A 4B - The Michigan Daily - New Student Edition AT THE BARGAINING TABLE hough the GEO received all of the provisions that they were after durii hough the GEO received all of the provisions that they were after durir T~versity, victory did not come until after months of heated bargaining bete Icontract talks The Daily featured this analysis of the seven issues that main concerns of the University are budgetary, due to fiscal uncertainties. from the state legislature, the University is facing its tightest budget in a d receive written confirmation of verbal promises, increase benefits and improv The GEO was committed to its demands and the University seemed unmoved with the Uni- GEO. During standstill. The g commitment )is ping to r members. Vith an uncles e. Meanw] e DowN TE II i8 4, A~ a". GEO, the University and SOLE speak out on the bargaining process. The Daily examines some of the biggest and most contentious issues that were on the table. -1 - - - - - - a ~ S ~1 The University vs. GEO Local 3550 As of the 12th week of negotiations with the Graduate Employees Organi- zation over a new labor contract, many graduate students, undergraduates, faculty and staff have shown interest in the outcome of the negotiations. As faculty members on the bar- gaining team, we want our community to understand some of the core values that govern our decision-making as we work to come to a fair agreement. Graduate student instructors are fundamen- tally important to us in two ways. First and foremost, they are students. The opportunity for GSIs to work closely with both undergradu- ates and faculty in a teaching environment is a key ingredient in their educational experience. The financial support provided to GSIs - salary, tuition and benefits - helps them to pay for their graduate education and also is part of the University's commitment to their aca- demic success. Second, GSIs are crucial to the quality of our teaching enterprise. The employment of GSIs makes it possible for us to offer smaller classes, allowing more individual attention and active learning experiences for undergraduates. GSIs approach their disciplines with a fresh perspective and creativity, transmitting their excitement to the undergraduates they teach. They are an important link between undergrad- uates and faculty in the intergenerational learn- ing model that makes up a great university such as the University of Michigan. Because of the importance we place on our graduate students, we want to arrive at a con- tract that provides fair compensation for their work and continues to improve the quality of their work environment. GEO played a valu- able role in this process and in bringing signifi- cant issues to the attention of the University over the years. Yet working with a union made up of stu- dents presents its own unique challenges. GEO has regular turnover in its leadership and mem- bers, with new negotiators at the table for each new three-year contract. GEO leaders prefer to bargain publicly with an inclusive, democratic approach that invites large numbers of observers at each of our bargaining sessions. This approach, while understandable, is not the most efficient method of arriving at a swift conclusion to the bargaining process. Many of the issues we are working through involve a significant budget impact for the Uni- versity. We're proud of the fact that our GSIs are among the most highly compensated in the country. They are rightfully well paid because we expect them to be among the best in their fields. Six years ago we began to link GSI salary increases to faculty increases in LSA, both to ensure reasonable pay increases and to reflect the linkage that exists between faculty and GSI instructional efforts. Since then, GSI increases have kept pace with the faculty and we have never had to rely upon the minimum salary increases specified in the contract. However, we are heading into an extraordi- narily difficult budget year. Faculty and staff salary increases are likely to feel the impact, as are a wide variety of University programs. Undergraduate students and their parents are understandably concerned that tuition levels not increase at an unreasonable pace. We ask that GEO be responsible about the costs of the con- tract provisions they are hoping to negotiate, given the realities of our budget environment. One of the greatest areas of misunderstand- ing is the cost of GSIs' tuition that is paid for by the University. GEO has expressed to us the notion that tuition expenses are not "real" costs to the University. On the contrary, tuition reflects the very real cost of providing instruc- tion and other academic support and student services to graduate students. A study in the Chronicle of Higher Education this week docu- ments that most universities spend more to edu- cate students than the cost of tuition reflects. Some proposals fall outside the scope of bargain- i n g because t h, e y tread on the fun- damental need of depart- ments to h a v e control over the quality of their academic environment. This is why, for example, we insist on English lan- guage proficiency for international students who want to be GSIs, and why we require instructional training for GSIs from foreign countries and for all GSIs at the discretion of their departments. In the end, we will not be able to respond to every proposal submitted by GEO. It is the responsibility of both parties at the bargaining table to prioritize their core issues and con- cerns, and work hard to come to a resolution on those issues that are the most important. We are confident that the set of proposals the Universi- ty has put forward will increase materially the compensation and quality of working condi- tions for GSIs. ERIC A. BERMANN Associate Prof of Psychology CHARLES C. BROWN Prof of Economics Louis B. NAGEL Associate Prof of Music ROMESH SAIGAL Prof of Industrial and Operations Engineering Many GSIs are presently doing better than they were a quarter of a century ago, thanks to the countless many who have stuck together since the union was found- ed. Most of us still live from paycheck to pay- check, but at least we live. There are some, however, who cannot participate fully in the life of either the University or the city of Ann Arbor. Parents pay over $800 a month in rent to family housing and over $800 a month for childcare, leaving them with less than nothing to live on. Graduate student librarians earn an average of 70 percent of what GSIs earn, and while some of these are allowed to be in the union, others arbitrarily are not. Female and minority graduate students have fewer opportunities to teach than others do. Some 150 graduate students - known as "low fraction" GSIs - earn $700 per month or less without benefits. Without a safeguard against bottom-line budgeting, non-LSA, pre-candidate, and out- of-state graduate students could be shut out of the LSA GSI