Crossing a picket line?

[zyncod]

On the occasions this month when I go down to the Village during working hours, I've seen the giant inflatable rat that signals a strike. The grad students at NYU are striking for unionization, and an (undergraduate) friend of mine at NYU has told me that the undergrads are being told "not to cross the picket line."

 

I don't have any strong feelings about the unionization (on one hand, workers have the right to collectively bargain, on the other hand, the students are getting a free education). However, I don't think that undergrads trying to go to class really count as scabs. Crossing a picket line before you've patronized the employer is one thing; but the undergrads have already paid NYU for an education. I know that if auto shop workers were striking, and they called me a scab for picking up my car after the repairs had been done, I'd be pretty pissed off. My friend is certainly not happy about this; especially, she doesn't like having to walk all over town to get to the "alternative class locations" that professors have picked to show solidarity with the grad students.

 

Who's right here, the grad student or my friend?

[Pangloss]

Forgive me for asking you to repeat something, but just to be clear, are you actually saying that striking workers sometimes indicate that they're on strike by inflating a gigantic balloon in the shape of a rat? That's really interesting and I've never heard it before, so I'm just asking for clarification. It never ceases to amaze the the tidbits of information I pick up on this forum!

 

Yeah that's pretty ludicrous calling students "scabs". I don't even understand why grad students would need to be unionized in the first place. Are these grad students who have taken student teaching positions or something?

 

On the larger subject, I wouldn't cross a picket line, but that's only because I don't want to DIE. I'd demand that the police break up the obtrusive demonstration because I live in a right-to-work state, which should be the rule, not the exception (it should be understood as "bizarro unionized states" vs "states", not "states" vs "right to work states").

 

Why some people find it not okay for their boss to tell them what to do, but okay for their union leaders to tell them what to do, is beyond me.

[cosine]

On the occasions this month when I go down to the Village during working hours' date=' I've seen the giant inflatable rat that signals a strike. The grad students at NYU are striking for unionization, and an (undergraduate) friend of mine at NYU has told me that the undergrads are being told "not to cross the picket line."

 

I don't have any strong feelings about the unionization (on one hand, workers have the right to collectively bargain, on the other hand, the students are getting a free education). However, I don't think that undergrads trying to go to class really count as scabs. Crossing a picket line before you've patronized the employer is one thing; but the undergrads have already paid NYU for an education. I know that if auto shop workers were striking, and they called me a scab for picking up my car after the repairs had been done, I'd be pretty pissed off. My friend is certainly not happy about this; especially, she doesn't like having to walk all over town to get to the "alternative class locations" that professors have picked to show solidarity with the grad students.

 

Who's right here, the grad student or my friend?[/quote']

 

 

I am an undergraduate an NYU, and I have been running into the strike alot. There has been alot of propaganda spread around too. Many undergraduates are misinformed, because they only read the e-mails that the administration has been sending to the entire NYU community. It is a really interesting topic, I'm not sure though if people here are really interested on whats happening on some American campus somewhere. But now that it has come up, I suppose I should tell the story (and excuse minor sidenotes as I want to explain the full story):

 

In the years 1998-1999, the university was expanding and many corners were being cut in spending. You know, as the university expands, some things are left behind, etc. So it was really hurting GAs (which include Teaching Assistants, Research Assistants, and the like). GAs in the College of Arts and Sciences were getting a 10k USD stipend each year, and GAs in Tisch (the dramatic Arts School) and Steinhart (The education and musical arts school) were making half that. As you could guess, this strained alot of GAs, which usually need another job just to survive. This is not biased information, as even the university administration has ackowledged this. However as a side note, I will talk later about the difference in situations between students in the humanities and students in the sciences.

So In those two years several GAs ran a secret ballot for all GAs and formed a union containing many GAs. By 2000, they had formed the GSOC, the Graduate Student Organization Committee, and had aligned themselves with the UAW (United Auto-Workers) union local 2110. The UAW has 600,000 workers in the education field protected by it; it has been expanding its membership into white collar work since the 1970s when it was looking to expand membership.

In 2000 the GSOC fought for their legal right to be recognized, and the National Labor Relations Board decision NYU (2000) ruled that they had to be recognized because their GA position was offered as job by NYU and thus they are workers, meaning they had the right to unionize and NYU had to recognize them. This overturned a precedent set in the 1970's when the issue came up to the NLRB.

So in 2001 the NYU administration was refusing to recognize the GSOC so they planned a strike. On the day the strike was supposed to begin, NYU agreed to negociate, and they signed a contract that lasted until August 31, 2005.

This contract created healthcare for GAs (which had not existed before), and the minimum stipend (over the term of the contract) was gradually brought to 18k USD. I will be providing resources at the end of this post so if you are interested there is more information there.

In 2004 Graduate Students were attempting to unionize at Brown University, and brought their case before the NLRB, pointing to the precedent NYU. Brown University defended that NYU (2000) did not apply to them because being a teaching assistant was a requirement for a degree. Members of the NLRB had changed over the new US presidency, and this new NLRB ruled to overturn NYU (2000), (this new precedent dubbed Brown (2004)).

 

In the summer of 2005 the NYU administration announced that it was not interested in making another contract with the GSOC after theirs expired in August 31, 2005. They offered a contract to the GSOC in which they gave them 48 hours to respond before revoking the offer. The GSOC has said that this was not enough time to even put the contract to a vote, though both sides have ackowledged there had been talks going on between the two sides before the offer, though they have not been released yet.

