OPINION & EDITORIAL
Frustration with Teaching Assistants Association grows
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Darryn Beckstrom:
- Ignorance, irresponsibility doom broken segregated fee system (November 15, 2005)
- State should endorse monotheism (November 22, 2005)
- Neutrality violations rampant in SSFC (December 14, 2005)
- Acidic justice (June 30, 2005)
- New course for Madison in 2006 (January 15, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Finally. (November 21, 2005)
- Call for law (April 29, 2004)
- Checkmate? (April 15, 2004)
- Endgame (September 14, 2005)
- Finding the dotted line (November 2, 2005)
by Darryn Beckstrom
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
When you're a member of an organization, you enjoy such benefits as the ability to participate — unless that organization is the Teaching Assistants Association.
Recently, the TAA decided to hold an election to increase the dues rate its members pay. In typical fashion, the union seemingly forgot to inform quite a few members about the actions of the organization — this writer included.
One of the graduate students in my department enlightened me last week to the TAA's upcoming election. I immediately e-mailed the TAA to inform them that I didn't receive a ballot or information about the election. I have yet to receive a response.
TAA Fair Share dues are taken out of my paycheck every month — granting myself membership in the union. And with this membership, I have the right to participate in the decisions of the union through voting. The organization's constitution guarantees its members "fair and democratic elections at all levels of the Association." This includes "due notice" of such elections.
So the question remains: where is my notice and ballot?
These questionable procedures aside, the dues rate increase proposed by the TAA is nothing more than a feeble attempt of the organization to plead for graduate students' last dime. Indeed, it seems that I'm not the only teaching assistant frustrated with the union.
Last week, a Wisconsin State Journal article highlighted the fact that many graduate students are disgruntled with the union and its handling of the contract negotiations. Many of these students are seeking partial reimbursement of their dues from the TAA.
Given the dissatisfaction many graduate students have with the union, an important question arises: why must teaching assistants face the possibility of paying an increase in dues when the TAA can't efficiently use the income they currently receive from these students?
The TAA states that "paying union dues is one of the best investments you'll ever make."
I beg to differ.
UW teaching assistants have been working for 28 months without a contract. Today will be the first collective bargaining meeting between the TAA and state negotiators since March. And I expect nothing to be accomplished.
The TAA gives several substandard justifications for requesting a dues rate increase from its members. To begin with, the TAA's affiliation with other state unions costs the organization a significant amount of money — almost half of their budget. But the TAA has nothing to show for their marriage with these unions except for stalled contract negotiations.
The union also cites the hiring of a third staff person three years ago to help with "contract enforcement" and "contract rights education" as a reason for the proposed dues increase. Strangely enough, three years is also the amount of time the union has been in contract negotiations with the state. I suspect that now might be a good time to question the effectiveness of this addition to the TAA staff.
Ironically, the TAA believes that graduate students can afford an increase in union dues. Yet the organization tells the states' collective bargainers that we are too poor to pay $11 a month in health care premiums.
Let me focus for a minute on the statistics the TAA doesn't like to share with its members.
The TAA's most recent offer to the state asked for a "status quo" with no increases in wages and free health care. Unfortunately, this makes graduate students financially worse off. Currently, an inexperienced TA with the average nine-month appointment makes $8,784. A seven percent increase previously offered by the state would increase the salary by $616. However, the TAA was willing to forgo this raise to save $99 in health care premiums. As a result, graduate students have been short changed more than $500.
The demands of the TAA to the state demonstrate the union's complete lack of understanding of politics, money, and negotiation. It's time for someone else to negotiate a contract with the state on behalf of the graduate students — without increasing our dues rate.
Darryn Beckstrom (beckstrom@badgerherald.com) is a doctoral student in the department of political science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 2:24am):
Darryn, you are an awful hack.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 8:06am):
Darryn - If you had paid attention to our department's orientation last year when we entered grad school you would realize that every TA gets dues taken from their paycheck - regardless of memebership in the union. This does not make you a member. The University cannot make you join a union - something I think you yourself would have written about. Instead you were required to fill out a card indicating that you wanted to be a union member, and receive voting rights etc. They informed us that it makes sense to be a member since dues are taken out regardless, so most of us are. You, however, I am guessing did not fill out the material to become a member, not wanting to be associated with something as democratic as a union. And so now you are complaining? First get your facts straight, and then give me a break.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 12:14pm):
how much would TAs make if the union did not exist? I'm willing to bet that it would be considerably less than the $8784 you cited. You would also not get any healthcare, except maybe at high premiums if the state was generous. Dues could be much higher, and you would still have a higher net income.
