A Conversation between Sam Hamer and Noah Pellikaan on the University of Amsterdam Staff for Palestine
(Romain Beker: https://www.folia.nl/actueel/164153/laatste-dag-stakingsweek-fnv-sit-in-en-mars-naar-maagdenhuis)
From the 9th to the 12th of December 2024 the Federation of Dutch Trade Unions (FNV) staff went on strike at the University of Amsterdam (UvA)— not to be confused with the neighboring, comparable polytech/applied science university HvA where the INC is based. The UvA strike, demanding broader demonstration rights and for the university to cut ties with Israeli institutions complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza, was a notable moment in Dutch labor history, to say the least. A first of its kind within the Dutch academic context—a labor union strike for demands only tangentially related to working conditions, and driven by moral humanitarian values. A strike driven by solidarity and empathy, not wage and work. An indirect response to Gündüz Vassaf, who in Prisoners of Ourselves: Totalitarianism in Everyday Life challenged workers movements in that: “[t]he workers strike for higher wages and less working hours. They do not strike against their role in the industry that thrives on killing people…. Not once in history has a labour union gone on strike to protest the collaboration of their workers in the arms industry” (Vassaf 2011: 129).
My aim for this conversation is to delve into the details; to script something which is both archival and generative; to examine, from the perspective of the leading organizer, the lengthy process leading up to the strike, and in so doing to create an informative pathway for others who wish to make a change in their own polity. To look at which institutional and interpersonal relations played roles, which preconditions needed to be met, and which phraseological and legal navigations became necessary. What you find below is an extensive sit-down interview, conducted on the 21st of May, 2025, with Sam Hamer, junior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, organizer with the FNV, activist at UvA Staff for Palestine, and the driving figure behind this strike. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Photo by Romain Beker: https://www.folia.nl/actueel/164153/laatste-dag-stakingsweek-fnv-sit-in-en-mars-naar-maagdenhuis
Noah Pellikaan: Let’s discuss the start of UvA Staff for Palestine and the actions leading up to the strike first.
Sam Hamer: Everybody in UvA Staff for Palestine already knew each other before the 7th of October 2023. We were already involved with Palestine actions at the UvA, such as writing letters, trying to push for BDS. After the 7th of October we sent out an email to get together as staff, and slowly that group became more coherent. The main thing that everybody was clear about was we wanted UvA to cut the ties [with complicit Israeli institutions], and to adhere to the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction: https://bdsmovement.net/) demands. Even though some of them are not that explicit, they served as a starting point.
NP: What were the first actions you took at UvA Staff for Palestine?
SH: It started with the teach-ins. We did public lectures that got a nice amount of attention in Amsterdam, but really after the 7th of October a lot of people were ready to learn more about Palestine, which was good to hear, good to see. And at the same time we started conversing with the board (the executive board AKA College van Bestuur/CvB) and the deans to address the BDS demands and what they are. Namely, we had to consistently clarify that BDS is regarding institutional ties, not individual collaborations. This process was made easier because (Dr.) Erella Grassiani has already been in conversation with the board about BDS before October 7th.
NP: Do you remember your first contact with the board and what that was like? Were they willing to meet with you? Did you reach out, and how did that process look?
SH: UvA Staff for Palestine already had access through Erella being in the central works council [the Centrale Ondernemingsraad/COR holds periodic meetings with the board]. We set up two plans: one was that we wanted to get elected to the central works council— and we got Andro [Rilović] elected, who then put BDS on the agenda and brought it into discussion. The second was starting the FNV union process which really got going after the 6th of May 2024 though, so there was much time between the COR elections and the union process. [The 6th of May was the date of the first encampment at UvA, and it was violently evicted. The works council elections were held between the 8th – 12th of April, 2024].
NP: What about discussion with the deans, were you able to reach out to them and speak with them as UvA staff for Palestine?
SH: It was mainly through individual members and individual connections. An upside of pursuing these aims as a collective of staff is that there are many people who already have contacts with the deans, or know them on a name basis. Individually we tried to have the BDS conversation wherever we could— knowing full well that they’re not going to do it. More pressure is needed, but it’s best to keep BDS in the conversation wherever you can.
NP: Was it just humanities and social sciences, or were there other faculties where you got to meet with the deans?
SH: Later also Science Park because the students started an encampment there. This was again after the 6th of May. The dean would come by sometimes, so we would talk with him about what institutional ties are. The deans always point to the executive board, claiming it is their decision to make. Of course it is also the dean’s decision to make as they’re the heads of faculty, but this is a common tactic— [point fingers] to avoid responsibility.