The main objection to the offer was that there was no 3rd party grievence procedure, except for proving in court that the Provost had acted with malicious intent. This means the contract was essentially un-enforcable.

There was a protest rally on August 31st with over 70 arrests including elected officials and labor leaders, as well as graduate students from NYU and other schools supporting the movement, most notibly Yale, as well as Columbia, Brown, CUNY schools, among others.

By November 1st, the GSOC had voted by secret ballot with over a majority of its members voting and 85% of the voting members voted to enact a strike beginning on November 9th. The GSOC would not release exactly how may people voted as against policy since it would give the administration ample information to enable them to pinpoint who voted how.

The GSOC has been striking since November 9th. GAs in general can be catagorized into three groups: those who are against eh union, those against the union but don't believe striking to be a correct course of action, and thus are not striking, and those GAs that are striking.

 

Even since before the strike started, there has been activism on all levels relating to the cause. Students for and against unionization, faculty and even departments for and against unionization. Most notably though there has been Faculty Democracy, an institution created over the summer to enable a partipatory voice for the faculty in how the university should be run. The group is made of over 200 professors.

 

Notable events in the current strike:

November 8th Faculty Democracy (not for the first time) discusses the strike with the NYU administration in a last ditch effort to avoid a strike, encouraging them to negociate with the union.

November 9th many faculty members find administration members logged in as professors on their Blackboard accounts. Blackboard is a tool that Professors use to maintain grades and communicate with students, and for students to communicate concerns to their professors. This access enabled administrators full access to all communications and facets of blackboard. It has been recognized that the administration has the legal right to do this, however many faculty are still upset with the ethics behind it. The administration later said that it was a glitch in the computer system that occured while the administrators were trying to only go into the accounts of GAs striking in order to maintain the grades of undergraduates. It should be noted that all GAs had submitted this information to their respective departments before striking.

On November 28th, the administration John Sexton sent an e-mail to all GAs saying that any GAs that did not return to work by December 5th, or their first work period after, would not be eligible to GA in the spring semester.

On November 30th and December 2nd, the GSOC held rallies with many elected officials and labor leaders in order to voice support for the GSOC's cause.

Many GAs will continue to strike.

This is the story of events that has happened up until the present time.

 

However, along with this, there are many side issues, one in particular I said before that I would address. The GAs are frequently split along humanities and social sciences vs. natural science/math lines. The are two main reasons for this although they are intertwined:

1) Science students are not only paid by the university, but by the grants for the research they perform. They are also generally paid better by the university, because of the grant money they bring in.

2) Science departments are generally against the strike, as they are well funded, because they bring so much money to themselves and the university because of the grants.

 

Another point to make is that NYU was the first private university to recognize its GA union. However since the 60s, 20% of public universities have had GAs unionized, usually as dictated by the rights of unions under the respective states' laws. However these unions usually don't strike as it is the state budget that determines most of their benefits.

 

I promise that all of this information is true and can be substantiated by sources. I have written this for all of you as an objective resource as possible. There is a lot of disgusting rhetoric out there, and so it is hard to sift through to find an objective view of events. Since I have been here I have been reading all school newspapers, I have read the entire GSOC website, the entire NYU GA issues site, and the case files for both NLRB decisions NYU and Brown. This issue has been extremely important to me, and it should be handled with prudence as it could be an influential precedent over the country.

 

Here are some important resources for further reading:

http://www.nyunews.com/ - The Washington Square News, NYU's student newspaper.

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/gata/ - NYU's GA/TA information center

http://www.2110uaw.org/gsoc/ - the website of the GSOC

http://www.facultydemocracy.org/ - the website of Faculty Democracy

http://fdnyu.blogspot.com/ - the Faculty Democracy blog

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/332/332-111.pdf - the NYU decision by the NLRB

http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/342/342-42.pdf - the Brown decision by the NLRB

http://www.virtualmind.info/nyustrike/strike.htm - NYU Strike Archive

 

Lots of rhetoric has flown back and forth: As to zyncod's concern, what you were told is fallicious. While some people don't want to attend any classes, the GSOC has actually only asked undergraduates who support them to not attend classes that are taught only by striking GAs, and this usually only means recitations. It does not apply to GAs that are not striking, and it does not apply to classes taught by Professors. The undergrads are not being called scabs, the GSOC is only asking undergraduates to not attend classes taught by scabs.

 

Like I said, there is a lot of rhetoric, so if you read something about the strike, be sure to look into all points of view. I promise to give any questions asked of me about this strike only well-researched answers without using rhetoric except in the context of dismissing the misleading notions of such terms. I hope this interests you all as much as it has interested me.

 

Yours,

cosine

[cosine]

Forgive me for asking you to repeat something' date=' but just to be clear, are you actually saying that striking workers sometimes indicate that they're on strike by inflating a gigantic balloon in the shape of a rat? That's really interesting and I've never heard it before, so I'm just asking for clarification. It never ceases to amaze the the tidbits of information I pick up on this forum!

 

Yeah that's pretty ludicrous calling students "scabs". I don't even understand why grad [i']students[/i] would need to be unionized in the first place. Are these grad students who have taken student teaching positions or something?