I guess if you don't like it, join the bargaining team.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 2:53pm):
According to an insider at the TAA, Darryn is indeed not a member of the union. She certainly has the right to become one, however, if she would like to vote in such elections in the future. Membership also gets oneself onto such helpful things as the TAA e-mail list, which provides bountiful information about what the union is doing and how members can give input.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 2:53pm):
Ditto, Darren. Get your facts straight. Your dues are mandatory, since you benefit from the union's representation (pay for the service), but your membership in the union is not (first amendment protects your freedom of association, as well as that of union members). If you want a voice in the union, you need to join it.
And if you don't want to pay union dues, well, you don't want that tuition waiver, health coverage, or those wages, either, then, do you?
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 3:27pm):
Darryn, it's easy to sit at your desk and whine and complain about whoever manages to get under your skin on any given day. It's much harder to bargain a contract and to keep members clued in to and involved with what's going on. Don't complicate the work of the dedicated people who are sitting at the bargaining table, coordinating efforts with other labor unions and knocking on office doors to have conversations with TA's and PA's by abusing your position as a journalist.
When you're ready to do something constructive with your frustrations, contact the TAA office. We'd be happy to find you a way that you could actually help to settle this contract.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 3:32pm):
"[E]very TA gets dues taken from their paycheck - regardless of memebership in the union"
Wow, with policies like that, can there ever be "something as democratic as a union"?
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 3:51pm):
"how much would TAs make if the union did not exist?"
The answer: however much their qualifications earn them.
That's how it works in every other non-unionized job. You build your resume, level of skills and qualifications. Then, based on these things, you negotiate a salary, benefits, and work terms. Unions only hold those with superior qualifications down.
As a federal employee who understands what a nuisance unions-- particularly "professional unions"-- create in the workplace, I agree with Darryn 100% on this one.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 4:06pm):
Fair Share Dues do not make you a member which is why they are called Fair Share Dues, members pay Membership Dues. You must sign-up to be a member, this is state law. You didn't find out about the first vote, which decided to only now actually vote on the dues increase (that is correct, we vote twice to ensure a democratic process, the second round ends Friday) because only members can vote and TAA email goes to members, as no one wants unsolicited email. So become a member and participate, and bring all your expertise in politics, money and negotiation, and you will at least find out that you are in fact working under a contract right now, one negotiated by the TAA.
Matt Steigman
Tony Barnes (November 1, 2005 @ 4:13pm):
Beyond being wildly misinformed about past bargaining positions and strategy, Ms. Beckstrom also apparently lacks journalistic integrity. Why? Because she is misrepresenting herself as a TAA member. By not signing a union card, she subsequently loses any ability to democratically change the union. You pay dues because you are protected and receive the benefits of a contract that the bargaining team has volunteered hours of their own personal time in securing. Any contract the TAA has ever accepted or rejected has come before the membership for vote. Also, to suggest that the contract enforcement staff person has anything to do with negotiations is absurd. It's not just absurd, it senseless. This staff person's job entails taking care of the hundreds of grievances filed each year. It has nothing to do with bargaining. It is unecessary to defend the TAA's position on the dues increase or any bargaining positions, as it is clear that the author has failed to do any research whatsoever. So please, for the sake of the readership and of the well-being of the university community as a whole, research the issues (and the your own status relative to the TAA) before making an idealistically biased report.
Mark Supanich (November 1, 2005 @ 5:50pm):
As an associate member of the TAA, I'd like to point out a major problem in Ms. Beckstrom's article. Just because a graduate student is a TA and has money taken out of their pay check does not mean they are a 'member' of the union. To be a member, you must be a TA, a PA, or, like myself, be an RA and you must fill out a membership card, available from the TAA or online. If you're an RA like myself, who isn't covered by the collectively bargained rights fought for by the TAA, then you can still be a member by paying some dues.
Apparently, Ms. Beckstrom never filled out a membership card. This is patently obvious from the fact that she identifies that the money taken out of her paycheck are 'fair share' dues. These are the dues paid by TAs and PAs who are covered by and benefit from the collectively bargained rights, but who have not filled out a membership card and are therefore not eligible to vote on TAA union issues. Remedying this situation is as simple as obtaining a membership card and filling it out. The amount of money taken from a TA's or PA's paycheck does not change depending on whether or not (s)he has filled out a membership card.
As a proud member of the TAA, I wish that Ms. Beckstrom had gotten her facts straight or allowed a member of the TAA staff or board to address her concerns before incorrectly criticizing a documented part of the TAA constitution that she obviously does not understand.
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 5:53pm):
Well, I guess journalistic integrity and fact-checking are dead arts at The Badger Herald! Congratulations on the great publication...
