The Struggle for Certification “Teaching Fellows” (as they were then called) first began to organize in 1970, when the University Teaching Fellows’ Union (TFU) collected enough signatures to warrant an election by the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). In the same year, Political Science TFs walked out on their discussion sections to protest departmental cuts to TF allocations. In 1971, however, MERC denied the petition and ruled that TFs alone did not constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. While MERC did not offer an opinion on the student/employee distinction, it agreed with the University administration’s argument that even if TFs were employees, they should be part of a unit that included Research and Staff Assistants; no election was conducted. Faced with the prospect of a lengthy court battle, the TFs temporarily abandoned their organizing efforts.

A number of administrative decisions in the summer of 1973 sparked a second organizing drive. Following a student strike to protest a 24% tuition increase and a meeting attended by 500 TAs, Teaching Fellows formed the Organization of Teaching Fellows (OTF) to protest the increase–as well as the loss of TFs’ in-state tuition status, new residency requirements, and no pay increase. OTF, loosely associated with the AAUP, attempted to begin negotiations with president Robben Fleming, but were rebuffed; the Administration would not bargain unless OTF were officially recognized by MERC. Discussions of a possible strike were well underway when the Administration suddenly discovered a $3.75 million budget overflow–and then announced that this surplus would used to grant a sizable pay increase for Teaching Fellows. TFs subsequently failed to authorize a strike, but continued their organizing efforts. They joined Research and Staff Assistants to form the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO), and demanded recognition as the sole bargaining agent for all Graduate Student Assistants (by this time, the Administration was referring to TFs as “Teaching Assistants”). This time the Administration agreed to an immediate MERC certification election, and, after an overwhelming vote (807 in favor, 424 against), GEO was officially certified on April 15, 1974.

Strike for a Contract

Negotiations for a first contract began in June 1974 and proceeded slowly; in January 1975 the two parties went into mediation. When this process failed to yield results, GEO offered to go to binding arbitration. The Administration declined. With all avenues of negotiation exhausted, the Union membership voted to strike (689 in favor, 193 against) at the beginning of the cold month of February 1975. Hundreds of GEO members began picketing University buildings early on the morning of February 11, the start of what was to become a month-long strike. More than 50% of undergraduates boycotted classes and joined picket lines in the early days of the strike. Michigan’s Teamster locals recognized the strike and instructed their members not to drive trucks through picket lines. While agreements on non-discrimination and affirmative action were finalized in the first week of the strike, the important issues of economics, agency shop, and the right to grieve the size of appointment fractions for Winter term 1974 took longer. After a hearing before a MERC-appointed fact-finder and an extra day of intensive picketing to ensure no reprisals for strike activity, the GEO membership overwhelmingly ratified the proposed contract (622 in favor, 12 against) and the strike ended. The contract was signed and took effect on March 14, 1975.

The Loss of the Research Assistants

After much thought and debate the Union membership voted to affiliate with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and preparations for bargaining a second contract commenced. Negotiations began in March 1976, but the Union suffered from internal problems. A combination of organizational weakness, poor communication, and internal disagreements inhibited the Union’s ability to present a unified mobilized front. A strike vote, initiated when other avenues of negotiation were exhausted, failed. The membership voted to return to the table and basically agree to the Administration’s proposed contract. This concession would have severely set back both employment security for Research Assistants and affirmative action. However, when GEO’s negotiators returned to the table, willing to make concessions, the Administration refused to sign its own contract. They demanded that GEO drop two pending grievances brought up under the previous contract. As this would have undermined the contractual right to due process, GEO instead filed an unfair labor practice complaint with MERC. In turn, the Administration’s attorney contended that the Administration could not commit an unfair labor practice because GSAs were not really employees and thus were not covered by the rules of collective bargaining. These positions led the Administration and the Union into a long round of court battles. MERC administrative law judge Shlomo Sperka initially ruled in favor of GEO in August 1977, affirming the right of student employees to bargain collectively. While the decision forced the Administration to recognize Teaching and Staff Assistants as employees, it excluded Research Assistants from the bargaining unit on the grounds that their work was “directly related to educational goals”; they were students, not workers. A long series of appeals ensued, ending in November 1981. After losing their last appeal, the Administration finally signed the 1976 contract on November 23, 1981.