NP: And how did it go with the deans? Were they receptive? Did you feel like they were listening or taking it into account?
SH: No, it’s just giving them information and general updates on what BDS means. There was no real expectation of them doing anything, mainly because they would point to the executive board. Now the situation has changed because the executive board officially pointed to the deans to solve it. So now we’re stepping to the deans again, knowing they cannot use that excuse.
NP: Can you talk a bit about the build-up before the 6th of May 2024?
SH: One of the things was that at every department people clearly cared about putting this on the agenda. And at every department there were at least some people saying we need to talk about this: we need to do BDS. In my department, Sociology, they decided to keep the mailing list free of politics. And I know the same happened in Anthropology, which basically meant free of Palestine. When it was time to strike for the budget cuts, then we’re back doing politics on the mailing list.
Things were happening university-wide and we tried to support individual staff members in the way that they could have this conversation with their departments. Support in this case just looks like going with someone to the meeting or calling that staff member to tell them how we approached it in Sociology, for instance.
For other actions we participated in demonstrations; sit-ins, things like that. Being present when actions were taking place, and staying engaged. We joined Students for Justice in Palestine in doing a banner drop at the Vrije Universiteit.
(Eviction of the Roeterseiland encampment, 06 May 2024)
NP: That brings us to the 6th of May.
SH: There was already a build-up to the 6th of May because we were aware that people wanted to ‘squat the field’; occupy the field. UvA Staff for Palestine went to those preparatory meetings and participated where we could, giving information and advice.
As Staff for Palestine we were ready to support wherever we could. However, personally, I was a bit skeptical of some of the plans that I was seeing being made. There were people that were planning for next week, as if the camp is still there in a week. I tried to push back, arguing ‘no, they’re going to evict you on the first night’. It’s easy to say this in hindsight, but I remember telling them at the meeting, you need to plan for being evicted that night, not going ahead to ‘what do we do the next day’. I was warning people and this wasn’t being taken seriously.
But as Staff for Palestine, we showed up to those meetings, we gave our input. We mobilized as much as we could for staff to join the protest, and for others to at least come to the camp and engage in discussion. We prepared by all bringing bright vests that said ‘staff’ on them so that it would be very clear this is a staff and student action. That way it cannot be framed as just students, or students and outsiders.
NP: People weren’t expecting to be evicted that night?
SH: Maybe particular organizers were, but for some reason they were not really planning for that. The idea was that in building a barricade they could not be evicted.
But for me the barricade is immaterial, it’s all aesthetics. There was this idea that it’s impossible for the police to get through, which I tried to push back. People had a lot of faith in their ability to fend off the police, but they were not prepared to actually do so—they wanted the barricades to do the work for them.
NP: Was UvA Staff for Palestine involved directly in the organization?
SH: I was involved as a representative of UvA Staff for Palestine. But it should be noted UvA Staff for Palestine is not a coherent collective with membership. It’s a loose collective, it’s group chats and likeminded colleagues. We were not part of the organizing committee of the students, and had decided beforehand that the students can do the organizing, and we will support wherever we can. For other actions we were actually part of the organizing. I don’t know if it was good that we started mixing in with organizing, but that’s another discussion.
NP: We can talk about that week a bit more. I’d like to know when the conversations with FNV started, but also, of course, we can discuss the 7th and the 8th of May 2024.
SH: On this note, I should give a bit of my personal history with the FNV because it’s relevant. Maybe first the general history of the FNV: The labor union movement in the Netherlands is incredibly weak right now. We are at our lowest point in history, only about 800,000-900,000 members. And a lot of those members are not active at all. It’s the same situation at the UvA, where the labor union had about 450-500 members.
NP: Out of how many?
SH: Out of 6,000 employees or something, which is an incredibly low number. And the FNV labor union at the UvA had almost no activity. There were maybe 5 to 10 active members. Of course there are people in the works councils, and there’s activity there. But do they come to union actions? Do they come to union meetings? Do they come to actual union organizing? No. To put it cynically, the union can then be a stepping stone to get into the works council.
I started to get active with the labor union at UvA about a year or two ago. When I joined the Communist Party [NCPN; Nieuwe Communistische Partij van Nederland: https://ncpn.nl/], they really pushed for me to fire up the union. So I joined FNV, I participated in the meetings, and I tried to push for an active line. I got to know a lot of the people there, especially who was actually active and willing engage. When the 6th of May happened, a lot of colleagues got riled up and got ready to take action. They saw their students get beaten, they saw their campus destroyed, they saw that the UvA still has ties with Israeli academic institutions. Within UvA Staff for Palestine, people were outraged. There was so much energy, so I set up a meeting to see what we can do as employees.