 

On the larger subject, I wouldn't cross a picket line, but that's only because I don't want to DIE. I'd demand that the police break up the obtrusive demonstration because I live in a right-to-work state, which should be the rule, not the exception (it should be understood as "bizarro unionized states" vs "states", not "states" vs "right to work states").

 

Why some people find it not okay for their boss to tell them what to do, but okay for their union leaders to tell them what to do, is beyond me.

By the way the picket lines are for demonstrative purposes only. You can go right around them, which the GSOC doesn't mind you do at all. They ask you to not go to scab-taught classes.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up.

 

At risk of sounding trivial, do you happen to know if that's true about the inflatable rat? I don't mean to focus on something so minor, I just thought it was an interesting twist in the story.

 

Just to give my own reaction to that, for the purposes of discussion, I guess it would be that I don't understand why anybody would think that it makes sense to pay people who are less valuable the same as people who are more valuable. You've got money coming in in some areas and not others. You spend your money where it makes you more money. If you don't like it, do something else.

 

There's a reason why the classics are floundering, and it has nothing to do with how much money universities spend on GAs. I don't understand the mentality of someone who, say, persues a degree in Fine Arts, and then demands to be paid the same as a Chemical Engineer. Nobody was twisting their arm to go into finger painting. If you want to drive a BMW, earn the right to buy one. What's the problem?

 

So I'm kinda disappointed to see that kind of socialist mentality seeping its way into how graduate assistants are paid, but I guess I'm not really surprised. The modern college campus is the last refuge of the teach-because-you-can't-do crowd, and no where is that more apparent than in the disparity between the intelligence level of people in fine arts versus engineering and applied sciences. In fact I would suggest that the reason the "well-paid" GAs from the sciences school aren't striking has little or nothing to do with the amount they're being paid.

 

HOWEVER, all of that having been said, I admit that I don't have a complete enough picture to draw a final conclusion. I'm just giving my gut reaction here, and I'll keep an open mind about it. You mentioned side issues, and those have a way of undermining main issues sometimes.

[cosine]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that up.

 

At risk of sounding trivial' date=' do you happen to know if that's true about the inflatable rat? I don't mean to focus on something so minor, I just thought it was an interesting twist in the story.

 

Just to give my own reaction to that, for the purposes of discussion, I guess it would be that I don't understand why anybody would think that it makes sense to pay people who are less valuable the same as people who are more valuable. You've got money coming in in some areas and not others. You spend your money where it makes you more money. If you don't like it, do something else.

 

There's a reason why the classics are floundering, and it has nothing to do with how much money universities spend on GAs. I don't understand the mentality of someone who, say, persues a degree in Fine Arts, and then demands to be paid the same as a Chemical Engineer. Nobody was twisting their arm to go into finger painting. If you want to drive a BMW, earn the right to buy one. What's the problem?

 

So I'm kinda disappointed to see that kind of socialist mentality seeping its way into how graduate assistants are paid, but I guess I'm not really surprised. The modern college campus is the last refuge of the teach-because-you-can't-do crowd, and no where is that more apparent than in the disparity between the intelligence level of people in fine arts versus engineering and applied sciences. In fact I would suggest that the reason the "well-paid" GAs from the sciences school aren't striking has little or nothing to do with the amount they're being paid.

 

HOWEVER, all of that having been said, I admit that I don't have a complete enough picture to draw a final conclusion. I'm just giving my gut reaction here, and I'll keep an open mind about it. You mentioned side issues, and those have a way of undermining main issues sometimes.[/quote']

 

Yeah there's a bit of interesting story about the inflatable rat.

 

I was suprised that so many people didn't understand why there was an inflatable rat there. But when people asked me why there was one, its because alot of strikes have one, it represents administration.

 

There was an interesting event a few weeks ago, where a protest was held in a park nearby against the use of inflatable rats in strikes. It was actually a stunt that had been planned about 9 months before by a PR firm to promote its services by getting people "to talk about anything, even a thing like rats." This made for an awkward coincidence when there was actually an inflatable rat being used in the GSOC protest.

 

Here is the article about it in the Washington Square News:

http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/17/437be1bf5ed07?in_archive=1

[Pangloss]

Thanks. It's very funny, and even a touch brilliant, I must say, going after the humor side of the issue in trying to win over hearts and minds.

 

(It's a shame they can't apply their boundless energy to something people actually deem valuable, and are therefore willing to pay them the fruits of their own labor for.)

[cosine]

Thanks. It's very funny' date=' and even a touch brilliant, I must say, going after the humor side of the issue in trying to win over hearts and minds.

 

(It's a shame they can't apply their boundless energy to something people actually deem valuable, and are therefore willing to pay them the fruits of their own labor for.)[/quote']

Yeah it seems it is more of a long term project though, more like advertisement for their own services. If companies can't do things that don't gain money though, I don't think capitalism would be very interesting, creatively speaking.

[Mokele]

Just to give my own reaction to that, for the purposes of discussion, I guess it would be that I don't understand why anybody would think that it makes sense to pay people who are less valuable the same as people who are more valuable. You've got money coming in in some areas and not others. You spend your money where it makes you more money. If you don't like it, do something else.

 

There's a reason why the classics are floundering, and it has nothing to do with how much money universities spend on GAs. I don't understand the mentality of someone who, say, persues a degree in Fine Arts, and then demands to be paid the same as a Chemical Engineer. Nobody was twisting their arm to go into finger painting. If you want to drive a BMW, earn the right to buy one. What's the problem?

