Graduate union expresses grievances with university

Graduate union expresses grievances with university

Strike vote to be held Feb.29 if chancellor refuses to recognize
student employees

By Michael Angell

Daily Bruin Contributor

In their continuing bid for recognition from UCLA, the Student
Association of Graduate Employees met last week to discuss its
latest greivances with the university and vote on possible labor
actions – which may include a strike if their demands are not
met.

Approximately 150 graduate union (SAGE) members turned out for
the meeting. to discuss their strategies for the upcoming year.
Turnout was larger than it is at most meetings, lead organizer Mike
Miller said, because important issues are at stake.

"The membership did decide by a clear majority to take a strike
authorization vote on Feb. 29 if Chancellor (Charles) Young does
not respond to a letter requesting collective bargaining," Miller
said.

At the meeting, union members filled out a contract survey which
includes their latest demands. The proposed contract will now be
sent to Young. If he does not respond by Feb. 22, the union plans
to call a strike vote.

Regardless of the organization’s plans, UCLA still refuses to
recognize the union as a legitimate collective bargaining unit for
academic student employees, said UCLA spokeswoman Linda
Steiner-Lee.

"Nothing has changed on the university’s position on SAGE,"
Steiner-Lee said.

Nor has the union changed its confrontational tactics with the
university. One member of the executive board believes that athough
many of the union’s members are new, they are just as adamant about
gaining recognition.

"I’m very surprised by the results of the (strike authorization)
vote," Sonja Gedeon, a member of the union’s executive board. "The
decision to take a strike authorization vote by the new members
really made me proud to be a part of SAGE."

The union also discussed a possible second strike in fall 1996,
which may involve other UC campuses. Several other academic student
unions throughout California are also seeking recognition. Chris
Thinnes, the union’s president, said that the unions may work
together on a systemwide strike.

"Each union of academic student employees at each UC campus is
now working in concert," Thinnes said. "Any action that we take
will be coordinated with other unions."

Despite the union’s repeated requests for recognition, the UCLA
administration’ s position is that students working as research
assistants, teaching assistants, readers and tutors are apprentices
learning a profession, not employees. Administrators believe
collective bargaining would be detrimental to the mentor/apprentice
relationship.

UCLA officials cite a 1989 decision by the Public Employee
Relations Board in a case involving a graduate student union at
Berkeley. In that case, the board ruled that "collective bargaining
would emphasize economics … at the expense of educational
goals."

The decision stated that "the student-teacher relationship is
not at all analogous to the employee-employer relationship. The
former is predicated upon a mutual interest in the advance ment of
the students’ education and is thus academic in nature. The latter
is largely predicated upon conflicting interest of the employer to
minimize cost and the employee to maximize wages and is thus
economic in nature."

The final word on the legality of the union is now in the hands
of administrative law Judge James Tamm. Hearings on the union have
been concluded, and the judge is expected to hand down a decision
in July.

Another new demand of the union is e-mail privacy. This issue
came to light during the Public Employee Relations Board hearings,
when university lawyers presented two members of the union with
e-mail they had sent to other graduate students regarding union
business.

In one instance, a graduate student solicited another student to
join the union via e-mail. In the other instance, a union shop
steward asked members to speak to UCLA administrators.

Margo Feinberg, attorney for the union, claims that UCLA
improperly used the students’ e-mail to show that the union had
intimidated students into joining. She went on to add that
employees use their workplaces all the time to organize unions.

"On company premises, there’s always union business being
discussed," Feinberg said. "Workplaces usually have union bulletin
boards."

Feinberg claims that this case has specific ramifications
because it dealt with e-mail.

"The issue here is that this info was being communicated
privately, and the university intercepted it and tried to discredit
the senders," she said. "The information highway has opened many
legal questions that have yet to be resolved."Comments to
[email protected]