The Newspaper of the Graduate
Employees’ Organization IFT/AFT
Contents
-
Grad Employees Win Union Rights: Vote To Be Held
This School Year
GEO Reacts To New Policy On International
Grad Employee Pay
The Balancing Act: Budget Cuts & Grads
Pay Cuts, No Pay For Orientation: A Testimonial
From The English Department
Get Involved With The GEO -
Back to the GEO
Home Page
Grad Employees Win Union Rights:
Vote To Be Held This School Year
By Rosemary Braun
This year, for the first time in Illinois history, graduate employees
will have the right to select the GEO to be their union in an official
election.
Following a 2-day work stoppage during the fall 2001 semester, nearly
50 GEO members and allies conducted a sit-in on March 13, 2002 at the
Swanlund Administration building. That afternoon, the University administration
unexpectedly reversed its seven-year policy of refusing to meet with the
GEO and agreed to begin negotiations with GEO representatives toward an
out-of-court settlement.
|
Provost Richard Herman (center) presents a |
The GEO’s bargaining team, lead by Co-President and chief negotiator
Uma Pimplaskar (Institute of Communications Research), included Jon Coit
(History), Rosemary Braun (Physics), Rob Henn (English), and Susan Blake
(Philosophy) with guidance from Mike Stewart and Karen McKenzie from the
GEO’s state-wide affiliate, the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
As the bargaining team faithfully represented the interests of the GEO
membership behind the closed negotiating-room door, preparations for a
second, mid-April work stoppage commenced. However, on April 15, after
a detailed update presented in a general membership meeting, the membership
was convinced that substantial progress had been made and voted unanimously
to call off the work stoppage. By April 28, the GEO and the University
had reached a final agreement, which was ratified by the GEO membership
on May 1, 2002.
The agreement defines a bargaining unit for UI graduate employees –
the group of graduate employees who are legally entitled to union representation
and who will be eligible to vote in this year’s election. After many years
of work, graduate employees have the opportunity to choose to have a binding
voice in their own working conditions.
The agreement broadly describes categories of assistantships. Nearly
all Teaching Assistants are included. Grad employees who previously held
the title of Graduate Assistant are divided into two categories: traditional
Graduate Assistants (GAs), and Pre-professional Graduate Assistants (PGAs).
PGAs are those whose duties are considered by the university to be "significantly
connected to their fields of study or career preparation." GAs are
included; PGAs are not. All Research Assistants (RAs) are excluded. (See
sidebar on this page.)
These definitions mean that over 2,000 graduate employees will be able
to vote in the upcoming GEO election. The categories of inclusion are
similar to those at other universities, and the size of our bargaining
unit will make the GEO one of the largest graduate employee unions in
the country. And, although RAs and PGAs will not be formally represented
by the GEO, the GEO will continue to work for the rights of all graduate
employees by drawing attention to their concerns and representing them
informally in grievances.
Before the GEO can bargain a contract with the University, the employees
covered by the agreement must formally choose to have the GEO represent
them by voting in a legally-binding union election that will take place
this academic year. For the GEO to win – a victory not only for the
TAs and GAs, but for all grad employees and the undergrads whom they teach
– a simple majority of the votes cast must be in favor of union representation.
The date for the election is not yet fixed. The GEO will be working with
the University administration and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations
Board to set the date and location of the election.
 |
Last spring’s negotiations marked an encouraging and significant change
in the University’s approach to the GEO. Although the negotiations were
not without the occasional stumbling block, both sides agreed that the
talks were conducted constructively and in good faith. It is hoped that
the university will continue to act in the same spirit of cooperation
that characterized the negotiations, avoiding intimidation and misinformation
tactics and not spending further money on an anti-union campaign in a
year of severe budget cuts.
