U. opposes pending case of graduate student unionization, issues not as prevalent at the University

The issues leading to unionization are not as prevalent at the University as they are at its peer institutions, Graduate Student Government president Akshay Mehra GS noted in light of the recent amicus brief filed by the University against graduate student unionization.

On Monday, the University, in conjunction with six other Ivy League institutions as well as MIT and Stanford University, jointly filed an amicus brief to the National Labor Relations Board opposing a pending case calling for the unionization of graduate students.

The NLRB is currently considering a case filed by Columbia University student activists who are arguing for graduate students’ right to collectively bargain as employees of the university, according to the brief.

An NLRB ruling in favor of the students would overturn a legal precedent established in a 2004 case where the NLRB determined that graduate students at Brown University are not considered employees. As a direct consequence of the Brown rulings, graduate students conducting research inprivate institutionscurrently do not have federal union protections and lack the right to collectively bargain with their universities.

Whether it be the smaller scale of University’s graduate school, the efficiency of a more centralized rather than departmentalized fund or its infrastructure as a research institution, the University has better addressed many of the issues that have caused dissent at Columbia and other peer institutions, Mehra said.

He noted that the key issues causing unrest generally result from structural issues that directly affect how students are reimbursed and paid.

In an online statement, the Graduate Workers of Columbia, who initiated the petition for graduation student unionization, noted that many graduate students face "precarious funding, late paychecks, unmanageable rent increases, inadequate medical coverage, job and wage insecurity, a lack of transparency in administrative policies, and a lack of professionalism that stems from our labor not being recognized as work."

Mehra explained that sometimes, students at Harvard, Columbia or other institutions can go months without being paid while waiting for their departments to disperse funds, indicating a plausible reason for discontentment with how compensation is addressed by these institutions.

In this regard, Mehra said he believes that the University’s funding system, while imperfect, has allowed students to be "very lucky" in avoiding many of the concerns students at other institutions are facing.

However, he added that the administration’s amicus is "preempting the issue, which is not a good message to send to students."

Instead, he said he believes that such an issue should wait to be discussed in open dialogue when it emerges, rather than be buried before it arises, as the current situation implies.

General Counsel Ramona Romero, who signed the amici on behalf of the University, deferred comment to University Media Relations Specialist Min Pullan.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Pullan explained that the University strongly believes that graduate students are primarily students and not employees.

"We are in full support of the amicus brief, which well articulates the reasons why the NLRB should not reverse its 2004 decision in the Brown University case," she said.

Dean of the Graduate School Sanjeev Kulkarni did not respond to request for comment.

Associate Dean of the Graduate School for Finance and Administration Mary Bechler deferred comment to Pullan.

The brief states that there is no "compelling reason" to overturn the Brown decision.

"Amici believe that reversal or modification of Brown would significantly damage private sector graduate education in this country and will represent an inappropriate intrusion into long protected areas of academic freedom and autonomy," the brief states.

This extends from the concern that collective bargaining will result in "disputes, litigation, and perhaps strikes such as those which have frequently occurred at public universities," which compromises academic freedom at the institutions, according to the brief.

Furthermore, the brief states that teaching done by graduate students is part of their academic experience.

"The frequent comparisons Petitioner and its supporters make to public-sector collective bargaining with graduate assistants is misguided both because the law in in the public sector differs markedly from the NLRA, and the goals and objectives of assistantships in the public sector do not necessarily mirror the educational objectives of such opportunities in the private sector," the brief notes.

According to Mehra, the University is not legally involved in the unionization effort, and so far there have been no student initiatives on campus in support of graduate student unions.

Mehra noted that he "cannot see the same problem happening at Princeton, as it would take a lot of inertia to put the wheels of [dissent] into motion," referring to the dissent at Columbia.

The controversy surrounding unionization will be discussed at the next GSG board meeting, Mehra noted.