Because the union was so weak, I made it a first question of the day to ask people if they want to work with the union. The pros are that the union give some sort of legitimacy. They can offer organizational support, and they have a membership base already. A broader network we can appeal to. But the cons are the union had at that point not even called it a genocide. The union at that point had almost no history of doing political demands instead of work-related demands. In Dutch labor law a strike is only legal if it is directly related to your working conditions. And in the Netherlands unions can be held accountable for union members’ actions.
So if the union strikes and it’s declared not legal by a judge, the unions would have to pay a huge sum of money to cover costs of the employer. This could bankrupt the union— meaning they are very hesitant to participate in pushing for demands that are not, or not so clearly, directly related to working conditions. A demand about ties to Israeli academic institutions, it’s not about your salary. To some degree it is about the quality of your work—about your ability to not be complicit in a genocide through your employer, but it isn’t what strike demands typically are. That holds the potential of a negative for working with the union, where they might shut us down; decide it’s too scary to strike.
And I posed this question of working with the union in front of a meeting with about 200-250 colleagues. Do we want to work with the union? And it was a clear, resounding, yes. Part of the reason was because I told the story of doing a wild strike with CasualUvA (workers collective of academic staff on temporary contracts: https://www.casualuva.nl/). Two years ago the first strike with CasualUvA was very successful. We got the lecturer policy changed, and contracts went from one to four years. But the next year we tried to strike again for permanent contracts, and it was a horrendous failure. The executive board immediately threatened to sue us, which was a scary experience. [a wild strike/wildcat strike is a striking action of collectivized workers, not on behalf of or condoned by any formal union or institution].
While there were a number of arguments against the union, we decided that we wanted institutional support and to avoid the threat of lawsuit. One notable argument against working with the union is that part of the FNV is the police union, which means that our demands cannot be directly against police presence at the UvA. We could get some nuance to it, like police can only be called after the works council signs off on it, but no general cops off campus.
At the meeting we decided: let’s go ahead with the union and set up a steering committee that would work out demands in line with what we wanted. However, there were 3 requirements that we decided to meet for the demands:
1: Demands have to be speaking to people on the fence. Not cutting ties with all Israeli institutions, but cutting ties with complicit Israeli academic institutions. That way people know there’s a reason why we’re talking about Israeli academic institutions, and it can be proven and reasonable.
2: Demands had to be in line with Dutch labor law and the union’s framework, so that it was clear the union could get behind these demands and not drop us halfway through. For this I had a lot of conversations with union lawyers and people from the union about how to change our demands in such a way that they are effective.
3: While meeting the first 2 criteria, the demands remain good and effective [that they stay in line with our overarching aims and can lead to the best desired result].
We wrote a letter to the executive board demanded a meeting. We stated our intent to negotiate and our demands. The executive board notified that first we must go through the UCLO (Universitaire Commissie voor Lokaal Overleg). The UCLO is a collection of representatives from the different unions at the UvA. They meet every six weeks or so with the executive board to discuss union topics.
NP: Is that FNV, AOb (Algemene Onderwijsbond), and CNV (Christelijk Nationale Vakverbond)?
SH: Yeah. [The UCLO meeting] just so happened to be next week. So, actually, this is a good opportunity for us to get the AOb on board. The CNV we never had high hopes for as the Christian Union is a bit more conservative. They have a radical member that’s active there, but he’s outnumbered.
(https://www.fnv.nl/nieuwsbericht/algemeen-nieuws/2023/10/geweld-in-israel-en-palestina)
SH: I don’t use the word Zionist lightly, I don’t call anybody who’s not so on board with Palestine a Zionist, but the AOb has a Zionist who is very much pro-Israel and against what we were doing in the FNV. He’s one of the most active members there and it was quite easy for him to therefore cause enough disruption for the AOb to be hesitant in joining us. In the end they did join us, the AOb signed on after a vote with their members. I think 82% or so of their members voted in favor. And at this point there had also been a vote of FNV members with 92% or so voting in favor.
NP: And this was in favor of the demands, not of the strike?
SH: Of the demands, exactly. To check whether the demands were written in a fruitful way. The AOb members voted in favor and together we pushed for these demands during the UCLO meeting. It became clear the UCLO meeting was not the most conducive, so we pushed for a meeting with the executive board just on these demands.
