A baseball team in pennant contention! A summer without excessive humidity! A university administration voluntarily recognizing the democratic right of its graduate employees to vote on unionization! Yes, all good things that do exist -- but not in Philadelphia.
Penn's administration could redress one of these local deficits, and far more easily than orchestrating a Wharton takeover of the Philadelphia Phillies' front office or installing air conditioning in all student dormitories -- as worthy as both those ideas may be. As The Daily Pennsylvanian reported on July 18, Cornell University and the Cornell Association of Student Employees (CASE/UAW) recently came to an unprecedented agreement. Reversing its original position, fellow Ivy Cornell's administration conceded that graduate students serving as TAs and RAs who receive stipends and full or partial tuition remission are in fact employees of the university. It further agreed to accept the results of their upcoming October election, an election in which the graduate employees will decide whether or not to unionize. If the union is ratified, Cornell says that it will immediately commence contract bargaining in good faith.
Commenting on the agreement, Cornell officials emphasized the University's desire to "avoid a long and expensive series of hearings" before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). They also quick to mention that the administration reserves the right to speak out during the campaign on the "appropriateness" of unionization. Nonetheless, these are striking developments.
Here at Penn, the administration has steadfastly resisted any such recognition of the right of graduate employees to even vote on the matter of unionization. Last spring, protracted hearings took place before the NLRB, the results of which are still pending. During this time, the University engaged representation by the venerable local law firm Ballard Spahr, at a weekly cost approximating the value of a graduate student's stipend. Meanwhile, at Brown and Columbia, recalcitrant administrations have contested the results of NLRB-mandated votes even before the ballots were counted, a maneuver which it seemed like that Penn would emulate. Yet, it doesn't have to be this way, as the developments at Cornell have shown.
Penn's administration has instead spoken about "collegiality." But the University administration continues to explain that the efforts of graduate employees to organize jeopardize this sacrosanct characteristic of academic life. Penn's graduate student organization, Graduate Employees Together - University of Pennsylvania (GET-UP) has been accused of "choosing" to take the path of NLRB hearings, of being, in effect, responsible for the time and money involved. But the NLRB's procedures are a last resort, not a mandatory process. Indeed, employers and employees are encouraged to reach their own accommodations, as has happened at Cornell. Penn has always had -- and retains -- the option of voluntarily recognizing the right of graduate employees to vote freely on unionization. We turned to the NLRB only when faced with the administration's absolute unwillingness to even permit a vote.
At a bare minimum, collegiality should entail a fundamental mutual respect. Without romanticizing the position of the Cornell administration, they have, at the very least, extended this respect to our peers of CASE/UAW. What keeps our administration from doing the same for us? We seek to address collectively our concerns regarding stipends, health insurance, and working conditions, so as to be better able to carry out the teaching and research work that we do, the work that makes us such a vital part of the university. The administration frequently affirms that it values our contribution. Alas, this contribution apparently does not entail that minimal civility which would recognize our right to have a democratic election. Why does the university fear such a vote? Such a vote has not resulted in the downfall of NYU. The Cornell administration has shown their courage in working with the graduate employees to hold an election. Why is our administration so fearful of allowing democracy to prevail?
In light of the recent events at Cornell, and unionized graduate employees at colleges across the country, we would urge the University to continue this movement and make a step in the right direction. To the administration we say: Cornell offers you a precedent. Why not follow it?