 

So I'm kinda disappointed to see that kind of socialist mentality seeping its way into how graduate assistants are paid, but I guess I'm not really surprised. The modern college campus is the last refuge of the teach-because-you-can't-do crowd, and no where is that more apparent than in the disparity between the intelligence level of people in fine arts versus engineering and applied sciences. In fact I would suggest that the reason the "well-paid" GAs from the sciences school aren't striking has little or nothing to do with the amount they're being paid.

 

Well, I can see your point, but I also sympatize with the classics TAs. They've got coursework to do (and lots of it; science grads usually get few classes and concentrate on research), their thesis to do, and teaching. If a TAship doesn't cover the cost of going to school, some grads get loans or jobs, but some departments actually forbid grad students from having outside jobs at all. If that's the case at NYU, such small stipends can create a real burden.

 

Part of it is also whether the university is behaving ethically or not by offering such small stipends. If it's not enough to live off, why not just reduce the number of grad students admitted so they each get a bigger slice of the pie, and hire some adjucts for the other stuff (they usually come from separate 'pies', as I understand university budgets).

 

I'm trying to remember whether my school told me how much I'd be paid before I accepted or not. Any school that doesn't, frankly, has committed an ethical violation gross enough to warrant the firing of the entire administration, as they'd be essentially suckering people in binding contracts they can't live off.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you're going to employ someone as full-time, you have to given them the money to survive. If you don't have the money, either don't offer the position, or make it a part-time position.

 

Mokele

[cosine]

Well' date=' I can see your point, but I also sympatize with the classics TAs. They've got coursework to do (and lots of it; science grads usually get few classes and concentrate on research), their thesis to do, and teaching. If a TAship doesn't cover the cost of going to school, some grads get loans or jobs, but some departments actually forbid grad students from having outside jobs at all. If that's the case at NYU, such small stipends can create a real burden.

 

Part of it is also whether the university is behaving ethically or not by offering such small stipends. If it's not enough to live off, why not just reduce the number of grad students admitted so they each get a bigger slice of the pie, and hire some adjucts for the other stuff (they usually come from separate 'pies', as I understand university budgets).

 

I'm trying to remember whether my school told me how much I'd be paid before I accepted or not. Any school that doesn't, frankly, has committed an ethical violation gross enough to warrant the firing of the entire administration, as they'd be essentially suckering people in binding contracts they can't live off.

 

I'm of the opinion that if you're going to employ someone as full-time, you have to given them the money to survive. If you don't have the money, either don't offer the position, or make it a part-time position.

 

Mokele[/quote']

Yes this also brings up another side issue:

The administration has labelled these as part-time jobs and say they only require abou 20-25 hours of work per week. However this is the administrations number and they are probably trying to make the number as low as possible, only including hours of actual work and office hours and such. Of course any good GA would not be spending the absolute bare minimum working each week... though it may be true that some GAs work less than 40 hours per week.

 

But again this brings up another side issue: the administration has recently been making several promises, one of the latest being that GAs in the language and literature departments will be capped at teaching one class a semester. Administrators have said "this is mean to standardize the workload over the departments" though I do not know what caps exist in other departments.

 

Here is the Washington Square News Article, which also provides some interesting perspectives (and suspicions) about the declaration:

http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/21/43814e32b818f?in_archive=1

[ecoli]

Well' date=' I can see your point, but I also sympatize with the classics TAs. They've got coursework to do (and lots of it; science grads usually get few classes and concentrate on research), their thesis to do, and teaching. If a TAship doesn't cover the cost of going to school, some grads get loans or jobs, but some departments actually forbid grad students from having outside jobs at all. If that's the case at NYU, such small stipends can create a real burden.[/quote']

 

Especially with the cost of living in Manhattan.

 

Thanks for the details, Bobby.

[Pangloss]

Well, I can see your point, but I also sympatize with the classics TAs. They've got coursework to do (and lots of it; science grads usually get few classes and concentrate on research), their thesis to do, and teaching. If a TAship doesn't cover the cost of going to school, some grads get loans or jobs, but some departments actually forbid grad students from having outside jobs at all. If that's the case at NYU, such small stipends can create a real burden.

 

See this is a reasoning I've never really understood. It's kinda like running into a burning building to grab a pile of cash and then saying that your lack of fire-resistant clothing has created "a real burden". Did someone twist their arms and say "We have decreed that you must pursue a career of finger painting, and therefore we are going to dictate what school you go to, how much of a stipend you're allowed to make, and where you spend your free time"?

 

If it's such a burden, why do it? Why not do something else? Go somewhere else? Do something more lucrative, if money is what's important. Why bang your head against the wall?

 

If their program is that inept, wouldn't actions speak louder than words here? Wouldn't students be failing to sign up for the program at all, if it were that bad?

 

I guess I just don't understand the underlying premise here. Why is it that people feel forced to do this? I did catch the bit where cosine said that for some degree programs a TA position was required, but I still don't see a problem. Nobody says you have to go to school there instead of somewhere else.

 

But you hear this over and over and over again, so much so that nobody bothers to question it. You hear things like "You HAVE to go to the good school in order to have ANY chance of success in THIS economy", which is a sentence that contains so many straw men I don't even know where to begin! But you hear this sort of nonsense time and again.

