In the coming month, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission is likely to order an election allowing Graduate Student Research Assistants (GSRAs) to decide whether or not they wish to join the Graduate Employees Organization. GEO is the union which currently represents roughly 1,800 Graduate Student Instructors here at the University of Michigan. Nearly 18 months after a group of GSRAs first approached GEO seeking to form a union, more than 1,000 have signed cards stating their support for joining GEO. As two GSRAs and a long-time GSI, we strongly believe that being a part of GEO will improve working conditions and increase the voice GSRAs have on campus, all while maintaining academic excellence at the University of Michigan.

GEO is a democratic organization run exclusively by graduate student members. The membership elects officers annually, and a Stewards’ Council made up of volunteer representatives from all academic departments manages the routine affairs of the union. Stewards’ Council meetings are open to all members. GEO members can vote in all union decisions, from hiring staff to setting dues and approving the budget. Members from all across campus play critical roles in developing and refining GEO’s platform in contract negotiations, and must approve any final agreement. Any member can inspect GEO’s finances, which undergo a professional audit each year.

GEO maintains a strong relationship with our parent union, The American Federation of Teachers, which has a tradition of low dues and local autonomy. The state federation does not interfere with local decision-making, but does provide support so our members can more effectively pursue member-determined priorities during bargaining.

Over the years, GEO has worked hard to improve pay and benefits for GSIs. Some benefits, such as zero-premium health coverage and access to childcare, have been passed on to GSRAs. But others have not. For example, GSRAs can only choose the basic GradCare health plan, while GSIs can choose from a variety of health plans with access to a wider array of out-of-network providers. International student GSIs are eligible to have their SEVIS fee – a $200 fee they must pay to the Department of Homeland Security – reimbursed by the university, while international GSRAs are not.

The benefits of having union representation outweigh the costs of dues. Take healthcare, for example. In 2011, University administrators increased premium costs for most employees. Pushing this plan on graduate students would have cost every GSRA at least $600 a year in increased premiums. This is considerably more than the roughly $435 in annual dues a year-round, half-time GSI currently pays under the existing GEO policy.

Without GEO and a union contract standing in the way, administrators would have forced premium increases on grads. In 2003, UM officials backed down from a plan to make grads pay hundreds of dollars in annual health insurance premiums after hundreds of GEO members

organized against the hikes. In contrast, Wisconsin graduate students saw their health premiums nearly triple after losing their rights to bargain for health insurance in 2011.

A union contract would also provide workplace protections for GSRAs. As the case of Jennifer Dibbern illustrates, the current procedures for dealing with GSRA complaints are woefully inadequate. When she claimed she was fired by her adviser for union organizing, Dibbern spent four months being alternately ignored and bullied by officials as she sought to redress the problem via existing protocols.

Though Dibbern’s case is extreme, numerous GSRAs report being shuffled through the bureaucracy while seeking assistance on issues such as taking family leave, dealing with abuse from their advisers, or navigating other job-related problems. In contrast, GEO-represented GSIs have a legally enforceable grievance procedure to efficiently solve problems that arise between supervisors and workers.

Opponents claim that a union will hurt University research because it will destroy “mentor-mentee” relationships between advisors and students. As Dibbern’s case illustrates, not all graduate students are protected by such relationships. A GSRA union would improve the climate by demanding accountability from supervisors, promoting

fair management practices, and encouraging GSRAs to take collective responsibility for maintaining good work relationships.

A few GSRAs –backed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank – want to prevent all GSRAs from having the opportunity to vote on whether or not to form a union. By aggressively lobbying the Michigan Employment Relations Commission to not recognize GSRAs as both employees and students, they have tried to stop a fair election from even occurring.

The argument these groups make against GSRA unionization is a vague assertion that unionized GSRAs will destroy the University of Michigan’s “greatness.” Administrators expressed similar fears when they tried to stop GSIs and medical residents from unionizing in the 1970s. Those fears were unfounded. The university has maintained its academic excellence, and union representation has dramatically improved the lives of GSIs and medical residents.

Rather than stoking fear, our message is one of opportunity. We think that by choosing a union, GSRAs will improve the work environment for both graduate students and faculty. This GSRA union will also enhance the University of Michigan’s reputation for excellence by securing wages and benefits that enable the university to attract top-notch graduate students and the faculty who want to work with them.

You must be logged in to leave a comment.