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 8:30pm):
unions are largely useless vis a vis improving teaching assistant instruction for undergraduates
Kristin Hunt (November 1, 2005 @ 9:09pm):
Besides the whole "union/non-union" membership thing, the main inaccuracy with this article is that the TA didn't vote to raise the dues in their meeting, which was announced over email to the membership as a whole, and should also have been announced by department stewards, as it was in mine. They simply voted on whether or not to bring this dues increase to a vote of the full membership, which is done by paper ballot. Those ballots are still available and not due until Friday at 5 pm, so there's still time to vote. What's more, I believe you can still turn in a membership card and be eligible to vote before then, so it's still possible to make your voice heard. It's totally legitimate to ask questions about whether there's been appropriate stewardship of that money, but it's just not the case that every TA doesn't have an opportunity to take part in decision-making processes.
As for your concerns with contract negotiations, since for the most part the folks doing the negotiating are volunteers, and the negotiating process is open to member participation, it might be productive to take part in that work or join the union and start attending meetings and changing the course of the union that way. If you don't feel the negotiators are showing much political know-how, since that's one of your areas of expertise, why not help out? It's a democratic union and there aren't any obstacles to making your voice heard, so if things aren't going the way you want, go to a meeting and change them!
Anonymous (November 1, 2005 @ 9:55pm):
This piece is an embarrasment to this otherwise fine news production
Kristin Hunt (November 2, 2005 @ 8:20am):
You can still vote on the dues increase until Friday at 5 pm, but you'll need to join the union. As to the questions about paying dues regardless of union membership, I've always thought it's like this - some people have a problem with being a member of a union and don't want that "stain" on their record, so the union won't require them to join. However, unlike many unions, the TAA negotiates for all TAs & PAs, not just those who join (and surely you don't think you'd get a better contract from the state without negotiations - it's in the state's interest to pay us as little as possible, after all), so non-members have to help foot the bill for lawyers, committee costs, and administrative staff who help organize this negotiating. It's certainly legitimate to raise questions about how you want the dues money to be spent, but it's not the case that you're not allowed to vote on whether to have a dues increase, since you still are. Contact your department steward or go by the TAA office to join and vote.
On the subject of health care, I believe the difference of opinion you're having with the TAA position is one of short term versus long term, the TAA's position being that in the long term if health care costs continue to rise above the rate of inflation and wages rise below the rate of inflation, health care costs could get unmanageable for TAs in the future. If you disagree, go to a meeting and argue for a change - it's your right.
Anonymous (November 2, 2005 @ 9:18am):
"Teaching Assistant's Association"? Which TA gets the honor of having his/her own association? Christ, Badger Herald...
Anonymous (November 2, 2005 @ 3:59pm):
Darryn: Good column, and I agree. Unions are for suckers! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that it's wrong for 10 year-olds to make shoes! Come ON, people!
Anyway, Bill O'Reilly called to offer you a job today, but I told him you were busy writing a new column about evolution and how it's just a theory, not fact. He was impressed, and will be getting back to you. He'd like you to be his next intern, I guess; remember what happened to that last one, though?
Rebekah Dassion (November 2, 2005 @ 5:37pm):
I would also like to take issue with Ms. Beckstrom's article. While she upbraids the TAA's "lack of understanding of politcs, money and negotiation", she herself ignores facts in an attempt to prove the absurdity of the TAA. Unfortunately, I am not surprised that such an editorial has been published in the Badger Herald, which has made no attempts to hide it's dislike of the TAA, facts be damned. While the editor claims on WSUM that TA's are nothing but graders, who never really teach and just parrot professors, Ms. Beckstrom would sooner beleive that graduate students are incapable of basic mathematics than question her own interpretations. The UW is one of the top twenty universities in the world; yet to read Ms. Beckstrom's take on the TAA, one would think that it's graduate students were halfwits.
To wit: she claims that the TA's have refused to pay $11/ month in health care premiums, a move that could only be described as absurd given that the state was offering a higher raise. First off, Ms. Beckstrom notes that the $616 raise would apply to an inexperienced TA, and right she is, as the state has offered no raises to experienced TA's (ie, the vast majority of graduate students). She also speaks of the $11/month as if it were a fixed amount. It is not, and the state has vigorously denied any attempt to tie premium increases to wages or raises.
That means, just as is already occuring at other schools, the state could raise that $11/month to $100, $200 or more a month - under their offer, they would have no responsibility to make the premiums commesurate with pay.
Of course it would be abusrd to turn down a $616 raise to save $100. But that scenario is immaterial, as it is not the decision facing the TAA. A strawman, if you will. The decision facing the TAA is whether or not it makes sense to accept a contract that would premit the state to raise the health care premiums of graduate students at will, independent of wages. Why would anyone accept a contract that would allow their employer to raise their premiums at whim?
Anonymous (November 29, 2005 @ 7:58pm):
as usual, scathing commentary sustained by glassy-eyed ignorance and partisan hackery.