NP: The UCLO meeting is with which members of the CvB?
SH: With the chair of the board, Edith Hooge [personnel and human resources in her portfolio], and the vice-chair Jan Lintsen [finance and business operations in his portfolio]. They essentially said there was no negotiation taking place.
They said this was an opportunity for us to exchange thoughts, but not a negotiation. Which is strange because union members have voted to have a negotiation with the CvB for specific demands. And it seems as if they had forgotten that unions can strike.
That first negotiation was therefore a complete bust. There was this one interesting moment when I said we have a student exchange program with Hebrew University. Hebrew University’s largest campus is on the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Occupied territory in the sense that international law defines that as occupied territory. Hebrew University is, as an institution, flagrantly breaching international law, and we are still working with them. And then Edith said, ‘yeah, but there’s different perspectives on this.’ The response of which is, okay, so here we have the international law perspective, and here you have the [other] perspectives. Which perspective do you want to listen to?
And by the way, they didn’t even cut the tie with Hebrew University because of its campus on occupied territory. Instead, because of its dealings with the Israeli military. Which is much better ground to cut ties on, because that’s all Israeli academic institutions. All of them worked super closely with the Israeli military, but not all of them have campuses on occupied territory. I was happy and surprised to see that it was because of that reason and not the campus reason.
NP: Because now it can be cited for the future.
SH: Exactly. After that first negotiation was a complete bust we were heading for the summer vacation. And one of the things about the FNV process is that you need to go through the escalation ladder. First you try to negotiate, then you try to negotiate again, and if that fails, then you do some actions, then you build up to a strike.
NP: At this point they’d refused to see any of your discussions as negotiations?
SH: Exactly. But of course as UvA Staff for Palestine members, we already knew this was going to happen. We were already ready to strike. People within the collective were really of the mind, fuck this. We need to strike when the iron is hot. And the FNV process kind of took the wind out of the sails, which was another negative, but it did give us legal cover.
Since by the end of that first negotiation it was almost summer vacation already we decided on this plan of action: let it go into the summer vacation. During the summer vacation, we’ll do the administrative stuff. One thing that the executive board had asked of us was to talk with their advice commission. They had set up this ad-hoc committee to look at their framework. Which is bullshit, of course, because we can talk to the ad-hoc committee, but we don’t agree with the framing of an ad-hoc committee in general. We have specific demands. And the fact that you have a nice ad-hoc committee does not impact those demands at all.
NP: Do you not agree with it because the committee evaluates on a case-by-case basis?
SH: There were two main reasons. First is that the ad-hoc committee is not transparently chosen. We were asking for a democratic independent commission chosen through the unions and the works councils. That did not happen, which was the first reason why we couldn’t accept the ad-hoc committee as was. Second reason was that it was very unclear what the ad-hoc committee was actually going to do, whether it was going to look at institutional ties, etc. We needed our own proposal for an ethical commission.
NP: This [ad-hoc] commission, they were all appointed by the CvB and it was non-binding, right?
SH: Exactly. Non-binding, that was another one that we really cared about, was the fact that the ethical commission that we wanted them to set up had to be in principle binding. Because you can’t make commissions binding in the current university structure, unfortunately. But you can make them in principle binding. Which means the executive board then needs to come up with their own research to prove why they are rejecting or taking the advice.
Continuing in the summer, we finalized much of the administration and basically gave the board an ultimatum: if they’re not willing to come to the negotiating table and show some good faith, then we are going into action. Our show of good faith would have been to pause all ties with Israeli academic institutions. So that was what they needed to show in order to negotiate again.
NP: And was that research projects and exchange agreements?
SH: Yeah, all of it. The board very clearly said they are not going to pause all ties with Israeli academic institutions until negotiation. At the end of the end of the summer we found ourselves in a very clear position. Negotiations have broken down. It’s time for action. However, it’s the start of the new [academic] year. We don’t know if the energy is still the same. Who’s still around? Does [the community] still care about this? So we started off with soft action. We did a demonstration at the start of the year to see if there’s still people around— and there were. We also we sent out a poll amongst the FNV members at the UvA asking, do we still care about this? We did. And we wanted to go into harder action. It was a bit less than before, you could already see less energy than before the summer. Further, every time you do an action it takes a lot of energy. People have jobs, people have lives, so there can be weeks in between moments of activity.
