4A - The Michigan Daily - Monday, March 28, 2005 OPINION i £id & JASON Z. PESICK Editor in Chief SUHAEL MOMIN SAM SINGER Editorial Page Editors ALISON GO Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com NOTABLE QUOTABLE I think all those people bleating in Schiavo's front yard give Jesus a bad name." -Bill Youmans, a parishioner at St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church in Clearwater, Fla., as reported yesterday by The Associated Press. - ' t DI's 5 , , . d ;, .,- i t t ,ael " _. 1 ; / i' 4 :. ft :_- I ' ' / If ti.,J o. - , . ,-- ,° ic 6 9 . 111...fff SAM BUTLER TH SOAPBcX 0 Unreasonable demands SUHAEL MOMIN No SU.ENDER W hen the Lectur- ers' Employee Organization walked out for a day last winter, few people ques- tioned the validity of the lecturers' grievances. It seemed genuinely unfair that the University was treating instructors with doctoral degrees as tempo- rary workers - choosing to provide neither job security nor just compensation. When the Gradu- ate Employees' Organization held a one-day strike last Thursday, however, graduate student instruc- tors didn't even unite behind their union. Consider- ing the impracticality of GEO's demands, it comes as no surprise that a good number of undergradu- ates, professors and even graduate students went as far as to denounce the strike for what it was: frivolous. GEO members, who already get a great deal from the University, need to stop demanding more and accept a contract. Though they may carry signs offering to "teach for food," GEO members are not exploited workers suffering from unfair compensation. GSIs at the University are already some of the best rewarded in the country, effectively "earning" more than $40,000 a year in tax-exempt tuition waivers ($25,000 per year), stipends ($14,000 per year) and benefits. When LEO launched its walkout last year, it was attempting to secure a baseline salary of $41,000 for its members - who already have earned doctorates and teach for a living. It's hard to rationally argue GEO members are exploited or unfairly paid if the average GSI - who works less than 20 hours a week, eight months a year - is compensated just slightly less than an entry-level lecturer. Furthermore, while GEO may argue that one cannot live off a tuition waver, the $14,000 yearly stipend ought to easily cover the cost of liv- ing in Ann Arbor for the vast majority of GSIs. Even when it comes to the rate of wage increas- es - which GEO has denounced as too slow - union members fare just as well, if not better, than the faculty of the College of Literature, Sci- ence, and the Arts. In 1996, the University decided to give GSIs the same annual pay increase given to LSA faculty, and later revised the policy to guarantee GEO members at least a 2.5-percent annual pay increase in the event that LSA faculty increases fell below that rate. While the University has indicated it wants GSIs to accept a 2-percent minimum their first year, it has made clear that all other GSIs are guaranteed 2.5 percent. Not satis- fied with a better deal than the professional educa- tors holding LSA faculty appointments, however, GEO is now demanding a "living wage," which would amount to a 20-percent increase over the next three years - even though no other employ- ees receive such large increases. Despite a contractual guarantee that ensures all graduate employees working more than 10 hours a week receive health care coverage, GEO has decided to demand that all graduate employ- ees - even those who work less than 10 hours a week - receive health care at University expense. While the University has rejected this request for financial reasons, the fundamental problem with this demand is that a GSI working four hours a week simply doesn't deserve University-spon- sored health care coverage. This becomes even more apparent when looking at the LEO contract, which essentially stipulates that a lecturer must work average about 20 hours a week during the fall and winter semesters to qualify for benefits. If a lecturer, who has made teaching his profession, needs to work at least 20 hours a week for benefits, what right does a graduate student not even work- ing 10 have to that same package? GEO, unable to see beyond its own "needs" and recognize the fiscal constraints facing the University, remains adamant about its costly concerns and is promising to strike indefinitely if the University does not negotiate in good faith to meet them. This threat, more than any single GEO demand, has rubbed the campus communi- ty the wrong way. At a time when tuition is sky- rocketing, state funding is falling and operating costs are trending upward, many find it ridicu- lous that GEO seems unwilling to simply accept an already-comfortable contract. Observers can quickly see that GEO's self-interest - a desire for more money and benefits - has placed the University in a position where it will have to accept unreasonable demands simply to avoid a devastating strike. If GEO wants support from the University community, it would be wise to drop rhetoric about an indefinite strike and sign the best contract it can negotiate by week's end. Before last Thursday's walkout, GEO members posted flyers proclaiming, "The University is not a corporation." The flyers are correct: The University is not a corporation. Rather, it is a public institution with no profits and little control over its revenue stream that is losing millions of dollars in funding each year. GEO needs to tone down its excessive demands and sign a responsible contract. 