• Join The Fed
• Advertise with The Fed

• About Us
• Contact

In This Issue

• Happy VD
• I Want to Be A Matzoh, Matzoh Man
• Letters to the Feditor
• Lee Bollinger Asks: Are You Hot or Not?
• I Hate New York. Now More than Ever.
• Ab Electrocution Devices Found to be Shockingly Unsafe
• Waking up Gay On Sesame Street
• Lunchables for a Dysfunctional World
• Bad Places to Wake Up
• Removing Used Sex Partners is Simple & Fun!
• Columbia University, a.k.a. Outkast's Bitch
• Report from the Frontline-Dancing
• Anarchists betray the goals of liberal politics
• In defense of not defending - but instead attacking - TA Unionization
• A Crash Course In Punk
• R.I.P. What Bar
• Damn You, Nickelodeon
• Newsbriefs del Pueblo
• Pulpit Fiction
• Horoscopes? Why, yes. Horoscopes.
• Angry Cell Phone Guy Turns Me On (Real Hard)
• Fruitloop and Dandy
• Another View of The Fed
• THEY Watch
• The Staff of 17.6

In the 1970s, the NLRB ruled that graduate students are not employees - they are students in the apprenticeship model, and do not have the right to organize. The recent NYU ruling now classifies graduate student TA's as university employees. The UAW is now campaigning to unionize graduate students here at Columbia. But why should we choose the UAW? There needs to be a more cautious assessment of long-term, rather than short-term, consequences. There are reasons for speculation about the UAW's motives and ability to represent our graduate students.

First, the UAW is presenting us with an undemocratic election - only spring TA's from certain departments on Morningside campus will be allowed to vote in the upcoming election. For example, I have taught two semesters in a row but am not currently a TA; therefore I am denied a vote in the decision to unionize. Likewise, a student in neurobiology who is in favor of unionization is denied his vote. Second, there are financial issues that contribute to my opposition of the union - UAW membership is at an all time low and they need to tap into a new resource: our stipends. We will be forced to pay dues to an organization that is undemocratic, prejudiced, and denies our votes. Third, the UAW favors reserving jobs for Americans and has historically discriminated against foreign skilled workers obtaining visas in the US. They openly opposed the Clinton administration's legislation to expand the international visa program allowing international employees to obtain research, engineering, and academic jobs. Nearly 1/3 of graduate students here are international, and they contribute significantly to research and teaching efforts. Fourth, consider the fact that our future as academics depends on relationships we build now. Might this be a potential detriment to our relationships with faculty, advisors and colleagues? And finally, I am opposed to the downgrading of my status as a graduate student and budding academic professional to that of university employee. Do we really want to have UAW officials tell us how to teach and do research? Taken altogether, there is enough contradiction in the GSEU/UAW platform to warrant suspicion of their motives.

I know of not one single person who came to pursue their graduate education at Columbia just to be regarded as an employee. The individuals responsible for keeping the university running indeed should be respected, but there is a clear distinction between university staff and junior members of the academy. The UAW represents oppressed industrial and clerical workers, and claims it will provide better conditions for all of us. But, the UAW has not demonstrated a good track record in academia. Again, why are we even considering the UAW?

The union representatives have made enticing promises of more money, more health benefits and more housing. It's a very emotional campaign, and it sounds too good to be true. They refuse to acknowledge the negative aspects of having a union, as well as the conditions that unionization cannot change. Things will change for better or worse, we can only speculate, but there is no turning back. Once a union is installed, it is nearly impossible to revoke.

GSEU organizers are using strong peer pressure and even harassing tactics to sway undecided and anti-union students. So, where is all of the support that they claim to have in the graduate student body? It just cannot be the case that the vast majority of graduate students support the union. If that were true, why are undergraduates and post-graduates being recruited to attend the forums?

If they will not give us a straight answer regarding specifics on critical issues such as the composition of the bargaining unit, H1-B visas and dues, will we ever receive them? There are critical questions to be asked and answered satisfactorily. GSEU has been notoriously vague and obscure in their explanations and responses to these questions in an attempt to exploit an apathetic majority of graduate students - a powerful tool in biasing the vote in their favor if it is determined only by those who vote. That will be used as a platform to promote an anti-union sentiment among graduate students. Consider whether the UAW is appropriate for all of us, not just a select few. I have strong doubts that the interests of all, or even most, graduate students will be represented at all, especially when so many are excluded from the very beginning.

Considering the costs versus the benefits, there are plenty of problems with the union's claims to warrant a great deal of concern. Many of us will be denied a voice (and a vote), yet will be required to pay an organization that we do not have faith in. The UAW has no business whatsoever in representing our graduate student body. It's your decision, that is, if you're allowed to vote.

Counterpoint!

I hope the UAW takes over and the TA's strike and the whole place goes to hell. This place sucks, anyway. - Ed