Now we planned for a union meeting to vote for a strike. About 50, maybe 100 people showed up. That’s not enough to vote for a strike. I knew that we could get at least 300 people active, and you can’t vote for a strike without them. They need to be involved. One of our mistakes was that we didn’t frame this meeting as voting for a strike. We framed this meeting as an update. That meant that we all thought it’s a bit of an iffy moment. Rather, now let’s call a new strike meeting, and try to get enough people to show up. If not enough people show up, then that’s clear enough. If enough people show up, then we’re doing it [voting on a strike].
We had to work out with the union organizer what type of strike as well. The form of strike was contentious, and we had to be realistic in our aims. There are some people who know a lot and care a lot about Palestine and therefore feel like nothing is enough. Feel that wee are failing them. I agree with that sentiment. But at the same time, not everybody is there. And you cannot expect everybody to do the things that you are willing to do. Especially a strike which is a mass action. It’s not something that you can achieve with 30 people that are willing to do a lot for a long time.
A main goal was to figure out how to engage in this strike with as many people as possible for as long of a time as possible. The plan was a four-day strike which would hopefully build into another action such as a longer strike—an indefinite grading strike, for instance. When the strike meeting was held, it became very clear that people care abut it. Roughly 200 people voted with 80-90% in favor. We decided to do it at the start of December while there was still a teaching bloc going on, even though that was only 2 weeks away at this point. Normally you need weeks to months to plan a strike, especially in higher education where people are busy or practically cannot join an action.
(Mobiele Eenheid/Riot Police eviction of the occupation of Oudemanhuispoort, 08 May 2024)
NP: In terms of the ladder of escalation, did you all end up doing other actions than before the strike? That were FNV sanctioned? Or were you able to meet with the CvB again?
SH: No. The only FNV sanctioned actions were that first demonstration at the start of the year. And the [aforementioned] meetings.
NP: When was this meeting that you first talked about?
SH: So the first meeting was start or mid-October. And something unexpected that made the whole process difficult was that the union organizer working with us became sick. With burnout symptoms. It was clear that it was going to be a longer term illness, not just a couple of days. So we had to postpone a meeting initially, and somewhere around mid-October actually held our first meeting. The second meeting came somewhere in November.
And it’s good to note that every time you plan a meeting like this, you need to do pre-meetings to ensure the big one is well organized and that nothing is being figured out on the spot. A lot of this organizing requires so much effort in the back room so that the front facing actions seem as effortless as possible. But there’s a lot of thoughts that need to be worked out before you can have these front facing [actions; meetings]. A big meeting with as many people as possible requires two or three other meetings to plan and check in with each other.
NP: Are those pre-meetings done by the steering committee? Or is the steering committee dissolved after the demands of the committee?
SH: The main thing was a lot of members from the steering committee just had duties. Everybody is very busy. I was one of the only ones who was able to go to the union meetings every week, to do all of these things because… I’m a part of the Communist Party. There’s something happening at my workplace, I found it my responsibility to be very involved. It was very helpful to have experienced comrades [from the NCPN] around who I could ask. Because all of the comrades at the party have experienced doing strikes, working with the union, etc. in other sectors. There is one guy who was active at the steel factory, who was active at the Albert Heijn distribution centers, who is active in many different places, and has a lot of experience about these sort of things. About how to frame union matters.
For instance, the union is not always your ally. And the union is not always there for you. You need to plan and work around that, which was also one of the reasons why we kept UvA Staff for Palestine separate from the union. We are our own collective and we work through the union, because the union is the workers— that’s us. But we keep our own chats and we keep our own networks. Another comrade had this experience working with the union, trying to fight the government’s pension plans. And the union at some point just cut of deal with the government without consulting the members. Pulled the plug on the whole campaign. And suddenly you lose that entire network. People were pissed.
NP: Does the membership not have to vote on the contract?
SH: If the organizing committee of a movement accepts a deal, or if the board of the union accepts a deal, then you basically can’t… I don’t know explicitly… I don’t know that well what happened in this case, but they weren’t in the position to challenge. Because the union had suddenly agreed to something and it was all over the news. The union agrees to this or that and claims we have won. But no, we have won jack shit. I didn’t want that to happen to our trajectory. So that’s why we keep this group separate and wanted to maintain our identity as UvA Staff for Palestine, because we found it a very fruitful identity to work through, to keep people engaged, to organize actions.
NP: You also mentioned in the Manifest article [link at the bottom of the page] that there was some pushback from within the union. What was that like?
