Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
We write as a group of concerned alumni to express our solidarity with Graduate Students
United (GSU) following your June 6 message, “University Position on Graduate Student
Unionization.” We take issue with many of the individual claims in your letter, which we find both
factually incorrect and ethically untenable. Please find our point-by-point response below.
As University of Chicago alumni, we remain forever grateful to the graduate workers who taught
our Core courses, language classes, and advanced seminars. But these contributions, of
course, were labor, labor without which the University cannot function. If it could, GSU’s
three-day industrial action would not have generated nationwide media attention or elicited
multiple emails from high-level University administrators. Graduate workers are thus not only
“essential members of the University’s intellectual community,” but producers of economic value
for the University.
“The University of Chicago is working collaboratively with graduate students and faculty
to ensure the continued strength of our doctoral programs.”
As you noted in 2017, “the balance of power has shifted from companies to customers and
other stakeholders. Transparency is increasingly in demand, and companies and regulators are
forced to respond ever more quickly to this scrutiny.” As alumni who contribute time, money, and
social capital to the University, we are among its stakeholders and deserve to participate in its
collaborative decision-making. We ask that the University’s treatment of its workers —
themselves “stakeholders” in the University’s economy — reflect our collective values.
According to the National Labor Relations Act, employers may not “threaten employees with
adverse consequences” like “loss of benefits or more onerous working conditions” in response
to labor actions or unionization efforts. As long as the University persists in mischaracterizing its
graduate workers as “students” exclusively, this thinly veiled threat does not violate the letter of
the law. It does, however, contradict the University's putative concern for graduate working
conditions.
“PhD students receive at least $30,000 annually, fully-paid health insurance premiums,
and full tuition for at least the first five years of their programs.”
As you know, GSU is not currently fighting for a wage increase, but for recognition as a
collective bargaining entity empowered to negotiate workplace issues — including, for instance,
unannounced changes to pay schedules.
Since you bring it up, however, the cited compensation package falls well below Cook County’s
approximately $54,986 median earnings for college-educated individuals in 2017 and does not
reflect local cost of living, including food and housing expenses. Significant numbers of graduate
workers reported being food-insecure in 2018; moreover, with Hyde Park rents topping $1400
on average, graduate workers earning a $30,000 stipend would have to spend 56% of their
annual income on housing.
As for healthcare, though “premiums” may be “fully paid,” graduate workers have long
maintained the inadequacy of the benefits themselves. The University’s “customer satisfaction
surveys,” conducted in 2018, apparently did not ask about healthcare. GSU’s own survey found
that 66.4% of respondents lacked dental and 78.4% vision insurance. As alumni, we expect
better from a university that compensates its president to the tune of $1.6 million per year.
At the University of Chicago, the process of “unionization” is a fait accompli. Today, GSU seeks
not to unionize, but to receive recognition from the University administration. T hat’s why the
signs around campus all say BARGAIN NOW, not UNION NOW.
Furthermore, many local and peer institutions — including UIC, NYU, Harvard, and Columbia
— have formally recognized their graduate worker unions without incurring the dire
consequences you predict. Faculty at those institutions do not report that the unions interfere
with their relationship with graduate students. Peer-reviewed research, such as this 2013 article,
has found that “potential harm to faculty-student relationships and academic freedom should not
continue to serve as bases for the denial of collective bargaining rights to graduate student
employees.”
Both anecdotal and empirical evidence makes plain that any “alterations” proceeding from union
recognition would benefit “graduate education.” We are disappointed with the University’s
disingenuous conflation of the educational and material conditions of its graduate workers.
“[W]e believe strongly that doctoral education is most impactful when faculty work
directly with students, without a third party mediating and defining those relationships.”
There is already a third party mediating this relationship: the University administration, which
employs both faculty and graduate workers. Grads do not currently negotiate with faculty over
the material conditions of their work such as pay, health insurance, childcare, and office space.
These issues fall squarely within the purview of the administration. Allowing graduate workers to
negotiate workplace matters with the administration — not the faculty — through a union can
only improve doctoral education by removing material obstacles to academic success.
Yes, but only because the University refuses to recognize it. According to the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), federal law allows employees to “persuade an employer to voluntarily
recognize a union after showing majority support by signed authorization cards or other means.
These agreements are made outside the NLRB process.”
Because graduate workers cannot reasonably expect favorable rulings from a Trump-controlled
NLRB, many prospective unions have withdrawn formal petitions to the agency and focused on
voluntary recognition efforts instead. It is this alternative path that GSU is asking you to honor.
In many other circumstances, the University maintains policies beyond its bare minimum legal
obligation to further its values of rigorous discourse and education. The University has the right
and ability to voluntarily recognize a graduate worker union and is deliberately choosing not to.
“We support the right to free expression, but the actions of protestors cannot jeopardize
undergraduate and master’s students’ education.”
Again: if GSU’s industrial action has jeopardized undergraduate students’ education, that means
they perform essential labor on behalf of the University and should be classified as workers.
In keeping with the University’s unwavering commitment to free speech, we as alumni are taking
this opportunity to inform you of our strong support for GSU and their right to be acknowledged
as a bargaining entity. Aware that our dollars likely speak louder than our words, we pledge to
withhold donations to the University until it recognizes GSU.
Sincerely,