 

What I would say to the TA is: Do you want an education, and do what it takes to get ahead in the world, or do you want to bang your head on the wall repeatedly until perhaps, some day, out of the blue, either someone gives you something they earned, or the government takes it from them by force and gives it to you?

[Pangloss]

And again, I'm trying to keep an open mind here -- maybe I'm just missing something fundamental. Do these people have no other options at all? They HAVE to go to certain schools? I know of the difference between tuition and matriculation for in-state students -- are ALL the schools in the state like this?

 

The other thing that I don't understand is that aren't these schools operating on a non-profit basis? Isn't that true of any state or traditional private university -- the ones we're presumably talking about here? So it's not like they're saving money in order to make more profit, right?

 

I guess the thing I don't understand here is the use of force. Why the hurry to grab the tax-collector's gun? If the students are filling the seats, there's not a problem, or they wouldn't be filling the seats, right? If the students stop filling the seats, the stipend goes up, right? Where's the need for the gun?

[ecoli]

The other thing that I don't understand is that aren't these schools operating on a non-profit basis? Isn't that true of any state or traditional private university -- the ones we're presumably talking about here? So it's not like they're saving money in order to make more profit, right?

 

Yeah... just like the government isn't for profit either. But we all know there are politicians who would gladly increase taxes in order to increase their own pay checks. There is plenty of corruption in university systems too.

[cosine]

Yeah... just like the government isn't for profit either. But we all know there are politicians who would gladly increase taxes in order to increase their own pay checks. There is plenty of corruption in university systems too.

Err President Sexton may have more than a non-profit interest...

 

It turns out that he is currently the 6th highest paid university President in the nation, at 897,139 USD for the 2003-2004. Though I'll also note this was completely legal and he probably deserves most of it for his work. Here is the WSN article: http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/21/438151d6b9fe9?in_archive=1

[cosine]

And again' date=' I'm trying to keep an open mind here -- maybe I'm just missing something fundamental. Do these people have no other options at all? They HAVE to go to certain schools? I know of the difference between tuition and matriculation for in-state students -- are ALL the schools in the state like this?

 

The other thing that I don't understand is that aren't these schools operating on a non-profit basis? Isn't that true of any state or traditional private university -- the ones we're presumably talking about here? So it's not like they're saving money in order to make more profit, right?

 

I guess the thing I don't understand here is the use of force. Why the hurry to grab the tax-collector's gun? If the students are filling the seats, there's not a problem, or they wouldn't be filling the seats, right? If the students stop filling the seats, the stipend goes up, right? Where's the need for the gun?[/quote']

Are you saying that because students want to attend NYU they do not deserve reasonable wages?

[Mokele]

See this is a reasoning I've never really understood. It's kinda like running into a burning building to grab a pile of cash and then saying that your lack of fire-resistant clothing has created "a real burden". Did someone twist their arms and say "We have decreed that you must pursue a career of finger painting, and therefore we are going to dictate what school you go to, how much of a stipend you're allowed to make, and where you spend your free time"?

 

No, it's usually trickier, like "Come here, do your thesis. Ok, now you've been here a year or two, we'll cut off most of your funding and double your teaching load, and you can't leave without having to start all over again and abandon all the progress you've made." The administration is tricky.

 

Also, this isn't analogous to grabbing the free cash. According to my stipend versus my work, I make half of minimum wage. I do it because I love it, but at the same time, I need to have enough to live off.

 

Think of it like this: Imagine a system of apprenticeship, except one stage doesn't give enough money to live on. It varies from place to place, but is universally low. What do you do if this is your calling? Espcially if you know the only reason the pay is so low is because they're just stingy?

 

Nobody says you have to go to school there instead of somewhere else.

 

Depends how specialized you are. I'll only be able to apply to about hlf a dozen schools in the entire US, since only they have the faculty and equipment I need. If all of them have low stipends, what do I do? Abandon my field and spend 5 years doing something I'm bored by, possibly losing out on my only gateway into the prior field?

 

But you hear this over and over and over again, so much so that nobody bothers to question it. You hear things like "You HAVE to go to the good school in order to have ANY chance of success in THIS economy", which is a sentence that contains so many straw men I don't even know where to begin!

 

That depends on what you want to do. Do I need my degree to get a good job? Hell no. Do I need it to get the job I *want* (professorship)? Absolutely, and then some (I'll need a doctorate too, a record of successful grant applications, and at least 3-4 years of post-doc work).

 

Just because something isn't economically viable doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. Every major advance has come from useless theory. History majors might not be economically viable without support, but as we know, such information is far more valuable than anything generated by the more economically viable accounting majors.

 

The other thing that I don't understand is that aren't these schools operating on a non-profit basis? Isn't that true of any state or traditional private university -- the ones we're presumably talking about here? So it's not like they're saving money in order to make more profit, right?

 

There's never enough money to go around. Ever. Everyone wants this or that, whether it's new labs, a better dorm security system, or spiffy new buildings. And when it comes time to decide who gets money, grad students are traditionally last on the list, in spite of doing most of the teaching *and* most of the research that makes the university's name worth anything.

 

I guess the thing I don't understand here is the use of force. Why the hurry to grab the tax-collector's gun? If the students are filling the seats, there's not a problem, or they wouldn't be filling the seats, right? If the students stop filling the seats, the stipend goes up, right? Where's the need for the gun?

