GSEU Strike!

Contact GSEU

opinion

Strike for Recognition

by Nathan Larsen and Theresa Ventura

Columbia Spectator

April 19, 2004

Today, teaching and research assistants at Columbia are on strike for the recognition of our union, GSEU-UAW.

We do not take this step lightly. But after nearly four years of organizing at Columbia, one thing is crystal clear: the majority of TAs and RAs here want to unionize. We are striking because the administration has refused to acknowledge our majority and recognize our union.

Over two years ago, more than 1,500 graduate students voted in a union election. The ballots from that election have not been counted, because the administration has argued before the National Labor Relations Board that, since we are only students, it does not have to respect our decision to form a union.

Columbia's legal case may seem strange. After all, don't we give undergraduates their final grades, know their names better than most professors, teach over half the Core Curriculum courses, and do crucial scientific research?

But thanks to the conservatives that President George W. Bush has appointed to the NLRB, our election results have already been delayed for more than two years; if Columbia's administration has its way, our ballots will never be counted.

Despite the legal delays, we have continued to organize. We have staged peaceful rallies and demonstrations and gathered political support from elected officials. This semester, a majority of TAs and RAs signed cards in support of a union, certified by State Senator David Paterson. Still, the administration refuses to respect the right of TAs and RAs to unionize.

Nobody wants to strike, but we have waited more than two years for our ballots to be counted. In its blatant disrespect for our legal rights and for the democratic process, the Columbia administration has literally left us no other recourse.

Henry Pinkham, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, has said that recent increases in our stipends mean that we do not need a union. Yet we are all aware that the stipends began going up only after our organizing drive started. They have been rising in sync with those at New York University, where graduate students formed a union (GSOC-UAW) and bargained their first contract in 2002. Given that Pinkham has referred to GSAS as a "money-sink," does anyone really believe that stipends would keep going up without the union drive here and on other campuses?

Stipends, of course, are not our only concern regarding terms and conditions; we want better health care and childcare. But most importantly, we want the rights and power that come with union membership, and we want to be able to elect representatives and bargain for a contract.

Having a union is about giving the people who teach and do research a stronger voice in the school--we don't know all of the problems that TAs and RAs will face in the future, but we know that with a union there will be a democratic way to deal with collective problems.

We also believe that in organizing a union we are acting to protect the values that matter to us in the University: stopping the trend toward adjunct and temporary employment and away from full-time, tenure-track jobs.

In striking, we want to be absolutely clear that our responsibilities to our students are very important to us. We take our jobs seriously, we are devoted to higher education, and we are disappointed and angry that the administration has put us in this position. For many of us, it is painful to break with our students and stop teaching at this point in the semester. Those of us who are RAs are frustrated about stopping our research for the duration of the strike.

With the help of a more conservative NLRB under the Bush administration, Columbia, like many other schools, has attempted to prevent TAs and RAs from forming unions. By doing so, the administration has left us no choice but to strike for union recognition.

So far, many undergraduates and faculty members have been supportive of our decision to strike. We believe we have their support, for which we are grateful, because it is clear that the University administration is not acting in the best interests of its students in seeking to thwart a democratic process. Nor is it teaching undergraduates how to be good citizens. Wouldn't it be a wonderful 250th anniversary gift to the Columbia community if Lee Bollinger lived up to the tradition of this University, acted out of a principled respect for democracy, and agreed to recognize our union?

The authors are graduate-student teaching assistants in the Religion and History Departments, respectively.