UC Santa Cruz fires grad students for unauthorized strike

Parent Cafe
21

Maybe my question was not clear, and a bit rhetorical.

Clearly the UAW (United Auto Workers) represents other worker groups. If a legitimate strike is called, then other UAW members & other unions might refuse to cross the picket line and thereby affect the ongoing operations of the university.

But this is a wildcat strike against a, presumably, fairly negotiated contract to which the union is a party. Maybe the TAs should reconsider their union affiliation if the union did such a poor job of negotiating this contract.

In my view, the TAs are not striking against the university, the TAs are on strike against the contract which was negotiated by their union. Absent allegations of fraud or other unethical or illegal behavior during the negotiation of the current contract, the TAs real complaint should be directed at their union.

22

This is false, at least for UC Merced.

And yeah, that’s the problem with a statewide union representation – what is a fair (aka ‘living’ wage) for extremely low cost UC Merced is pauper wages in high cost UCSF. But then the UC Grad Students, presumably with above average critical thinking skills, should have figured that out before signing up with the UAW statewide.

23

@warblersrule re: your post #19 above:

Perhaps the UAW should read their own petition:

“so that an equitable and contractually-binding solution…may be reached”

How can Janet Napolitano trust the union when their members will not abide by the contractually-binding solution negotiated by the union on behalf of the TAs under the current contract.

Do the TAs want to break their union affiliation with the UAW ?

24

The issue is similar to early 20th century poverty strikes (at Lowell for instance): work that isn’t paid a fair wage, concerns that are dismissed, and a situation that involves human dignity issues.

TAs (Aka.ASE) do MOST of the work teaching undergraduates at UCs. That work was moderately recognized for a time but because wages have not kept up with housing costs, their situation is not sustainable. My guess is that the decision was not a long calculated one. But while the situation at UCSC is especially bad, it’s bad throughout the UC system. If the other TAs decide to join the strike to have cost-of-living adjustments, everything comes to a halt.

For a long time many felt it was okay to make people work 12-14 hours a day for a pittance. For a long time many felt 100% ok with having so safety rules, no laws against sexual harassment, discarding injured or older workers like used tissues. The law changed because at some point people recognized that the contract they’d entered into is unfair.
The basic idea of a strike is to show that people doing the work have some power by witholding the work everyone takes for granted. So, yes, many will be inconvenienced, including those who strike and generally would much rather work than have to ask for basics like decent work conditions or a living wage.

Grade retention is bad but it’s one way to show who does the grading.
If the TAs also stop teaching there’ll have to be a reckoning as to how the system functions and who works with the undergrads.

Honestly, if I were an undergraduate, I’d be upset, but not just about grade retention, I’d also be upset to learn how little my day-to-day instructors are paid and that more of that tuition money doesn’t go to the people who teach me.
I understand a big university needs star researchers and has many expenses… but the disconnect between TAs doing so much work and being paid so little in such a high cost of living area that CC repeatedly has parents making 200k complaining they can hardly make ends meet should strike many parents here… if you feel 200k is barely enough for SoCal, how do you feel about people paid 21-24k a year and tasked with educating your child in college?

Again, think of the poverty strikes from the early 20th century. Some things may have been done and gone on for a while, that many vaguely knew of or individually felt were bad, but at some point it becomes unbearable. Things don’t get better by themselves. You need to precipitate change to make things better.

The issue isn’t that they signed the contract but rather, in my opinion, that the contract was wrong to offer terms without living wages.

25

@MYOS1634 I think that you neglect a very important point:

The TAs are currently working under a fairly recently negotiated, and agreed to, contract negotiated by their union.

26

I actually don’t understand how the union negotiated that contract because it’s very clear the wages aren’t sufficient for a high cost of living area. I really do think the Union’s at fault there.
As a perspective, 20k is LOW for that level of R1 universities, even without the cost-of-living issue.

27

Perhaps the correct question is, ‘Why did the members (Grad Students) vote to approve a contract with insufficient wages’?

28

@MYOS1634 :

If I understand your post #23 above, you are asserting that simply because the TAs have the power to disrupt university operations, that they can & should do so in violation of their current contractually-binding agreement in order to get better benefits.

In order to do so, wouldn’t you then agree that the university should be able to renegotiate terms with which the university is not completely satisfied ?

And, if this is your position, then what is the point of negotiating a contractually-binding agreement–to use the union’s words–in the first place ?

29

@MYOS1634 re: your post #25: There are other benefits to TAs beyond wages in the current negotiated contractually-binding agreement.

30

The crux of the matter is that UC-Santa Cruz has just 54 TAs out of thousands represented by the UAW union.

The UAW negotiated a contract approved by their members–the TAs across the university system.

When negotiating an agreement–a contract–parties do not get everything that they want. To sign a contractually-binding agreement and then return and attempt to cherry pick terms to be renegotiated is unethical absent allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or other illegal act.

The TAs cannot even argue that insufficient wages due to high rents was unforeseen or unknown at the time they negotiated & agreed to the contractually-binding terms of the agreement.