 

There's always more people wanting in than there are spaces, including those who don't need support on account of family wealth. There's always foreign students willing to come just in order to come to the US.

 

It's like the great depression when mills could pay jack shit because if people didn't like it, they couldn't quit because they had too few other options. Now, i'm not tryin to say they have no other economic options, only that they have no other *academic* options for their chosen field.

 

Personally, I think employers have a moral obligation to pay a living wage to any employee who's full time. If you expect someone to work for you, you've go to pay them enough to live.

 

Also, I'll freely admit to being biased, I also see a huge problem with just defining things in terms of their economic worth. Plus, I find it amazing how society can make graduate school a thankless, imporverishing ordeal, but then turn around an act suprised that there's a shortage of qualified teachers at every level.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Are you saying that because students want to attend NYU they do not deserve reasonable wages?

 

No, I'm saying that there's no such thing as "reasonable wages". Nor is there any validity to your implied concept of workers "deserving" anything more than what an employer may or may not offer for their services.

 

Jobs are not a right. Nor are wages. Such things are earned. Money does not grow on trees -- the employers didn't grow it on a farm. They earned it, and as with any ordinary citizen they have a right to spend it as they see fit.

 

Granted the "employer" in this scenario may be a government entity, but I'm not sure I see why a different standard should be applied. Again, nobody is forcing anybody to go to this school or take these TA positions. They're human beings. Why are they acting like slaves?

[ecoli]

No' date=' I'm saying that there's no such thing as "reasonable wages". Nor is there any validity to your implied concept of workers "deserving" anything more than what an employer may or may not offer for their services.

 

Jobs are not a right. Nor are wages. Such things are [i']earned[/i]. Money does not grow on trees -- the employers didn't grow it on a farm. They earned it, and as with any ordinary citizen they have a right to spend it as they see fit.

 

Granted the "employer" in this scenario may be a government entity, but I'm not sure I see why a different standard should be applied. Again, nobody is forcing anybody to go to this school or take these TA positions. They're human beings. Why are they acting like slaves?

 

I disagree with you when you say that there are no such thing as resonable wages. Sure, wages have to be earned, but there are certainly times when an employer doesn't pay its workers what they are worth in wages. I know that its hard to quantify work, but, according to studies, in order to survive with bare necessities of life (by which I mean merely surviving) by yourself, it costs approx. $9.00/hr... and this is an average for US, IIRC. Places like Manhattan certainly require more money. If your employee is working hard, then an employer has the responsibility to make sure that worker is making enough money to survive. If the employer can't insure that, then he has no business hiring anyone in the first place.

[Pangloss]

Depends how specialized you are. I'll only be able to apply to about hlf a dozen schools in the entire US' date=' since only they have the faculty and equipment I need. If all of them have low stipends, what do I do? Abandon my field and spend 5 years doing something I'm bored by, possibly losing out on my only gateway into the prior field?

[/quote']

 

 

No, it depends on how much your specialization is called for in the field. What you want or don't want is beside the point, if your goal is to get paid for what you do. Of course, if your goal is purely the furtherment of knowledge, and you don't care about money (and more power to you if it is), then it certainly doesn't matter where the demand is. But don't complain about not making enough money at it. You make your own choices in life.

 

If we employ 50,000 people making gyrowidgets, and over time people stop buying them, should we have the government pick up the tab and continue to pay those 50,000 people to make gyrowidgets that nobody wants to buy?

 

Or does it make more sense to figure out why people aren't buying gyrowidgets, start making the superwidgets they want to buy, and, say, invest in some retraining for those 50,000 people in how to make superwidgets?

 

You're not asking us to convert finger painters to corporate accountants. You're demanding that we underwrite finger painters that nobody wants to hire.

 

I mean, that's the situation in a nutshell, as I understand it. Subject, of course, to the possibility that I'm still missing something here.

 

 

 

That depends on what you want to do. Do I need my degree to get a good job? Hell no. Do I need it to get the job I *want* (professorship)? Absolutely, and then some (I'll need a doctorate too, a record of successful grant applications, and at least 3-4 years of post-doc work).

 

Great! Glad to hear it. In fact that's my present situation almost to a T. I made a pile consulting, and now I'm back in school working on a PhD. I got low-interest loans to pay for it, but I certainly didn't *expect* them. Nor do I expect to be paid a certain amount either as a student teacher or once I complete my degree.

 

That doesn't mean I'll let myself be run over by unscrupulous bean-counters, of course. If they don't want to pay me what I think I'm worth, I'll shop my skill around. If NOBODY wants to pay me what I think I'm worth, I'll either change tracks, or settle for less. This is all part of the basic set of assumptions I accepted when I made my choices.

 

Where's the problem?

 

 

 

 

Just because something isn't economically viable doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued. Every major advance has come from useless theory. History majors might not be economically viable without support, but as we know, such information is far more valuable than anything generated by the more economically viable accounting majors.

 

An interesting point. But who gets to make that decision? The people who earned the money don't get to decide how they're going to spend it? Why is it *your* call?

 

As a taxpayer, I want to make that call. I certainly don't want some partisan union officials making it without my getting any say in the matter. Isn't that fair?