Gaining Ground: 1983-1993

GEO made significant headway in contracts signed in 1983 and 1985, convincing the Administration to discuss tuition and salary as part of the same package and to require departments to offer TA training. GEO gained formal recognition of Affirmative Action, extended the period of eligibility for dental coverage, and won significant raises in both salary and tuition waivers. In 1986, bargaining was more difficult; after relatively cordial negotiations for the previous contract, the Administration team stalled, delayed, and dragged their feet for months in an effort to wear the Union down (these tactics seemed to be the result of a turnover in the Administration, the hiring of James Duderstadt, who was the former Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs, and his new economic priorities). After mediation with a State-appointed mediator–and rallies outside of the Fleming Building–the Union and the Administration reached an agreement. A short few months after that contract was settled, GEO was back at the table trying to hammer out a contract for 1987-89. Negotiations were greatly complicated by the new tax bill passed by Congress, which lowered tax rates for high-income brackets but compensated with a great increase in taxes for students receiving tuition waivers. GEO estimated that if there were no change in salary, most TAs stood to lose between $800 and $1500 per year. The Administration offered little: a 3% or 4% raise, and no change in the tuition waiver. The Union was also interested in establishing paid TA training and limiting class size. As the negotiations ground on into 1987, both sides made some concessions, but the Administration’s best offers still left TAs facing deep cuts in pay. Membership involvement increased through several mass actions, including informational pickets and a large rally on April 1. These events seemed to have some effect on the Administration, as their bargaining offers improved immediately after each action, but its position at the beginning of April was still unacceptable. MERC scheduled mediation between the Administration and the Union for April 8. A strike vote authorized the steering committee to call a strike the day after, if necessary. Faced with this prospect in mediation, Administration negotiators gave in almost immediately, offering a 22% increase in tuition waiver–the largest increase in spending on TAs in its history. Unfortunately, because of the large tax increase, this resulted only in a slight increase in net income for TAs.

Mixed results marked the negotiations for the 1989-91 contract. The Administration surprised GEO by refusing to discuss job security or class size limits but offering a large salary increase. The bargaining team was uncertain about what to do; many TAs had indicated that job security was an important issue, but attendance at Union meetings and rallies had been low. The Union settled for a 9% salary increase and improvements in dental benefits. Negotiations lasted a mere six weeks.

Negotiations for the 1991-93 contract were again prolonged and difficult. The Administration was reluctant to make any significant changes and bargaining lasted for eight months. The membership was significantly interested and mobilized, voting for and participating in the first job actions since the 1975 strike (work stoppages on April 4 and from April 17-19, 1991). Most significantly, GEO won partial tuition waivers for TAs with low employment assignments.

1993: The Fight for Health Care

Bargaining for the 1993-1996 contract took, once again, several months and was notable for a stern intransigence on the part of the Administration. GEO proposed a healthy salary increase of 15.7% as the center of a campaign for a livable wage for TA’s. (At the time, the average TA took home $729/month while the University Office of Financial Aid calculated graduate student living expenses at $829/month; GEO’s proposal would have closed that $110 gap exactly.) GEO also made proposals for Domestic Partner health coverage, pay for TA training, childcare funding, and class size. The Administration responded by pleading poverty and offering a below-inflation salary increase and a new, but significantly weaker benefits package.

