Union negotiations
GEO, the graduate student union at UM, is preparing for a one-day work stoppage in response to unsatisfactory contract negotiations with the administration. This happens every three years when the contract comes up for renewal, and fairly often it leads to a longer strike. I don't know whether it's because the university really does try to screw us over every three years, or whether it's because they assume we'll strike no matter what, and so they offer a deliberately unreasonable contract that leaves them room to make concessions later.
But what I'd really like to know is what causes our professors, who normally interact with us as colleagues and near-equals, to start treating us like 15 year-olds who have been caught planning to T.P. the vice-principal's office:
Approximately 53% of the GEO voted on the strike resolution last week, and about 90% of those that voted agreed to a strike. It seems then that less than half of the GEO either agrees to the strike or cares one way or the other. However, it is actually a moot issue since the current agreement states that strikes will not occur, and each of us faculty, lecturers and GSIs are under contract to teach for the term. Therefore, I remind you that the Dean has notified all of us that classes should occur as regularly scheduled.
Theresa M.Lee, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology & Neuroscience Program
Chair, Department of Psychology
Or this one:
It is disappointing, therefore, to hear the news that the GEO has scheduled a “work stoppage” for next Tuesday and Wednesday, March 25 and 26. Such a work stoppage would be both illegitimate and unnecessary and it cannot be supported. . . .
You may be approached to support these actions. At a rally yesterday some GEO members spoke about a longer work stoppage or even withholding of final grades. This is not a “spring fling.” I urge you to consider that support for these actions would severely damage our undergraduate students in support of demands that are totally unrealistic at this point in our fiscal history.
What's odd is that in between these paragraphs was a fairly nuanced (though for all I know, entirely deceptive) description of the university's counteroffer and the reasons why they were fairer than GEO's demands. To be honest, I found some of his arguments compelling, but after being accused of striking, (excuse me, "'striking'") because it's a "spring fling," I'm not going to listen to a damn thing he says. What on earth made him think this was a good way to win over undecided students?
This doesn't happen to other unions, does it? I assume they at least get threatened, rather than insulted.
But what I'd really like to know is what causes our professors, who normally interact with us as colleagues and near-equals, to start treating us like 15 year-olds who have been caught planning to T.P. the vice-principal's office:
Approximately 53% of the GEO voted on the strike resolution last week, and about 90% of those that voted agreed to a strike. It seems then that less than half of the GEO either agrees to the strike or cares one way or the other. However, it is actually a moot issue since the current agreement states that strikes will not occur, and each of us faculty, lecturers and GSIs are under contract to teach for the term. Therefore, I remind you that the Dean has notified all of us that classes should occur as regularly scheduled.
Theresa M.Lee, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology & Neuroscience Program
Chair, Department of Psychology
Or this one:
It is disappointing, therefore, to hear the news that the GEO has scheduled a “work stoppage” for next Tuesday and Wednesday, March 25 and 26. Such a work stoppage would be both illegitimate and unnecessary and it cannot be supported. . . .
You may be approached to support these actions. At a rally yesterday some GEO members spoke about a longer work stoppage or even withholding of final grades. This is not a “spring fling.” I urge you to consider that support for these actions would severely damage our undergraduate students in support of demands that are totally unrealistic at this point in our fiscal history.
What's odd is that in between these paragraphs was a fairly nuanced (though for all I know, entirely deceptive) description of the university's counteroffer and the reasons why they were fairer than GEO's demands. To be honest, I found some of his arguments compelling, but after being accused of striking, (excuse me, "'striking'") because it's a "spring fling," I'm not going to listen to a damn thing he says. What on earth made him think this was a good way to win over undecided students?
This doesn't happen to other unions, does it? I assume they at least get threatened, rather than insulted.