 

This is where you need to focus, by the way. I'm all for this argument -- appeal to me, the taxpayer, on the merits of investing my hard-earned money in an area that has little industry demand at the moment. Convince me why it's worth it.

 

By the way, I'm all for the public arts. PBS, opera, the ballet, even public funds going to baseball stadiums and such. The point being that I believe in investment. But it's my money. I get to decide. Not the recipient.

 

 

 

There's never enough money to go around. Ever. Everyone wants this or that, whether it's new labs, a better dorm security system, or spiffy new buildings. And when it comes time to decide who gets money, grad students are traditionally last on the list, in spite of doing most of the teaching *and* most of the research that makes the university's name worth anything.

 

Yup. Life sucks.

 

What are you doing to change it? I mean, besides demanding that other people change it with their resources which you're going to take from them by force?

 

Here's a thought: Earn a pile of money, and then spend it on the things YOU think are important. Like... finger painters who don't make enough money.

 

 

There's always more people wanting in than there are spaces, including those who don't need support on account of family wealth. There's always foreign students willing to come just in order to come to the US.

 

It's like the great depression when mills could pay jack shit because if people didn't like it, they couldn't quit because they had too few other options. Now, i'm not tryin to say they have no other economic options, only that they have no other *academic* options for their chosen field.

 

I'd be okay with some low-income preferential treatment. I'm all about compromise, and I'm all about safety nets. I know I sound absolutist in my statements in this thread, and I don't mean to come across that way. I'm quite certain, in fact, that the specific situation we're discussing at NYU will be resolved through compromise. (shrug)

 

But you're wrong to say "they couldn't quit because they had too few other options". That's just nonsense. Not in our society.

 

 

Personally, I think employers have a moral obligation to pay a living wage to any employee who's full time. If you expect someone to work for you, you've go to pay them enough to live.

 

Also, I'll freely admit to being biased, I also see a huge problem with just defining things in terms of their economic worth. Plus, I find it amazing how society can make graduate school a thankless, imporverishing ordeal, but then turn around an act suprised that there's a shortage of qualified teachers at every level.

 

Mokele

 

Ugh. The fact that they don't have any such obligation, moral or legal, is exactly what makes this society work.

 

What constitutes a "living wage"? We have 45 million people living below the poverty line in this country, but what does that actually mean? It means (on average) that they have two cars, a VCR and a DVD player, a big TV with cable, they own their own home, they work and are self-sufficient! Isn't that a "living wage"? Aren't you really saying "employers have a moral obligation to pay every employee enough to buy a BMW and living an an expensive house in an upscale neighborhood"? Isn't that what you REALLY mean?

 

The problem with our society isn't that people can't do what they want to do. It's that they've come to expect compensation for doing what they want to do. When did THAT happen? It says in the Constitution that you can do anything you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Where does it say in the Constitution that other people have to have money pulled from their pockets at the point of a gun just so you can do what you want to do?

[Pangloss]

I disagree with you when you say that there are no such thing as resonable wages. Sure, wages have to be earned, but there are certainly times when an employer doesn't pay its workers what they are worth in wages.

 

Yes there are. And the correct response to such a situation is to QUIT!

 

I just can't fathom how we've forgotten that in this society. The concept of self-worth has been completely replaced with demanding that the government order the employer to pay what you perceive is your worth! It's just not something I understand at all.

 

How can anybody say something like the above, and still look themself in the mirror? Does someone who says something like that have any interest at all in bettering themself? Do they just not think that it's even possible that they could be what they want to be in life?

 

What a strange, strange concept.

 

 

 

I know that its hard to quantify work, but, according to studies, in order to survive with bare necessities of life (by which I mean merely surviving) by yourself, it costs approx. $9.00/hr... and this is an average for US, IIRC. Places like Manhattan certainly require more money. If your employee is working hard, then an employer has the responsibility to make sure that worker is making enough money to survive. If the employer can't insure that, then he has no business hiring anyone in the first place.

 

You know what the result of enforcing that would be, right? Fewer TAs so that the ones they can afford get paid what you think they should get paid. Either that or more money taken from my pocket.

 

I want some say in that. As I indicated above, I'm open to the suggestion that more, higher-paid TAs is a good investment. Show me why.

 

Convince ME, not some union boss who just has a different kind of gun pointed at me.

 

 

 

By the way, I've heard that waiters can make $50-60k/yr in NYC. Why not do that? Where's the problem? What difference does it make that they have to wait tables, so long as they're closer to achieving their goal? Why would anybody see it as a BAD thing that a TA had to work hard to achieve their goals?

[ecoli]

The problem with our society isn't that people can't do what they want to do. It's that they've come to expect compensation for doing what they want to do. When did THAT happen? It says in the Constitution that you can do anything you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else[/i']. Where does it say in the Constitution that other people have to have money pulled from their pockets at the point of a gun just so you can do what you want to do?

 

Whatever the workers feel they should get has to be balanced against how much the employers want to pay. The two will be invariable different. But, if an employer can't pay a worker what he/she is worth, then the employee shouldn't be hiring them. An employee has a moral obligation to do this, not a legal one.

 

If an employee wants more money, he can do one of two things: ask for more money or look for a new job. Granted, an employer shouldn't have to pay employees more then they are worth, but neither should an employer get away with shorting an employee. Union's make sure that doesn't happen.

 

edit: didn't see your responses on the second page, before I posted this, pangloss.

