Commenters accuse unions of antisemitism and say Cornell denied promised religious-accommodation form

Public commenters at a 2025 meeting accused some labor unions of advancing antisemitic and anti‑Israel priorities and said Cornell University did not provide a promised, simple religious‑accommodation form after contract ratification. They urged union leaders to stop what one speaker called “anti Semitic activity” and said workers who object on religious grounds were forced into intrusive disclosure or legal action.

The remarks came during the meeting's public comment period and focused on two linked concerns: First, that some unions prioritize political agendas over member interests; second, that the process for religious accommodation promised by Cornell after its contract ratification did not materialize for at least one commenter.

"It is really disgusting that some unions are spending their time advancing antisemitic and anti Israel priorities instead of addressing immediate needs of their members," a commenter said. The same speaker added: "Hope that these union leaders were watching and get the message, do your job. Stop the anti Semitic activity among your ranks. You're paid a very good salary to protect your members against hate."

A meeting participant identified in the transcript as Mr. Tubman described the legal landscape for workers who disagree with union politics: "That is the way that you would have to pay if you weren't in a right to work state. If you're in the 25 or so states that have forced unionism and you have a KKK union, you'll pay them or you'll be fired. Yes. You could try to exercise back rights. Yes." The speaker also said workers "might be able to try to exercise title 7 rights," referring to federal anti‑discrimination law.

A separate commenter identified in the transcript as Mr. Rubinstein described attempts to obtain religious accommodation after Cornell's contract ratification. "Upon contract ratification, Cornell University promised that I could religiously object by doing no more than ticking a box on a form, and yet that form never materialized," Rubinstein said. He described being required instead to submit a "highly personal letter" and additional intrusive information, and said he filed legal charges after the accommodations process did not match the university's promise.

The meeting transcript shows no formal motions, votes, or board actions on the matters discussed during public comment. The speakers framed the issues as complaints and explanations; there was no recorded direction to staff or formal decision noted in the transcript excerpt.

Why it matters: Union dues and collective bargaining rules can affect whether employees must financially support a union whose political positions they oppose; how employers and unions handle religious‑accommodation requests can trigger legal claims under federal law. The commenters' statements reference both "right‑to‑work" state rules and Title VII, signaling potential legal avenues for those raising objections.

No official responses, policy changes, or enforcement actions are recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. The only recorded next step by a speaker was that Mr. Rubinstein said he had filed legal charges after the accommodation process he expected was not provided.

The discussion drew on charged political language and allegations of antisemitism and pro‑Hamas sentiment within unions; those claims were made by public commenters and not adjudicated or substantiated within the transcript excerpt.