P.S. Wages could easily have been adjusted for regional or local cost-of-living differences.

If I represented the TAs, then I would argue that this was the intent of the agreement but it was not adequately stated in the contract. This stance would give the tAs some justification for striking while asserting that they just want to enforce the “intent” of the agreement even though ineffectively stated in the written agreement.

31

You are assuming that the figure quoted by the petition is accurate. (Hint: it isn’t, at least for fully funded PhD programs; of course, there’s a difference between funding for the MA students – not much – and the fully-funded doctoral students (which includes a health care stipend), which begets an ‘average’…)

32

@bluebayou: I agree.

@publisher: that’s their only power but the university has rested on it so completely for so long that they let it grow unchecked. The situation was unsustainable and explosive.
Entering into new negotiations -where, absolutely, the university can mandate other things in exchange for fair wages that are tied to cost-of-living changes - seems like a no brainer.
And yes I realize there may be unanticipated downsides for the TAs (such as fewer TAs and more adjuncts) or that, by securing better wages for next year and future TAs, current TAs may be shortchanged by added mandates.

33

@MYOS1634 :

If the university system wants to give the TAs higher wages, then the university should be allowed to decrease tuition remission or to increase tuition to cover the added cost.

P.S. Essentially this would be okay in your view as you wrote: “the university can mandate other things in exchange for fair wages”.

P.P.S. FWIW The university did offer a $2,500 housing supplement & another benefit–which I cannot recall–which was rejected by the TAs at UC-Santa Cruz.

34

I wouldn’t agree - tuition remission seems basic since they both MUST take classes AND teach - but the point would be that thy need to receive more so the financial compensation should increase by that PLUS cost of living… And due to the symbol I’m not sure it wouldn’t be similar to throwing depts under the bus as fewer aspiring candidates would accept offers than now… But in the abstract, that’s what could be negotiated.
Basically, the university needs to recognize it can’t function without TAs.

35

The UCs have no intention of paying TAs and many staff members more than the bare minimum, which makes negotiations difficult. I’ve lost track of the number of times hospital workers and custodial staff at UCLA have gone on strike over the last few years. A recent example:

*This week, thousands of UC employees are staging a three-day strike for better pay and working conditions.

On Monday, more than 20,000 custodians, cooks, lab technicians, nurse aides and other members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 walked off their jobs. By Tuesday, two more unions joined in sympathy strikes.

The union and UC reached a bargaining impasse last year. The university has said it won’t meet the workers’ demands.*

https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-strike-voices-20180508-htmlstory.html

It is relatively rare for UCs to have cash cow master’s programs akin to those at Chicago and Columbia. Most departments admit only students seeking a PhD, and virtually all MA/PhD students at the UCs are fully funded. It is typical, though not always required, for PhD students at the UCs to earn a MA/MS and CPhil on the way to the PhD.

You get paid slightly more with a couple of years of teaching experience and advancing to candidacy, but it’s not a significant difference.

36

@warblersrule : Then the simple solution is that the UCs need to raise tuition & fees charged to students in order to be able to pay a fair wage to their workers.

Another solution would be to do what many California residents are doing: Leaving the state for Arizona, New Mexico, & Idaho–among others–in order to be able to afford to live comfortably.

Noone is forced to live & work in California.

Another possible solution: Close down state supported universities in high cost-of-living areas.

Another Solution: Don’t agree to a contract unless willing to abide by its terms for the duration of the contractually-binding negotiated & mutually agreed upon agreement.

As an aside: Do any of the striking TAs teach ethics ?

37

Cash cow Master’s programs maybe rare at UC (I’ve been suggesting those for years, but UC Admin ignores me), but the last time I checked I was surprised at how many terminal Master’s programs that Cal does offer, for example. Perhaps UCLA is different?

Regardless, there is – or should be – a big diff between funding for a terminal MA/MS program vs. fully-funding doctoral students for 5+ years. And averaging those two is conflating data.

38

I think that we can all agree that there is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed at some time.

Simply stated: The problem is that wages are insufficient in light of the cost-of-living in California.

This , as another poster pointed out, goes well beyond TAs at UC campuses.

Once the problem is defined, we need a solution.

The solution is more money.

Raises the problem of how to raise more money.

The easy answer is to raise tuition & fees for residents and to accept more non-residents as they pay about triple the tuition that residents pay.

If residents complain about higher tuition & less resident spaces, send them ASU, Univ. of Arizona, Univ. of New Mexico, New Mexico State, Univ. of Idaho, Univ. of Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Univ. of Wyoming, etc. college brochures.

The State of California could negotiate discounted rates for California residents at any school which it promotes.

P.S. The ultimate cash cow of academics is law schools. Please for the sake of all that is good, decent & right in this world, do not open (or expand enrollment) any more law schools.

39

Their compensation isn’t only the $21k, but the value of any tuition benefits received. TAs are privileged in they don’t have to pay income taxes on any tuition benefits received.

40

Where is it enshrined that you have the right to not go to work and violate a union contract that your representatives negotiated and your membership approved, with no fear of action against you?

I must have missed that in Civics.