On a warm Sunday evening a few weeks ago, the Undergraduate Assembly considered a resolution on a curious issue for a body concerned with undergraduate issues: graduate student unionization. Its author, an activist and fervent supporter of union rights, sought to boost the movement in through untested means -- claiming that the administration's fight against the union was a use of undergraduate resources and hence the students, too, should have a say in the matter.
Finally, a breath of fresh air.
As the graduate student unionization movement has developed, there has been a lot of discourse in The Daily Pennsylvanian, on Locust Walk and amongst students about the wisdom of unionization, as well as whether the students have a right to unionize, without much thought about the simple economics of the situation.
Don't get me wrong -- it is certainly important to discuss the more nebulous aspects of unionization, especially in a university setting. But the bottom line still exists, and as undergraduates, we have almost as large of an interest in the situation as the graduate students.
The fact is that some part of our tuition is currently being used to fight the unionization movement. Though we don't know how much all of this costs or how many hours the Office of General Counsel has spent on the issue, Temple University spent about $700,000 on its (losing) battle. At the same time, if graduate students are permitted to unionize, some part of our tuition dollars will go toward subsidizing any new benefits that result from such a move.
To quote our somewhat quirky and fearless leader George W. Bush, we're faced with "fuzzy math." Neither Graduate Employees Together-University of Pennsylvania's Web site nor the University's graduate student unionization site offer concrete figures or analysis -- assuming that analyses have been completed.
Throughout the course of the unionization campaign, both sides have seemed to stray away from a key issue -- money. In a university setting where unionization is more easily embraced by students than most, this was easy to do, and both the administration and graduate students have, for the most part, stayed away from the issue.
This is all well and good for them; it allows the graduate students to focus on other, more appealing arguments and the administration to hone in on its argument that graduate students simply cannot be employees, but it is unfair that this necessary information remains hidden to the student body as a whole. Though the ultimate decision will not be the undergraduates', it is our right to know where our tuition is going. We have a right to voice our opinion on the direction of our education, and we can't do that if we don't have the facts.
Should our money be spent on benefits for our teaching assistants? Or on legal fees to prevent a potentially greater economic burden? Computing such figures -- with all of the possible variables -- would undoubtedly be an arduous task, surely the University has considered the financial consequences of losing in court. And while economics should never be the sole determinant behind one's decision about who to support in this battle, the costs should be free and open knowledge to everyone who has an interest in its resolution.
The right for graduate students to unionize is a multi-faceted issue, and one that most undergraduates -- who do not feel a need to be interested in graduate student issues -- do not care to tackle. But it is important that we realize that it's our tuition, our education, our life.
It is imperative that the University community be offered an open, accurate figure of what our mutual investment has been in the fight against unionization. Equally important is a reliable estimate of the University's potential liabilities if a graduate student union comes to pass. Finally, it is vital that the undergraduates -- and everyone else for that matter -- listen for developments and to the arguments presented.
And if you don't hear anything, ask again.
