Graduate Teaching Fellows are both students and employees, but when it comes time to decide which they are first, it can be difficult to discern a boundary. On Friday the University showed it can consider them either one.
The Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation met with representatives of the University administration Friday in the third of seven bargaining sessions to determine provisions for the next biennium’s GTF contract. This particular session involved the administration responding to the GTFF’s economic proposals: fee remissions, wages, timely pay and health care.
GTFF President Mark Harmon, a fourth-year graduate student in the sociology department, said although the GTFF has a “decent working relationship” with the administration, that doesn’t necessarily translate into successful negotiations.
“It’s like any other management-employee situation,” said Harmon. “They aren’t looking to give us anything. They want to appear as if they’re giving you something, like they’re being generous by giving us those things. But in reality we don’t get anything unless we make a request for those things. There’s nothing compelling to administration to say ‘yes’ to any proposition we give them, other than us showing that we’re serious about it.”
The GTFF here is one of the most organized in the nation, representing more than 1,300 GTFs and research assistants at the University.
The biggest issue the GTFF is pushing this year is a 100 percent fee remission. At the bargaining session Friday, GTFs wore buttons with, to name a few, “Flog all Fees,” “Filet all fees,” and “Flip-Off all Fees,” printed on them. Despite the efforts, Associate Vice President of Human Resources Linda King informed the GTFF the administration had essentially rejected that proposal, and counter-proposed to raise fees $2 per GTF. King said the graduate students were exempt from all fees except programmatic resource fees, or PRFs – those based on the major or program a student is enrolled in – and the incidental fee, which resulted in the small increase.
“They kind of cherry-picked which ones they wanted to cover and which ones they didn’t want to cover,” Harmon said. “The GTFs don’t think we should be taxed to work for the University. The University gets really cheap labor from the GTFs.”
In a survey conducted at the beginning of the academic year, GTFs overwhelmingly reported fees as the primary point of concern, which is why the GTFF is so focused on fee remission.
“We came to the University saying that from the beginning,” Harmon said. “Their counter-proposal was to increase fees. That makes us kind of feel like they’re not listening.”
By asking GTFs to pay the incidental fee and PRFs, the administration subjected them to student fees and therefore considered them students rather than employees. But when it came to wage increases – the GTFF asked for a 6 percent increase in 2008, followed by a 4 percent increase in 2009 – the administration rejected the proposal in favor of a 4 and 4 increase, “largely consistent” with pay increases for other employee organizations, King said. The administration made the same proposal two years ago.
That explanation contradicted the one the administration gave for the fee remission rejection, Harmon said.
“When it came to fees they switched and said, ‘You no longer are workers; you’re students and subject to student fees,’” he said. “They failed to mention that no other employee pays any kind of fee to work at the University.” Harmon said the GTFF will definitely counter the administration’s fee and wage proposals at the next bargaining session, but they have yet to decide what those counter-proposals will entail.
The wage increase proposal is also complicated because departments that already pay GTFs more than the minimum salary would not be required to give them the raise, which could lower the number of GTFs who would benefit from the increase. The GTFF proposal did not include that provision.
Another proposal the GTFF had made dealt with timely pay. More than 100 GTFs were paid up to more than a month late last fall, Harmon said. At the bargaining session, one administrator said late pay is a widespread problem within the University, affecting not only grad students. King said they would “endeavor” to resolve the issue, but didn’t say how or when. The GTFF had proposed a $100 payment if the monthly paycheck didn’t come in on time, plus an additional $100 every five days until the GTF received payment.
Finally, the administration responded to a child care proposal. The GTFF had requested 600 $100 grants to assist GTFs with children. The GTFF has needed a child care resolution for more than seven years, Harmon said. When the University sold Westmoreland Apartments two years ago, it only exacerbated the problem, he said.
The administration proposed combining child care and the health plan, with “almost identical language” to the existing contract, King said, with the additional commitment of $100 to GTFs with a family.
Dave Cecil, a member of the GTFF, said the GTFF appreciates the administration’s creativity with the child care issue, but anticipates problems with the complex health care article.
The GTFF will give its counter-proposals at the next bargaining session Feb. 29. On Feb. 22, the administration will respond to the GTFF’s non-economic proposals, which address office space, faculty training and vacation time.
[email protected]