SH: There were two main ways in which there was pushback. First, the union as a big organization was quite hesitant. And if you decide to work with the union, you are working with all workers, not just leftist workers. You’re working with conservatives, you’re working with reactionaries sometimes, you’re working with people that disagree with you basically. You’re going to need to find a way to get them on board or to make sure that they stay quiet. Neutralize them in a way, by convincing them: ‘you don’t have to join a strike if you don’t want to, but it is for a good thing. And you might not want to step up for that good thing, but at least let us. Don’t get in the way, you know?’.
NP: Does that work out for you?
SH: One of the ways in which it manifested was that in our preparatory meetings. The union has to constantly keep in mind that this is a divisive issue and not everybody will get on board. This means constantly making plans for how we can engage as democratically as possible. I also wanted to be as democratic as possible, but sometimes it can lead to too much conservatism. Where, for instance in that strike vote meeting it was up to us to figure out what the relevant threshold is for how many people need to vote in favor before we strike. Well, you can put that threshold quite high and have already had a bunch more union members. Union membership went from 450 to about 800 because of us. But when you do a strike vote, you’re not going to get more than 200, maybe 300 people involved. That’s 500 people that are staying silent. We could put the threshold at 300; 400; 500 votes, but that’s a number that you know you’re never going to reach, because there’s just so many union members who don’t do jack shit for the union, that don’t even read the emails. Or are you going to put the threshold at a more realistic point? I know that we’re going to reach 100 for sure. I know that we’re going to reach 150 no problem. In that way, the conservatism of the general union manifested itself in where you put the threshold. I was arguing we should put it at 100, somebody else who was, again, coming from a good place, trying to say, ‘this needs to be democratic, if we’re going to strike, it needs to be representative of the union here’, says we need it to be 200, maybe even 250. That was a bit more of an iffy number.
In the end we managed to get to that number, 212 or so at the meeting. But nonetheless I was a bit iffy about reaching it, because people have child care duties. Somebody might have that very important evening that evening. You’re not going to get everybody to come to that meeting, even if they are involved. In the end, we managed to reach the threshold of 200, and we cleared it. But that was some resistance already.
Another point of resistance also came from the fact that we tried to organize through the UCLO. Different unions coming together with representatives. I wanted to attend that meeting because none of the UCLO members knew anything about UvA Staff for Palestine. Then the head of the UCLO, Marjolein Hogenbirk said she could not allow me to attend this meeting. She’s an AOb union member. She’s the AOb representative at the UvA. She’s a perfectly nice lady, by the way. But she’s also a bit scared of action on this topic. She’s scared of polarizing her members, scared of pissing off the Zionist. Things like that. She wouldn’t allow me to join that general union meeting, but it’s a union meeting. This is not something with the executive board. We’re not meeting with the government. We’re meeting amongst the workers. These are organized workers that are coming together to talk about something that’s happening at their workplace.
There is no reason to exclude one of the main people— at this point, I was clearly one of the main people in this whole process— from that meeting. The reason that she cited was that I had not been elected. But if an election was held that moment, I can get elected. The issue was with this formality, this formalism within the workers movement, which was another point of resistance. In this case, it’s both reactionary and hesitancy. It’s hesitancy to fight. Hesitancy to do things that are a bit more out there, a bit more polarizing. It’s hesitancy to do a bit more action instead of only the collective labor agreement (CAO) negotiation every year or the works council elections.
NP: I see a lot of that. And when did the AOb sign onto your demands?
SH: The AOb signed onto the demands already. In June [2024], they had their own vote. At that point we still had a lot of members of the AOb within UvA Staff for Palestine pushing for BDS. A vote was put out, and people voted in favor overwhelmingly.
We touched on this earlier, but also a lot of people within the AOb aren’t active, it’s the same with the FNV. They don’t read their union emails, for example, which I take as a manifestation of a general disconnection from the union. People need to go get connected with the union. Go to the meetings that they organized. Go to that stupid little borrel where you meet people. But a lot of members just don’t do that. They see the union as good to pay. A good force in society. But ultimately, they’re a bit too busy with work to get active in organizing.
NP: Also insofar as the union is only the CAO every year, and they’re relatively happy with it. They don’t see the potential for something larger to come out of it.
SH: Exactly. For instance, now with the budget cuts, they think it’s very good that the union organizes these protests and these strikes. They think that’s very good. But do they want to organize these protests themselves? Do they want to organize these strikes themselves? No. They see the union as some sort of outside actor that you pay to help you out with these things. Instead of these as actions you yourself need to do. You need to spread those flyers at your workplace. You need to talk to your colleagues. You are the one that’s going to need to pick up that work. Instead, they see it as the union providing a service.