For some time, many graduate students had been turning down prestigious fellowships (which came with little or no health insurance), and choosing, instead, to teach under a union contract that guaranteed good benefits. In an attempt to improve the health benefits of fellowships, the Administration developed a new benefit plan, “GradCare.” However, the Administration wanted to pay for GradCare by eliminating TAs’’ other benefits options and forcing them all oto GradCare, which would have also substantially increased out-of-pocket medical costs for TAs. Not only would GradCare have provided worse coverage, but it would have also had serious political implications. By switching TAs from the benefit package they share with faculty to a package “designed for students,” the Administration would have endangered the distinction between the employment of graduate students as teachers and their status as students–a distinction crucial for the legal recognition and continued existence of the Union. Membership mobilization against this effective cut in benefits was robust and adamant. GEO held rallies, informational pickets and “GEO Pharmacies” (”The Union is in”) to build support. An 87% “yes” vote authorized the Steering Committee to call a strike if necessary. Membership support for other issues was less strong, however, and the Union settled for a salary increase and a ceiling on an $80 registration fee. GEO now has a three-year contract, with a 3% raise in each year.

More recently, GEO’s organizing efforts have centered on moving GEO from a “service model” union–in which the membership sees the Union as something that works for them when they have problems and in which they play no great part–to an “organizing model,” in which the membership plays a consistently active role in determining the Union’s direction and priorities. A three-year contract (the Union has traditionally signed two-year contracts) has given GEO the time to build a more cohesive and active membership. In that interim period, GEO addressed the quality of TA training and worked to fight discrimination, both by attempting to increase the number of TAs of Color and by addressing various forms of racism that TAs of Color face in the classroom.

Organizing for Strength: 1994-1996

Academic year 1994-1995 saw the most effective pre-contract organizing drive since the 1975 strike. We used an interview-like organizing tool as the core of our effort to garner the thoughts, opinions, and desires of several hundred members. In February, approximately 130 members met to discuss what issues should be incorporated into our bargaining platform–areas of discussion were Wages & Workload; Hiring Process, Job Security & Classification; TAs of Color; Academic Excellence; and Benefits, Waivers & Fees. The resulting bargaining platform was ratified by a March membership meeting with more than 250 members in attendance.

In the 1996 contract, members wanted not just better pay, but other changes such as fair treatment for International GSIs and same-sex domestic partners, opportunities for students of color to teach, and more control over training and hiring. Because of our organizing strength, we were able to make progress on these issues at the bargaining table. But it was only when we were able to threaten and carry out a two-day walkout that the Administration agreed to offer compensation for IGSI summer training. Members talked to faculty and convinced many of them to cancel their classes; they spoke with undergraduates and convinced many of them not to attend classes; and most importantly members talked to each other about how important the issues were to them, and why we needed to stand together and demonstrate to the Administration and the university community that the treatment of any of our members is an issue for all of our members. (see also “A Powerful Graduate Student Union”, via ZMagazine

1999

2003

What’s Next for GEO

Our expectations for ourselves and for our union have risen significantly. We have the strongest contract for graduate employees in the entire country; no other graduate employees have contractually guaranteed tuition waivers, health benefits and wages for all hours worked. However, the Administration is constantly seeking to freeze or reduce our benefits, just as it did during the 1993 round of negotiations. And in the very next round of negotiations (1995), the Administration announced that it planned to propose changes in our health benefits. Yet due to the show of strength from our membership, the Administration avoided even raising this proposal. While by earlier standards this would be considered a victory, we now realize that merely preserving the benefits we have won in the past fails to live up to our legacy. Many members are still disappointed that we did not win all 37 of our contract proposals in our last contract, particularly the one that would have brought the wage for a standard appointment up to the level of a livable wage.

This kind of disappointment should make us especially effective and using our organizing strength during this upcoming round of negotiations. This year, we will enter negotiations with 19 contract proposals, which will allow us remain were focused both at the negotiation table and the new work organizing. These contract proposals were a result of meetings in February and March, when we “brainstormed” and discussed possibilities. Throughout the summer, we have been researching and honing our proposals.