Based on observations in the University of California system:
The initial concerns:
Faculty having to actually manage the TA hours. This was a concern, especially when TA time is one of the ways you “fund” a PhD candidate is with TA slots. Some were worried that they would need timesheets, etc. to officially track the hours spent purely on TA work. There was also the concern about OT triggers in case TA work went into a weekend, or more than 8 hours in one day if someone WANTED to get everything done in one day. No actual problems have triggered in the areas I interact with however.
Separating out RA work that is lab related, vs. work that is education related. If you are an RA, and you use some of that work for your dissertation - at what point does the work day end and the dissertation work begin? If you offer co-author credit to an RA, does their writing count as work towards the hours or are they part of the training they are getting as a PhD candidate?
Any given PhD candidate might be a TA (which helps them cover their costs), work in a lab (which helps them cover their costs), plus they are a student (taking classes), some joint work with their mentor on journal pubs, and they are working towards their own dissertation. The original fear was that a Union might start getting involved in dividing up these various roles in ways that would negatively impact the ability to get a PhD candidate into a faculty position of their own. If the ours are limited, and then you don’t get some publication work in progress or published, you are going to struggle with getting an appointment of your own.
But all of the fear has yet to realize itself around here at least. Much Ado About Nothing.
In full agreement with Algher. As I mentioned above, in most cases it won’t make much difference either way, but it would be naive to think that there aren’t potential downsides in certain settings, just as it would be silly to ignore the potential upsides.
The slippery slope argument is amplified by the use of the term “employee”. Many incorrect assumptions and expected rules-of-engagement are carried in with that word. Graduate students are not employees. They are many things, but “employee” is a terrible proxy to describe the role. The opening of the wiki article on “stipend” is relevant: “A stipend is a form of salary, such as for an internship or apprenticeship. It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed; instead it represents a payment that enables somebody to be exempt partly or wholly from waged or salaried employment in order to undertake a role that is normally unpaid (e.g. a magistrate in England) or voluntary, or which cannot be measured in terms of a task (e.g. members of the clergy).”
This doesn’t address whether a union is good or bad for graduate students. But simply calling them employees and going from there is far from a full treatment.
I was at UC as well (in the '00s) when the union fight was happening.
IMHO, many grad students in the humanities were exploited as instructors (really, independent lecturers) for pitiful wages. Not that there was any noticeable bump in teaching salaries, but a few rights were won.
In my lefty (aka “BMW Marxist” department), the faculty were very firmly behind grad student unionization.
I decided to ask my son, who worked at U. Chicago (as a paid employee) and is now a grad student at Loyola. Here are just two points of his response:
[QUOTE=My son the PhD candidate]
This whole statement could have been summarized thusly: “We’ve been making the rules since 1890 and have no intention of changing that. Take what we so graciously give you and shut up.”
*and *
*f there is any one group that really needs union protection, it’s students. Universities. . . basically treat grad students like slaves, giving them just enough to barely survive in exchange for TA-ing, conducting high quality research, playing a crucial (unpaid) part in recruiting new students for them, et al. The return on investment is incalculable.
[/Quote]