Today is the second day of voting for graduate students on the union issue. A lot of ink has already been spilled by both sides, and after months of controversy, today is the day that you can make your opinion heard. This is not an issue where we can afford to be ambivalent. Literally the future of the graduate program will be determined by the elections of today and yesterday, so it cannot be stressed too much how important it is that you vote.
Even if it doesn't impact you personally because you will be graduating, the election will certainly impact your friends and colleagues.
Remember, as advocates of specific radical changes to the status quo, ASET has the burden of proof. But despite months of union propaganda, there remain a fair number of unanswered and unanswerable questions.
First, why does the UAW want to downgrade my status from a "colleague in training" to that of a "worker for hire?" I had come to think of myself in terms of being a student who receives, as a benefit of education, fellowships in the forms of TA-ships and RA-ships. When did these cease to be essential parts of graduate education and forms of temporary employment?
The National Labor Relations Act, signed into law in 1935 by Franklin Roosevelt, was drafted when unions were fighting against unsafe working conditions, 14-hour work days, and to survive against bosses who used police-backed intimidation against their workers. Can ASET argue that the framers of the act ever intended to include graduate students in this category of oppressed workers?
Second, will Tufts receive an agency shop? An "agency shop" requires all students, whether they desire union membership or not, to pay union dues. Every graduate student union under the UAW follows this model. Given the UAW's veto power over our contracts, and given that voting on contracts is all-or-nothing, yes or no, why do I suspect that even if students democratically support an "open shop," we would nevertheless receive an agency shop? And to those who support the notion of an agency shop, would you care to explain how genuine solidarity can co-exist with the threat of being fired for not giving the UAW our money?
Third, how secure is this "democracy" if the Local goes against the party line of the UAW? If a conflict arises between the best interests of students and the United Auto Workers, how can we be sure that our interests won't be sacrificed without a second thought? The UAW Constitution gives the UAW the right to overturn our elected leaders and impose its own Administratorship (Article 12, Section 3 - See UMASS Amherst), nix any contract we negotiate (Article 10, Section 3 - See UC Santa Barbara), and make it nearly impossible to fire the UAW as our union if they do a bad job (Article 36, Sections 7 & 11). A related question - have ASET's organizers attempted to make copies of this 302 page document available to students to give them a full idea of the rights they would be sacrificing to the UAW? The WHUT website has provided the link to the full UAW Constitution: it's at http://whut-01.tripod.com/.
Finally, what steps did ASET's organizers take to redress their grievances before contacting the UAW? Even if the new Bacow administration was a member of the Axis of Evil, intent on crushing the soul of the graduate student proletariat, there should have at least been a vigorous attempt to start within individual departments, or failing that, starting a campus-wide discussion about the issue before filing and blindsiding most of us.
It would have been nice for graduate students, as a community of scholars, to have had the opportunity to explore other options, such as a reformed GSC, a genuine attempt at a dialogue with the new administration, an independent Local (the NRLB provides resources for this), or affiliation with another union more in tune with the interests of graduate students. For all the talk of dealing with one another in good faith, in what ways did any of this demonstrate good faith on the part of ASET?
On that note, what happened to the spirit of open discussion and the marketplace of ideas when the UAW moved in? Why doesn't the ASET website link to opposing points of view, as the WHUT website does? Why should we, the students, trust those who find that open forums are marred by "a couple of people asking questions?" (See The Tufts Daily, April 3, 2002) Why should RAs in science, engineering, psychology and Fletcher trust a union which actively tried to exclude them from voting? Why should the rest of us?
Why such an obtrusive, hard sell approach that involves telemarketing (calling students at their homes) and missionary work (dropping by uninvited at student's homes and during office hours)? Say what you will about the administration - they've never interfered with my office hours nor come uninvited at my home when I'm fixing a meal. Can we expect such behavior permanently should the UAW win?
Just as important as voting is being informed on the issues. Consider everything you've been promised by the UAW, and consider the vague answers (or non-answers) they offer to the hard questions. Because ASET has not proved its case, I urge you to vote no to this Faustian bargain, and thereby say yes to the possibility of other choices.
Voting will be in Dowling Hall today [Tuesday] and Wednesday, 11 a.m.-2 p.m. & 4 p.m.-7 p.m.
Jason Walker is a graduate student in the Philosophy Department, and a member of WHUT.