[Pangloss]

Yah we're cross-posting, but I'm about to run off to dinner so I'm gonna post one more quick thought and let you have the floor, and I'll drop by later tonight if I get a chance. It's an interesting discussion, and I hope I'm not coming across in a pejorative fashion. I certainly agree that employees should seek the highest level of compensation that they can, and when it comes to government-funded services then it gets a little more complicated than the standard capitalist model, because the worker cannot "shop around". So in cases like this I'm amenable to a certain degree of third party intervention and perhaps even artificially inflated compensation.

 

Perhaps a compromise might be to avoid unionization, but allow the workers to bargain somewhat collectively. Then involve the taxpayer in the decision -- tell me why it's in my best interest to pay finger painter TAs more money than they currently receive. Tell me how it's good for my state if we have more finger painters. Perhaps it'll mean better looking public facilities. More arts options for kids. More places of entertainment and education and even edutainment. All of these are positive things -- sell me on 'em.

 

Ask me to fund a specific program that pays those finger painter TAs. Have a referendum, and if people vote in favor, float a bond on it. That way I get to at least participate a bit in the process.

 

Anyway, an interesting discussion, and I look forward to hearing more about how it works out for NYU and NY taxpayers.

[ecoli]

Yes there are. And the correct response to such a situation is to QUIT!

 

Sure, but sometimes that is just not a feasible option. For example, what if we were back in the 20's, and you were blacklisted. It's not like you can just walk into another factory and get another job.

 

Also, what if you doing something where your job is the only one. You are trained for that job, but say your employer is screwing you out of a decent salary for the amount of work you're doing. You could get trained for a new job, but would it be easier on you to ask for higher wages.

 

I just can't fathom how we've forgotten that in this society. The concept of self-worth has been completely replaced with demanding that the government order the employer to pay what you perceive is your worth! It's just not something I understand at all.

 

Value of work is not quantifiable. Both employee and employer negotiate on the worth of your work.

 

To me, it sounds like your saying that an employee is allowed to say how much an employee is worth, but an employee is not allowed to say how much he thinks himself to be worth. So, an employer, who generally doesn't hold the financial interests of the employee close to his heart is allowed to say how much he thinks the employee needs to live., but the actual employee is the only one who could know such a thiing.

 

 

 

How can anybody say something like the above, and still look themself in the mirror?

 

come on, Pangloss. There is no need for petty insults. We're all adults here.

 

Does someone who says something like that have any interest at all in bettering themself? Do they just not think that it's even possible that they could be what they want to be in life?

 

not at all. I just feel that if you are bettering yourself on behalf of an employer, you should get rewarded for hard work, otherwise, there is no motivation. Why should I work hard for somebody who doesn't feel that I deserve to be rewarded for it?

 

What a strange, strange concept.

 

It's a strange concept that an employee should be able to be protected from getting screwed?

 

 

 

 

 

You know what the result of enforcing that would be, right? Fewer TAs so that the ones they can afford get paid what you think they should get paid. Either that or more money taken from my pocket.

 

I want some say in that. As I indicated above, I'm open to the suggestion that more, higher-paid TAs is a good investment. Show me why.

 

Convince ME, not some union boss who just has a different kind of gun pointed at me.

 

 

 

By the way, I've heard that waiters can make $50-60k/yr in NYC. Why not do that? Where's the problem? What difference does it make that they have to wait tables, so long as they're closer to achieving their goal? Why would anybody see it as a BAD thing that a TA had to work hard to achieve their goals?

[cosine]

Yah we're cross-posting' date=' but I'm about to run off to dinner so I'm gonna post one more quick thought and let you have the floor, and I'll drop by later tonight if I get a chance. It's an interesting discussion, and I hope I'm not coming across in a pejorative fashion. I certainly agree that employees should seek the highest level of compensation that they can, and when it comes to government-funded services then it gets a little more complicated than the standard capitalist model, because the worker cannot "shop around". So in cases like this I'm amenable to a certain degree of third party intervention and perhaps even artificially inflated compensation.

 

Perhaps a compromise might be to avoid unionization, but allow the workers to bargain somewhat collectively. Then involve the taxpayer in the decision -- tell me why it's in my best interest to pay finger painter TAs more money than they currently receive. Tell me how it's good for my state if we have more finger painters. Perhaps it'll mean better looking public facilities. More arts options for kids. More places of entertainment and education and even edutainment. All of these are positive things -- sell me on 'em.

 

Ask me to fund a specific program that pays those finger painter TAs. Have a referendum, and if people vote in favor, float a bond on it. That way I get to at least participate a bit in the process.

 

Anyway, an interesting discussion, and I look forward to hearing more about how it works out for NYU and NY taxpayers. [/quote']

I said in my original statement that NYU is a private university. This reply also applies to several of your other posts.

 

You are also making it seem like quitting a job is simple. First of all, assumming that employers across the board wouldn't just fix wages low (and whats to stop them from doing so, if they are the only ones with a say in wage offers?), you are also saying that testing employers is easy. You would need months to properly test an employer, if not years. Speaking of which, you lose most if not all of the progress you made at your old job and each job on the way. And its hard to keep applying for jobs and put on your resume that you worked twenty jobs in two years, because no one would pay you what you're worth. And its hard to keep moving from place to place, especially when you have a family.