In advance of the election, the University must present a list to the
GEO of all employees who they believe are eligible to vote. At that time,
the GEO will review the list for any errors or misclassifications. Even
before we get the list, it is important to start informing grads of their
right to vote in favor of the GEO – a strong voter turnout is essential
to winning this election. Let your friends and colleagues know: they finally
have a unique opportunity to have a democratic voice in the decisions
that affect their careers, their students, their families, their health,
and their working conditions.
The GEO has fought long and hard for the rights of graduate employees
and has won numerous benefits (among which are vision and dental insurance,
paid training, and parental leave). A formally recognized union, empowered
by law to bargain a contract with the university, is the only way to ensure
that we retain these hard-won benefits and that our conditions continue
to improve. Be sure to vote for the GEO, and be sure to bring your friends.
To learn more about what you can do to help get out the vote, come to
the GEO office on the 2nd floor of the University YMCA (across the street
from Lincoln Hall) or contact us at 344-8283 or geo@uigeo.org.
Rosemary Braun is a GEO Co-President and a graduate employee in Physics.
Who can vote in the GEO election?TAs: All Teaching Assistants will be able to vote GAs: All Graduate Assistants will be allowed to vote PGAs: Pre-professional Graduate Assistants will not RAs: Research Assistants will not be allowed to vote.
Who can be a member of the GEO?All graduate students are allowed to be members of the GEO. As For more information you can contact the office at 344-8283 |
Back to the Contents / GEO
Home Page
GEO Reacts To New Policy On International Grad Employee Pay
By Dave Rowland
Representatives of the Graduate Employees’ Organization had mixed emotions
when they heard that incoming international graduate employees would no
longer be required to obtain a permanent Social Security Number before
being added to the university payroll. The new policy is expected to prevent
errors that in past years have led to numerous international grads being
denied pay for work done prior to the receipt of a permanent Social Security
Number.
"We’re glad the university has come to their senses on this issue,"
said Sanjay Garla, the staff member who spearheaded the GEO’s efforts
to recover lost pay for international grads affected by the old policy.
"At the same time, it’s frustrating that such a simple change took
so long."
The ’simple change’ has to do with how the Office of International Student
Affairs (OISA) handles the form, called an I-9, which documents the fact
that international grads legally may be employed in the United States.
Under previous university policy, international grads were not added to
the university payroll until the Social Security Number field on the I-9
had been filled in. The new policy requires only that grads show proof
that they have applied for a social security number.
"It’s frustrating that such a simple change took so
|
The old I-9 policy had been faulted by the GEO on two grounds. First,
since holdups in receiving Social Security numbers are common, the policy
meant that many international grads faced delays in receiving their initial
paychecks. A more serious defect of the policy was its susceptibility
to a bureaucratic error.
"It was an innocent mistake, but an easy one to fix," explained
Garla. "They didn’t date the I-9 form until a Social Security Number
was received. Sometimes they forgot to post-date it." When this happened,
international grads lost pay.
The situation was worsened by the lack of a uniform grievance procedure.
Some international grads were reimbursed by their departments as soon
as the error was discovered. Others were told that it wasn’t the department’s
responsibility.
When the GEO stepped in, Garla had similar experiences. "One year
the Grad College handled the problem," said Garla, "but the
next year OISA insisted that it was their jurisdiction."
The new policy does not differ substantially from reforms the GEO has
advocated since 1999. But its adoption seems to be unrelated to the GEO’s
work on this issue. Instead, a statement issued by OISA indicates that
the new policy was called for because national security concerns have
prompted the Social Security Administration to significantly prolong the
Social Security Number application process for non-immigrants.
"The old policy would have been unworkable this year," said
GEO co-president Rosemary Braun. "None of the incoming international
students would have gotten a paycheck before November."
Braun believes that these events hold an important lesson. "The
administration wouldn’t change the policy when it only hurt a few dozen
grads a year," she said. "It isn’t that they aren’t concerned
about graduate employees. It’s that problems that only hurt a few of us
aren’t noticed by decision makers."
