As we have repeatedly stated (perhaps you should come out to a few meetings, Brooks), this strike is NOT just about wages. If the GEO were to sign the contract today as proposed by the University, not only would our wages be frozen in place for a period of 3 years, the university would also gain the right to revoke graduate student tuition waivers at will (which they have already begun doing for undergraduate TA's not covered under our contract) and also would gain the right enact mandatory furloughs of graduate employees for a period of up to 30 days.

You may be ok with such things (perhaps you are independently wealthy and can afford not having a tuition waiver and losing a month's salary, in which case, more power to you), but I and, as proven by last week's strike authorization vote, hundreds of my colleagues are not. We love this institution just as much as anyone else and do not wish to see harm come to it, there comes a time when one must make a stand and speak out in order to maintain that which one holds dear.

Apparently a doll that spouts bourgeois inanities has been released just in time for the holiday season. It even writes letters to newspapers.

How can the GEO be the virus if it's asking for a living wage for every worker on campus? What is parasitic about that? Doesn't asking people to do more work for less money sound more diseased to any sensible person?

Who has power at the bargaining table? The university administration. What's coercive? The administration's proposal to the GEO Bargaining Team last Wednesday requesting a furlough clause in the contract. Why is this coercive? TAs don't "clock in" MF 9-5 like an admin might, so they can't "furlough" themselves for a day and just not do work. They teach classes, lead discussions, and have to attend to all of the paperwork connected to those. So what's coercive? The university says "furlough", but for TAs it actually means "8% pay cut for the same work" [or else be a worse/bad TA to your students - which none of us want to do].

I'm not going to respond to much of what you say here because it is so vague, paranoid, highly critical, and at the same time naively trusting to think "the market rate" - and the market's blind forces I guess?- work out salary and compensation rates that are fair for the field/discipline anyone is in.

There are people - administrators, managers - active agents who set salaries. The Graduate Employee Union is here to say: everyone should be at the table to talk about salary and compensation rates.

You say I'm a member of an organization that's nothing but a virus that has outlived its use? That insults me and disrespects the hard volunteer labor that every active GEO member has put toward asking the university for a living wage (WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR THE AMOUNT THE UNIVERSITY GRAD COLLEGE SETS AS NEEDED FOR A GRADUATE STUDENT TO LIVE HERE). Can you tell I'm irritated?

I ask you again - how can the GEO be the virus if it's asking for a living wage for every worker on campus?

... more workers making shit salary would be a good thing? And unions are bad? I'm just making sure I understand this. The assertion, also, is that the GEO is the real group in power at UIUC?

When I was a grad student I thought my assistant salary was awesome. Of course, I also had only myself to worry about, didn't care about my health care, and didn't own a car. While I concur that economically, this is a shitty time to be asking for more benefits and better wages, I can't imagine what I'd've thought of my salary and waiver (which doesn't equate to completely free school, despite what most seem to think) had I been responsible, or worse, responsible for other people.

Now, do I think that some people are doing fine with their parents paying for school and their current housing and don't need this equity? Of course. Do I think that some GEO members are hoping to get better pay while making a career off of going to school as they work on their 4th English degree? Oh, definitely, but you can't blame them for the way institutions have decided to build themselves to depend on TAs instead of making more faculty. There will always be persons with nefarious intent hiding within a group striving for positive change, but I think it simultaneously naive and desensitized to truly believe that those who don't need it aren't there because they care about their peers who do.

Dear Brooks Schaffer:

You have the freedom to support or not support the GEO. I have no dispute with that. I’m glad you’ve invoked an economic argument here because I personally find ethical and principled arguments rather flimsy. But if you want to argue on purely economic grounds, dazzling us with jargon still doesn’t give your argument a prayer. TAs/Gas are selling a (very cheap) commodity: their teaching expertise in a given subject. In a truly free market, the seller has the right to *negotiate* his/her price with the buyer (even though, in this case, the seller/GEO is only trying to protect what it already has). Your arguments about “market rates” conveniently provide no facts: I urge you to compare UIUC TA/GA salaries to other Big Ten Universities, then you may talk about going market rates. To purposely misname an expression of basic rights within a free market system “coercion” is, ultimately, anti-capitalist, anti-free market, and anti-American.

Sincerely, John Claborn

It sounds like someone is just upset that they could not get a TAing position. They hire the number of TA's based on the number of classes that they need them to work, so your argument does not make complete sense.

You also argue contradictory points, first that having a union which works for higher pay will damage our school's reputation through a strike and then you also say that it will be good if our TA's should leave to other schools because of the low pay to reach equilibrium . You forget to take into account that many top graduate students may attend other schools if they are unable to make a living wage through serving as TAs and GAs thus lowering the quality and reputation of our school much more than any strike could.