01 Momin can be reached at smomin@umich.edu. LETTER TO THE EDITOR GEO strike lacked compelling argument I am writing this e-mail due to the heavy attention given to the Graduate Employees' Organization walkout. I have been reading the Daily's editorials and have visited a website published by the University that addresses the GEO's demands and explains how the Univer- sity feels it is dealing with them. I believe that as a GSI, one should wish to teach. I am pretty sure that you don't have to be a GSI to graduate. If you are only interested in research and furthering your education, that is fine by the University. You can still do this. Therefore, I assume that anyone who is a GSI wishes to be one. I find it contradictory that in protest, GEO decided to stop teaching. I still understand that GSIs are benefiting the University and that they should be reimbursed. But as stated in the Daily, the GEO wishes to increase a GSI's salary from $14,000 to $18,000 in four years, citing the need to keep up with the cost of living in Ann Arbor. This adds up to be about a 7-percent raise each year. The cost of living can't be increasing by this amount. The median income of Ann Arbor for one person (I do understand that some GSIs are married, but I would assume most are not.) is $54,400. The GSI salary now, converted to a full-time annual salary, equals $41,930. This does not include the $7,840 to $34,200 off of tuition that a GSI receives. I am perplexed about why GEO is angered by the fact that GSIs are only get- ting a minimum of a 2-percent to 2.5-percent increase. To me, this seems adequate. From my analysis of the health care that the University provides, I am again baffled by GEO's complaints. The University offers a program called GradCare. From what I under- stand, this program is designed to provide the most efficient health care possible. This-health care is not provided to faculty or staff in order to keep it at a low cost. GradCare is directed at a demographic that is generally healthy due to age, and as a result, won't need as much medical help. GEO wants the University to provide this health care benefit to any "desig- nated beneficiary" who is linked to a GSI by some shared life elements. This will totally negate the purpose of GradCare by changing the demographic that this health care is aimed for. Opening GradCare to other demographics would skyrocket the costs. This "designated beneficiary" also ignores Proposal 2, which is a constitutional amendment voted on by the electorate. The University also guarantees that there is no office co-pay if GSIs receive service form University Health Services. GEO has also issued demands that I feel it has not thought about logically. GEO wishes to end the English competence test for GSIs. As a student, I believe that this is not fair to me. As I student, I wish to learn, and if I can't communi- cate with my teacher and he can't communicate with me, I don't feel that I can learn acceptably. I feel this point is quite obvious. GEO wants the University to cover chronic mental health treat- ment and transgender services. Now granted, the University denying this might be discrimi- natory, but as a student I don't wish to be taught by a GSI who has chronic mental health issues. Also, I don't really care if you wish to be a man or a woman, but I think that is your decision ,and you should not use the University's money to pay for this. I believe one becomes a GSI to teach and to learn through teaching. I don't see Law stu- dents and Medical students picketing because of the debt they carry as a result of their respective graduate programs. I feel the argu- ments that GEO presents can be dealt with in some other orderly manner. I also don't think that.GEO has thought of the financial cost that its demands will bring to the University. Due to the loss of financial aid from the state, I would have to assume that a rise in tuition would have to ensue to cover GEO's demands. I feel that the GEO is striking just because it can (Which in reality under state law, it is not legal), not because it needs to. For that reason, I cannot in clear conscience support the walkout. Daniel Murray Engineering junior LETTERS POLICY The Michigan Daily welcomes letters from all of its readers. Letters from University students, faculty, staff and administrators will be given priority over others. Letters should include the writer's name, college and school year or other Uni- versity affiliation. The Daily will not print any letter containing statements that can- not be verified. Letters should be kept to approxi- mately 300 words. The Michigan Daily reserves the right to edit for length, clarity and accuracy. Longer "viewpoints" may be arranged with an editor. Letters will be run according to order received and the amount of space available. Letters should be sent over e-mail to tothedaily@michigandaily.com or mailed to the Daily at 420 Maynard St. Editors can be reached via e-mail at editpage.editors @umich.edu. Letters e-mailed to the Daily will be given priority over those dropped off in person or sent via the U.S. Postal Service. 0 0 VIEWPOINT Life lessons 0i BY JOHN STIGLIcH II The events of the past month concerning the fate of Terri Schiavo - a brain-damaged Flor- ida woman whose feeding tube was recently removed - have captivated many Americans. The Schiavo case brings into question what role the government should play in determining the fate of life - what is happening to Schiavo could happen to any of us. President Bush and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have consistently lobbied for erring on the side of life when a incapacitated individual's inten- Bush and Congress were caught between prin- ciple and morality, and even though they made the correct moral decision, the violation of government principle was inexcusable. The Florida state courts have turned down all appeals of Schiavo's parents - Bob and Mary Schindler - because Florida law declares a spouse the legal guardian over the parents. The law has well-founded reason- ing - you can pick your spouse, but you can not pick your parents. Generally speaking, a spousal relationship entails joint decisions for the continuation of the couple's welfare. love Terri and be fighting hard to uphold her wishes. After numerous appeals to every possible court, the law is clearly on the side of Michael Schiavo because that is the lan- guage of the law. If Bush and members of Congress feel this passionately about suspending necessary medical treatment from a patient, then they should start a national education program on living wills. Living wills serve as legal docu- mentation of a person's wish for life or death when medical assistance is necessary to sus- tain life. A living will would override the 0