According to Braun, there’s only one way for grads to insure that their
concerns are heard. "We can only do so much as an advocacy organization,"
Braun said. "If we want to have a voice in institutional decisions,
we need a union like the GEO and to be in the room when those decisions
are made."
A veteran of last spring’s successful negotiations with the administration,
Braun thinks that the I-9 issue would have been quickly settled at the
bargaining table. "It doesn’t cost them any money, it doesn’t cede
any power," Braun said. "There’s nothing for them to object
to."
Dave Rowland is a graduate employee in the Philosophy department.
Back to the Contents / GEO
Home Page
The Balancing Act: Budget Cuts & Grads
By John Marsh
In an effort to balance their reduced budget, the University of Illinois
denied stipend increases—both standard yearly raises and those which
result from promotions—to graduate employees in departments across
campus. The action demonstrates more than ever why graduate employees
need a union and a negotiated contract.
Because of the economic downturn and the reduction in state revenues,
the University of Illinois needed to cut $40 million from its budget.
One of its strategies for meeting this budget was to place a freeze on
all university salaries. "There will be no general salary increases
for faculty and staff in the FY03 budget," President Stukel said
in an April 30, 2002 policy statement. Subsequently, Provost Herman clarified
the policy: no raises should be given on current salaries except for exceptional
circumstances such as promotions and retention officers.
Moreover, the university policy against raises included those given to
Research, Teaching, and Graduate Assistants. In addition to denying graduate
employees their usual yearly stipend increases, though, the policy also
applied to the stipend increases graduate employees receive when they
complete their Masters Degree or Qualifying or Prelim exams.
The question, though, is why the increases that follow from completing
a Masters Degree or from passing Qualifying Exams were considered "raises"
and not one of the "exceptional circumstances"—i.e. "promotions?"
Most of the evidence suggests that these graduate employee "raises"
are more accurately "promotions." For example, when professors
are granted tenure and move from assistant to associate status, they receive
a promotion and, under the current budget, still receive the pay raise
that results from that promotion. Or, if Michael Aiken, Chancellor Emeritus
of the university, was suddenly promoted to President of the University
of Illinois, he would most likely expect the $76,328 raise that comes
with that promotion. So why should it be any different for graduate employees
when they are "promoted" from one status to another, from M.A.
to A.B.D., for example?
By logic and by right, it should not be any different. Indeed, in a letter
to graduate employees in one department on campus, the head of that department
called the decision by the University not to count such raises as promotions
"unreasonable" and "unfair."
But reason and fairness are easily sacrificed to budget needs, and there
are only so many possible moves in the balancing act.
In short, because these graduate employee raises as a result of promotion
are not written into any contract, the Provost and the University saw
a place to save money by making a profitable interpretation. The end result
is that the University is partly balancing the budget on the backs of
those who can least afford it, those who are most vulnerable to decisions
from on-high, and those who are least able to combat the decisions that
adversely affect them—that is, graduate employees.
How could it be different? A clue is provided in the news release the
University issued to outline the new state budget and its effects. "The
University’s operating budget was cut $25 million below the start of the
FY02 budget…In addition, the university faces $15 million in costs
that cannot be avoided, such as energy, union contract wage increases,
and liability insurance." In other words, the university must grant
wage increases written into union contracts—rightly, fairly, and
inventive interpretations or no.
Graduate employees need such a contract.
But where would the money for these promotion raises come from? After
all, in times of budget crunches, everyone must share the burden, right?
And if graduate employee raises and raises from promotions are one of
the only flexible sources of money available, then what else can be done?
One source of flexible money and one thing that can be done is in the
realm of administrative salaries. As the AAP Advocate—the newsletter
of the Association of Academic Professionals at the University of Illinois—noted
in September of 2001, "those working in upper administrative units
awarded themselves dramatic raises, just as the economy was slipping into
recession."