hiring pool and lose their only way to pay for school. Gradu- ate stu- dents who ' a r e harassed on the job have little _ __ or no recourse, except to hire a lawyer with money they do not have. Finally, international graduate students - many of whom are fluent in English - are subjected to an insulting language test that does nothing to assist or to test their command of the English language. This contract year is for all those graduate students who continue to struggle unfairly. We ask the question, "What kind of commu- nity do we want to be?" Do we want to be the kind of community that: A) punishes families for trying to make a better life for themselves by attending graduate school; B) does not believe in equal pay for equal work; C) cuts backroom deals for jobs to the exclusion of women and people of color; D) forbids our lowest paid citizens from buying into health care benefits even if they are willing to pay for them; E) discriminates against those in our number whose education costs more than oth- ers; F) allows workplace harassment to contin- ue with impunity; and G) insults our immigrant citizens? My guess is that the administration would answer no to each of these questions. And yet in rejecting our proposals, they have, through their actions, indicated quite the opposite. Their position is all the more troubling, since most of these proposals cost next to noth- ing. Take, for instance, our proposal on harass- ment. We seek a definition of workplace harassment and a special grievance procedure. Some of our proposals merely ask to put current practice into writing. For example, the administration insists that they never imple- mented bottom-line budgeting (despite ample evidence to the contrary); that in fact, they are managing GSI hiring through the "slot system" in which the best GSIs are hired instead of the cheapest. GEO supports the slot system; all we ask is that they guarantee the slot system for the life of our contract. This brings me to the subject of undergrad- uate students, yet another group within our community whose interests are undercut when financial costs take precedence over human costs. The administration has rejected many of our proposals in the name of undergraduate education.. However, their refusal to sign a safeguard against bottom-line budgeting suggests that they will attempt to implement it once this con- tract year is over. In the last contract round, the administration sought to increase the GSI workload by almost 50 percent in exchange for a raise that would have brought us closer to a living wage. This would have made GSIs teach four sections or about 100 undergraduates each, making it almost impossible to give our students the indi- vidual attention they already lack in lectures. If the administration stonewalls this year, graduate students will not be the only ones who don't go to class. Undergraduates won't either. Bottom-line budgeting is bad for undergrads. So is the current state of teacher training which we are attempting to reform. Undergraduates that I have spoken to are also appalled by the pace of negotiations on harassment. Though the myth is to the contrary, GEO is one of the last lines of defense (apart from undergraduates themselves) of undergraduate education and it has been the administration that has more often than not compromised it. At a highly corporatized research institution like the University, undergraduate and graduate students are all in this together, like it or not. Unless we are prepared to jeopardize both our community and our education, we should stick by one another in the coming month until the administration decides to put us before their bottom line. CEDRIc DE LEON President, GEO LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Undergraduate population should not cross picket lines TO THE DAILY: I never had any intention of cross- ing the Graduate Employees Organi- zation picket lines on March 11 and when I showed up at Angell Hall to see how the walkout was going, I was disgusted by what I saw: Numerous undergraduate students crossing the picket lines. I asked some of my friends why they were doing so, only to hear such reasons for their atten- dance of classes such as "they are part time workers," "they make enough money," and "all the GSIs suck anyway." Of course GSIs are part time workers. However, they are highly-educated, integral parts of the educational community; without them, the institution for which they work could not function. Therefore, unlike obvious examples of part time workers, such as food service employ- ees, they are not expendable and highly valuable, and thus should fight for the best contract that is possible, including a pay raise that is above the rate of inflation, as well as additional training to make them not "suck" as much. Additionally, I believe that a large part of the undergraduate population simply does not understand what it means to cross a picket line. After hearing what many undergraduates have had to say regarding unions and picket lines, it is obvious that most of my classmates do not realize the ben- efits brought about by unionization in this country. I can say with confi- dence that almost every student has either a parent or a grandparent who is or once was in a union and that union's struggles for better contracts has led to a more affluent way of life, including the opportunity to attend the University. KYLE METEYER LSA junior Undergraduate education should not have to suffer for quarreling GEO, 'U' TO THE DAILY: I am perplexed as to why any under- graduate students would support the Grad- uate Employees Organization strike March 11. Why should undergraduates support a group which, through its "strike," clearly shows that it does not have the best inter- ests of students at heart, a group which can heartlessly deny thousands of tuition pay- ing students an education which they deserve? On top of the fact that the GEO is forc- ing undergraduate students to lose a full day's education, it is also making demands of the University that will have a direct negative impact on the affordability and quality of the undergraduate education in the future. They are demanding, among other things, increased pay and subsidized services including child care. Since the University already has a strapped budget, these changes will clearly result in tuition hikes in the near future. They also want to change the University policy on English Language Proficiency so that graduate stu- dents who clearly do not have the language proficiency necessary to teach can receive the financial benefits of working as gradu- ate student instructors. GSIs have a difficult job and they may have a legitimate claim to better working conditions. However, undergraduates should not be forced to sacrifice their tuition and their education because the GEO and the University cannot get along. KATHERINE ADAMS LSA senior