I believe that in addition to unions being market obstructions, so too are PhD thesis committees. In the end, skill is all that matters. Smart, resourceful people should be able to be professors and apply for grants regardless of their so-called "degrees". The marketplace should easily cull the herd, by dismissing those that do not measure up to the rest of the ivory tower elites.

In the end, graduate students are paid what they deserve, and not a penny less or more. If they really were worth anything they would have been maximizing their money/time parameter already and working for a For-Profit Company, perhaps in the insurance or banking sectors of the economy.

Hi Mr. Brooks Schaffer.

I looked you up on Facebook. Apparently you hunt deer, you're a fan of Victoria's Secret PINK, and you belong to the facebook groups "Nascar" and "Southern and Proud of it," which has the confederate flag as its picture.

How cute.

I'm sure other people will have some excellent points about how flawed your argument is. I just wanted to make you feel insecure. Have a great day.

--The Internet

The letter had to be edited to satisfy the DI's length restriction. Below is the full version:

The repeated threat of a strike by the GEO is unnecessary coercion against the university that jeopardizes the quality of education for all students and could further erode the reputation of this institution.

The argument can be made that unions may provide useful services to an economy in its industrialization infancy to prevent harsh treatment of the labor force and to increase the supply of labor capital by providing training. However, once the economy matures, unions have outlived their usefulness and are viruses that only serve to line the pockets of those in power and weaken the industries they infect.

The GEO cites increases in health coverage, minimum salaries, and annual raises as examples of its usefulness. These are all great talking points for a booth set up at graduate student orientation to convince people to support the cause, but the GEO literature fails to mention the costs that we all incur in the long run that far outweigh these benefits. When labor achieves market power, they are free to drive the cost of labor above the market rate through coercion (e.g. the threat of a strike). The benefits come to those people who are already in the industry (e.g. students). Those who benefit carry political clout because they are able to make their voices heard.

For the people who actually bear the costs, it is more difficult to garner political sympathy because they may not even know they have been harmed. These are the people who will not get assistantships or funding because the GEO has made it more expensive to fund each person. If the GEO had not existed and wages stayed at the market rates, more students could be funded for the same cost.

There is no better example of the destructive power of unions than the American automobile industry. I do not presume to hypothesize that unions alone brought two of the three the American carmakers to bankruptcy, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that they did not play a substantial role. It is very difficult to maintain a comparative advantage when, by the United Autoworkers Union’s own estimation, companies have to pay union employees 38.7% more than their non-union counterparts (http://www.uaw.org/facts/09/unionadvantage0309.pdf).

Without the GEO, the university would pay graduate employees the market rate for the field of study in which they were enrolled. If they paid below the market rate for that field of study, potential students would choose to enroll in another university, which in turn would force the university to raise the wage (over the long-run). There may be greater disparities in income across different fields of study, but this is simply the market’s way of assigning priorities to those disciplines that offer the greatest potential for growth and advancement of our economy and society.

In closing, a strike would only put the quality of education at risk for all current students, undergraduate as well as graduate, and further damage the reputation of this great institution. Please do not support the GEO’s attempt to bully the university and inflate the union coffers.

We're not talking about overcharging for barrels oil. We're talking about a highly trained labor force that makes LESS than comparable laborers at other Big Ten schools.

This doesn't even mention that the GEO wants to protect its members in several ways that are non-monetary to make sure that grads are fairly represented, from workplace harassment cases to bargaining in general.

We're talking about people here, not commodities. It's not about a "market rate," it's about making sure workers at U of I who provide highly skilled labor make at least enough money to make cost of living. We're talking about people here, and those people need workplace rights and fair pay.

HA! Is this what they teach you in Agricultural and Consumer Economics? All GEO members are VOLUNTEERS, no one gets rich off being a grad student or least of all off volunteering for the GEO. With the job market the way it is for PhDs, we are MUCH better served by creating fewer PhDs and paying people a living wage along the way than by creating gobs of PhDs, each one of whom is sitting on massive student loan debt, and then can't find a job in their field.

Oh, by the way, competing institutions already pay more than Illinois, but the admin is funneling off money here to line THEIR pockets, so how does that work into your model? What a load of crap.

Oh, and by the way, salary increases since the GEO started organizing have far outpaced dues. In other words, the GEO is a fantastic investment for graduate employees.

Hitler's autobiography/manifesto is one of your favorite books. You should keep that stuff to yourself, dude.

