Yet more unionization misinformation

I would like to respond to a couple of statements made in "Grad student unionization on hold" (Tufts Daily, 9/27). First of all, the United Auto Workers did not challenge the voting status of some graduate student employees during the April election "because they felt these students were not true employees of the school but merely 'casual employees.' " Rather, a representative of the Association of Student Employees at Tufts/UAW challenged the votes of some students (not all of them at Fletcher), in accordance with guidelines set not by the United Auto Workers but by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB is a neutral federal body that oversees the unionization process, balancing the interests of both parties, employee and employer, concerned.

ASET/UAW challenged voters only if it believed that those voters were not currently employed or that their work did not fulfill the Board's specific stipulations. Challenges safeguard the legitimacy of the election; they do not discount any eligible vote. (It should be pointed out that most of the April challenges were made by the administration, because dozen of eligible working graduate students were omitted from the voter list that it compiled.)

No union, least of all the UAW, which has organized many different kinds of workers _ industrial, clerical, academic; writers, activists, etc. _ would maintain that any employee is not a "true" one. Members of ASET/UAW organized as many graduate employees as possible, even though it was understood that the NLRB might exclude certain kinds of graduate employees. (Read the Board's decision at www.tuftsgrads.org.) Fortunately, most were included, while a few _ including English department "graders" like me _ were not, on the grounds they are not a part of the bargaining unit as it had been carefully defined.

In contrast, the administration has argued that none of us working at Tufts as TAs, RAs, or GAs are employees, despite the recognition of our status by the Labor Board.

Second, it is bemoaned that "Tufts cannot institute a change awaiting the NLRB decision." But the point, as Executive Vice President Steve Manos puts it, is that "There might be an opportunity on the part of the union...to claim unfair labor practices." Our right to file such a grievance is ensured by the NLRB to prevent employers from attempting to dissuade employees from building a union by offering some short-term incentive _ essentially a bribe _ instead (a standard anti-union tactic). Employees want to be a part of the process of negotiating their contracts, not to receive handouts.

Moreover, the administration's claim that its "progress on improving graduate student salaries and medical coverage" has been stymied by ASET/UAW's unionization campaign comes too late. Last spring, Rob Hollister, the former dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (the "full-time" position as he held it has since been eliminated) requested an external review of the Graduate School's performance.

The reviewers found that financial support for graduate students has been embarrassingly inadequate. According to the report (4/5/2001), budgets appear to be primarily service-oriented _ i.e., TAs _ and although the ability of departments to use their institutional money seems to be flexible, there is no guidance to see that offers made are truly competitive and that Tufts faculty can compete with other institutions on a level playing field for the best applicants. Considering the administration's meager record on improving the conditions of graduate study, the unionization effort on this campus has been a powerful wake-up call to students and administrators alike.

Carl Martin is a graduate student in the English department.