The union is its members. People [need to] have the consciousness to realize what a union is. What is a worker’s demand. What is in their interest.
NP: And it’s the same with even their conception of the university as being this external entity. As being the executive board, not the university being you and your co-workers and the students who you teach.
SH: Yeah, definitely. The boss is the company. Instead of the workers and the boss are the company together right now. And maybe someday it can just be the workers.
NP: Did FNV have any legal troubles from the demands?
SH: No. We heard through the pipelines that they were thinking of suing us.
NP: UvA?
SH: Yeah, UvA. But they never actually threatened to.
NP: Do you think they would have had cause to?
SH: It would have been grey area. One of our demands very clearly they couldn’t sue us over. One of the things that they couldn’t sue us over was our demands around police on campus and demonstration rights. Because that’s just so clearly related to our working conditions. As an employee, you have the right to speak out against company policy, that was never the issue.
The issue was: do we have the right to demand an ethical commission that will look at all the ties? And, do we have the right to demand UvA suspends all ties with Israeli academic institutions until that ethical commission looks at them? Those were grey areas. We made the argument in our letters, in our wordings. Very clearly we were thinking about this from the get go because lawyers from the FNV were involved from the start. To frame it as we have a right to work at a workplace that is not connected to human rights violations, and that is complicit in a statute of the European law stating that companies working with other entities complicit in human rights violations have to cut off those connections. So we tried to make the claim that it’s workplace argument. The lawyers did say it’s grey area. If a judge looks at this, it is not 100% sure that they would say this is workplace related conditions.
NP: And then what was that meeting like where you voted to strike? Was voting done anonymously?
SH: Voting was done anonymously. Beforehand we had the discussion about why only four days, why not endless? And this discussion was shut down maybe a bit too forcefully with the argument of: do we have the energy to do this endlessly? Because I’m sure some can, but can that colleague that just wants to strike for a little bit or show her support or something, can she strike for an endless amount of time? Because it takes a lot of energy to organize and to engage. There were also some who thought it was too much. We thought it was not appropriate to strike for four days. So we thought maybe just one day. But we ran the risk of that discussion running too long so we just went to the vote and let the vote speak for itself and the vote was very clear.
NP: Was there any discussion about a soft picket versus a hard picket line?
SH: In the Netherlands we cannot do a hard picket for the same reason that we have to be very careful how we frame our demands. Because the union can get sued for actions that its members. So in Belgium, if workers decide to not let their colleagues into the workplace, nothing really happens. Maybe individual workers will get sued. Maybe individual workers get arrested. But those individual cases you can fight. You can pay for the legal fees. You can make sure that this is doable for them. But if a union gets sued it’s a whole different story. You might be wasting a lot of your funds on stupid stuff. And secondly, there’s also the issue of: are people willing and ready to do something that is seen as crossing a line? Because to not let your colleagues into the building, for some people that’s really seen as not an invitation to join, but received as: ‘I am never joining that. This is way too radical for me’. It is toeing the line where as a union you need to be seen as appropriate, need to not transgress too much. And I don’t mean transgress in terms of the legal framework, but really transgress in terms of the popular consciousness. How will your workers look at you after you do something like that? Will they be more receptive to your demands or will they be less? How will your next department meeting go? Will there be people actively angry at you? That’s why we chose for a soft picket. Let people into the building, not stop them.
NP: And then I also remember around that time a statement from the CvB, if I’m remembering it correctly, that they wouldn’t be meeting with you as FNV.
SH: Of course we reached out to them again saying, this is your last chance to negotiate, we’re going on strike. And they said, we’re not meeting. Basically, we’re not suspending the ties (because our requirement for meeting with them was them pausing all ties). By the way, this was not a huge threshold. They can just say it’s paused. It’s mostly rhetoric. If you are a researcher doing joint research with Tel Aviv University, who is going to check whether you did or did not write for that research project in those two weeks? It’s mostly symbolic anyways. The actual connection can still happen. It’s just that you say that everything is paused. It’s framing.
(https://www.fnv.nl/nieuwsbericht/algemeen-nieuws/2024/04/fnv-roept-kabinet-op-bescherming-gaza)
NP: One thing for me was also just they never disclosed the financial ties through UvA holdings and where their investments are. Were you able to have any contact with the Raad van Toezicht (supervisory board, appointed by the ministry and above the executive board)?
SH: No, I don’t think we’ve ever tried to reach out to the Raad van Toezicht.
