CBA to discuss and address concerns.”
Still, RAs continue to feel that the protections gained through unionization and the petition have not always translated into feeling heard by the university.
“A lot of times, we just kind of have to lie down and take it,” A said. “I think Res Living has a lot to do to remain accountable to RAs.”