For example, Patricia Askew, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, received
a $24,000 raise, a 15.9% increase from her former salary. Steven Veazie,
the Deputy University Counsel, part of whose job had been to thwart graduate
employee unionization on campus, received an impressive $26,000 raise,
a 19.6% increase over what he made the previous year.
As Kim Hensley testifies in this issue of The Organizer, "I lost
my increase, as did all my fellow grad students. That same day, I read
in the paper about the raises administrators at the university were getting—raises
which far exceeded my entire pay for a year—which was more than a
little disheartening."
It is clear, then, what graduate employees must do to not be disheartened:
negotiate a contract. They need to make themselves, in the University’s
language, a cost "that cannot be avoided." And for graduate
employees to negotiate a contract, they need to form a union.
A graduate employee union could protect the yearly stipend increases
that are routinely sacrificed in times of budget crises. But a graduate
employee union could also protect the increases that come from promotions,
which graduate employees should receive regardless of budget crises. After
all, everyone else on campus—faculty, administrators—seems to
enjoy them.
John Marsh is a graduate employee in the English department.
Back to the Contents / GEO
Home Page
Pay Cuts, No Pay For Orientation: A Testimonial From The English Department
 |
"I received my ‘contract’ from the English department in early July
and was happy to notice that the pay for each assistantship (I have two)
had increased slightly over last year. I asked around and found this was
the case for everyone else; an increase was standard for each year that
one was in the program. It wasn’t much (about $500), but when you’re a
grad student "not much" goes a long way, and this increase was
certainly going to help. Then I got my official notice from the university,
and the pay increase wasn’t reflected there. I talked with other grad
students/TAs who came into the program with me and we tried to figure
out what was going on, but couldn’t, so I contacted various people in
the department and a message of mine was forwarded to the department’s
business manager. She explained that there would be no level increases
this year due to budget cuts and a ’salary freeze.’ So I lost my increase,
as did all my fellow grad students. That same day, I read in the paper
about the raises administrators at the university were getting –
raises which far exceeded my entire pay for a year – which was more
than a little disheartening. A few days later I got a mass-mailed apology
letter from the department, explaining to everyone that we weren’t getting
our increases (even though they’re supposed to be ’standard’) and that
we may get them later. (Yeah, right.)
"I also discovered this same week that although I would be required
to attend Orientation for 4 days (at 8 hours a day) for my role as a peer
advisor, there would be no financial compensation for that, which seems
particularly bizarre because last year I remember someone telling me that
the GEO had fought to have all departments pay the incoming students,
and that English had been ahead of the game because they had already been
paying people for attending Orientation for some time. I had been quite
sure I’d be paid for Orientation when I accepted the position as peer
advisor, and had arranged my summer work schedule accordingly, choosing
not to take a job that would interfere with Orientation…turns out
I was a little too trusting.
"It’s frustrating that what has been consistent, standard and fair,
and which is not at all extravagant or unwarranted (nominal pay increases
and compensation for the intense work required during orientation), can
be so easily and secretly taken away, seemingly at a whim. These budget
issues significantly affect my life; I or a representative of my choosing
should have some serious input into how they are dealt with. Such decisions
should be made publicly and all pertinent information should be disseminated
to everyone affected immediately after decisions are made."
Kim Hensley is a graduate employee in the English Department
Back to the Contents / GEO
Home Page
GET INVOLVED WITH
|
The Organizer
The Organizer
Edited by:
GEO Staff
Rosemary Braun
Dave Rowland
John Marsh
Kim Hensley
GEO Officers:
Co-Presidents:
Rosemary Braun
Treasurer:
Matt McClain
Parliamentarian:
Allan Borst
Recording Secretary:
Dana Carluccio
Amy Hribar
Events Coordinator:
Susan Blake
Parliamentarian:
Jeff Scott
The GEO is the only
organization advocating for
the interests of graduate students
employed as assistants at the
University of Illinois.
Join us and get
involved.
Your voice is important.