NP: Is there something going on now? Where do we go from here? Any advice?
SH: One of the big problems is the budget cuts issue. The issue is just so much bigger than Palestine in the popular consciousness, and also in terms of how much organizing it requires. After that four-day strike, the budget cuts strike was coming up on the Malieveld. It was the big, the first big manifestation around this. After the strike, it was just very clear we don’t have the energy. We don’t have the capacity and people’s attention is on something else right now. And these are very important things. So kind of naturally, a bit through fatigue there was not a significant follow up on the strike, not even a meeting organized regarding what we do now. I was also fatigued.
Right now as UvA Staff for Palestine we do a weekly sit-in. We do the weekly sit-in and we try to connect the weekly sit-in to different actions. We did a Palestine reading marathon on the 6th of May [2025]. Tomorrow we have a new members meeting after the sit-in. We still try to influence the union process in our own way. So for instance, with the budget cut conversation, connect it to militarization, connect it to the increased defense budget, show up to demonstrations with Palestine flags, things like that.
NP: Having gone through all of this, do you have any advice for organizing?
SH: Get involved at your workplace. If you don’t have a workplace, maybe a study place, get involved there. Go join your local union, join a student union. Start to make those connections. Talk to people. Like I said before, go to that drinks night that they organized. Go meet people. Then importantly, if you want to do it on an individual level, try to educate yourself. Pick up a book here and there. Try to find an interesting video, figure out an area where you’re lacking and pursue that just on a very, very individual level. You can also do this on a collective level, there are political organizations that can help you grow, that can help point you in the right direction.
After I joined the Communist Party I have grown in terms of organizing. How to do it, how to understand what it is that we’re doing and what needs to happen in the Netherlands. Individually, collectively, just get involved. And something for framing, try to understand political work as connected and inseparable from your daily life. You’re not doing some work here and then sometimes doing some political work there. Those things are intertwined. Whenever you’re talking to a colleague, that could be a political act. Not that you have to talk about politics with them, but make sure that you are that nice guy that always stands up for whatever. Make sure that you lay the groundwork for a bigger movement to arise, so to say. So that when something comes up that they actually do care a lot about, for instance; let it be the budget cuts, maybe it’s Palestine, maybe it’s something else, those networks are already there. You can talk to them and you can say, hey, this is happening. I know you really care about this. Let’s go do some flyering.
And maybe if I can throw a quick little jab in the political direction, maybe stay away from the more liberal parties and stay away from the more radicalist parties. If you see that there’s a group that is willingly provoking the police, maybe don’t. Maybe stay a bit away from them. If you see a group that is not even calling what’s happening in Palestine a genocide, maybe stay away from them. Follow your own morals, of course. If you think it’s right to provoke the police, then go for it. Try to steer yourself towards people that collectively do what you’re doing. And if they’re incapable of collectively doing something, and you still see them, then maybe try to make it a bit more collective.
By collective I mean no spontaneous action. When you do something, you do something as a group. You have talked about it before and the plan is very clear. What I see is a lot of spontaneous action and that’s unacceptable. From my perspective, it’s very dangerous. It puts people in danger and it makes it so that the people who are coming cannot trust you to follow through on your words. That’s one of the most important things. That when you say something, you can deliver on it.
NP: If anybody wants to get involved with UvA staff for Palestine, where can they find you?
SH: On Instagram. You can email us. Reach out, come to the sit-in. Reach out to your locality, to somebody in your department who you know might care about Palestine and they can forward you to the right people. People should really see this collective as just within their own departments. It’s made up of themselves. So to say that we are not an outside force that you reach out to and ask to join. You can do UvA staff for Palestine work right now. You are ready at your department, at your place.
(R vt Hoenderdaal, 13 May 2024)
—
You can find an interview with Sam Hamer providing on overview of the strike and its demands published by Manifest here: Hoe organiseer je een staking voor Palestina? — Manifest, krant van de NCPN
The petition is support of striking workers is found here: https://www.fnv.nl/petities/petitie-steun-de-uva-collega-s
The Staff on Strike Toolkit is found here: https://linktr.ee/staffonstriketoolkit
The Dutch Trade Union Solidarity for Palestine linktree is found here: https://linktr.ee/vakbondsolidairmetpalestina
And you can find the responsive letter to the FNV from the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) here: PGFTU – Vakbond Solidair met Palestina
—
Vassaf, Gündüz. Prisoners of Ourselves: Totalitarianism in Everyday Life, İletişim Yayınları, Istanbul, 2011.