Unionizing the graduates

This Friday, graduate students from the sociology department invited me and my political science colleagues to an Oct. 2 meeting at the Karl F. Schuessler Institute for Social Research. According to the flyer sent to the sociology departmental list-serv, its coordinators "have been discussing the idea of forming a graduate employee organization since this spring" because "as employees we lack a strong voice in the decisions that affect our wages, benefits and working conditions. An organization that represented us as employees would allow us to speak collectively."\nThe sociologists were talking about unionizing, if not in such words.\nThis is hardly revolutionary; graduate students at the University of Wisconsin at Madison have been unionized since 1969 (Chronicle of Higher Education, July 6, 2001). And the flier suggested that we could gain "pay increases, better health care coverage, better spousal and dependent benefits, domestic partner benefits, subsidized childcare, guaranteed office space, faculty library privileges, increased job security, lower student fees, higher tuition wavers, better grievance procedures and more."\nIn response to an e-mail inquiry, Stephen Viscelli, the sociology department's graduate employee union representative, insisted that talk about organizing is just beginning, with plenty of room left for discussion and debate. Hopefully, in this spirit, optimists about this project will make their views known in the coming days through letters to the IDS. \nBut as for me, I'm a pessimist. Despite its noble intentions, recent events have made me doubt whether such an undertaking is feasible and worth the costs. \nFirst, where will the money for raises and additional benefits come from? With undergraduate tuition up 4 percent this year, plus a $1,000 freshman fee, few tuition-payers will be sympathetic to grad student demands. And facing an $800 million budget deficit, the state government is unlikely to make up the difference (South Bend Tribune, May 4). To spend more on each of us, something else must be cut. Given the expense of graduate education (the small class sizes, the time spent with senior faculty), the decision might just be that IU will fund fewer grad students. \nSecond, the recent unionization efforts at Yale, Brown and Columbia have not been pretty. On occasion, activists have cornered people two-on-one in their offices to talk them into joining, accused students opposed to unionization of being pro-administration traitors and arranged union eligibility to exclude students in the natural sciences who might vote "no" because of better job prospects (Chronicle of Higher Education, July 17, 2002). \nDon't misunderstand me; the invite for the Oct. 2 meeting was very polite and friendly, and I don't expect any such behavior from the people who initiated this discussion. But I worry that these actions might be symptoms of the organizational problems facing a grad student labor movement. For one, since we are very busy, any leadership positions might attract only the most zealous candidates. Also, we are (generally) only at a university a short period of time, so organization leaders might not consider long-term interests. The result could be radical activism rather than pragmatic negotiation and great future costs for small immediate gains.\nThird, one problem with collective bargaining is it requires a collective. By Viscelli's description, the sociology grads were so interested in having a GEO that they practically drafted him into being their union representative. Meanwhile, in two years, I have never heard serious griping about wages or benefits among my poli-sci colleagues. And we really like to gripe. Besides, the departments allocate the graduate funding. Wouldn't it make more sense, not to mention be easier, to organize pressure in one's own department?