Really, I think universities are market obstructions. We're all just wasting our time and our parents' money going to school! Go make profit for the rich and stop trying to "contribute" to "society." Money! Moooonnnneeeeeeeeey! If you're "worthy," you'll get rich. If not, clearly you're "worthless."

There has been much said recently about allowing market forces determine the stipend size and rate for Graduate and Teaching Assistants here at the University as a way to counteract GEO “rabble-rousing” and “coercion.” I only wanted to remind readers that such market forces are the same ones which pushed consumers to buy houses that they could not afford. They are the same forces created companies with so many toxic liabilities that the government had to bail them out. They are also the same forces that have fostered so much corruption in Illinois state government that the legislators are unable to pass any meaningful campaign finance reform. It was also market forces that pushed the university to accept applicants with connections to the rich and powerful in order to assure continued state and donor funding. What most advocates for the free market will not tell you is that markets run on greed and self-interest. There is no invisible hand governing the markets, only different vectors of self-interest. Unfortunately, certain institutions have much more power and influence in this game of greed. Size does matter when it comes to the market. It is not free and never has been. By the way, Fellowship stipends for exceptional candidates have actually risen 18% in the last two years which means the University tacitly acknowledges the need for more money to remain competitive. TA’s are actually somewhat outside the competitive part of the market because they are already here and have to work in order to survive. If you ask me, forcing these marginalized workers to accept subsistence wages is coercion in its meanest and most sinister sense.

What do you expect from someone who lists *Mein Kampf* as a favorite book on his facebook profile????

A GEO contract is about much more than just a "market rate" adjustment. It is about: Protection from discrimination, furlough, payment in-kind, etc. Protection to grieve, adequate health care including childcare and parental leave, etc. GEO has been negotiating with the university since April and only one tentative is on the table so far. It is pretty obvious to us the university is not 'even' interesting in the "market rate" argument you are making in this post. After many work actions, don't you think it is time for GEO to send a stronger message to the university. After all, GEO is simply asking the University for a Fair Protected Contact including the "market rate" adjustment you are arguing in this post.

Interesting to see the GEO countering fair and weighted arguments with Joe McCarthy tactics. These are the people asking you to help them shut down the university. Speak up and get black-listed. To heck with concepts like fairness and democracy and debate when unions are concerned.

Not everyone who is standing up for the GEO is a grad student, you know....

I like eating deer jerky a friend makes from the deer he hunts, Victoria's Secret, racing and sometimes I wish I was from the South where people are generally more considerate, laid-back and appreciative of the simple things in life.

Oh, and I also like the amount of money I receive each month for completing the requirements of the TA and RA positions I have, not to mention the tuition waiver.

I'm definitely NOT wealthy, my family is not wealthy and I worked hard to earn scholarships and hold a job during college because I had to pay for the remaining balance after that. I feel blessed for all I have received, from scholarships as an undergraduate to teaching and research assistantships as a graduate student, and I believe the compensation the University of Illinois has provided me during that time has been excellent. But, I also also believe that everyone should work hard to earn a living and spend less time trying to "get more", whether that be from the University of Illinois, as in this case, or the government. You probably don't agree with that either?

If you think any of the points Brooks has made are "anti-American", maybe you should re-evaluate. Does anyone remember the principles and values this country was founded on?

If that doesn't ring a bell, I hope those of you who are graduate students can at least remember that you CHOSE to continue in a "student lifestyle" over starting a career. If you want "fairness" and "benefits" and just "compensation"... go get a job.

Brooks isn't "upset" for not having a TA/RA position. He has both. And I don't think you're going to make him feel "insecure", but please keep trying. I could always use a good laugh.

"The GEO" didn't post this. One person did. This wasn't a "tactic." It was one dude being kind of creepy.

Mr. Claborn,

My problem with the GEO, is that i do not have the "freedom to support or not support." I am forced to pay 'Fair Share' dues to the GEO. They are automatically withdrawn from my paycheck (as they are of all TA's).

TAs/GAs are selling a commodity and the should be compensated. I have no disagreement with that. The thing that is so conveniently left out of all the debate is the fact that while at the university, graduate students are accumulating human capital for which the university should be fairly compensated. If you do the full accounting, than you MUST include this when examining TA's wages. If you want to argue that TA's are not fairly compensated for their teaching responsibilities, then you should separate the two parts. TA's should fairly compensate the university for the human capital they are accumulating in one contract, and in a separate contract the TA's can negotiate a wage that is fair for their teaching services.

You also assert that "in a truly free market the seller has the right to *negotiate* his/her price with the buyer." When sellers collude in an attempt to achieve market power and influence the market price this is a market failure and must be corrected by government involvement. However unions, who do this very thing routinely, are not stopped because they have generated political clout. The right to collude and artificially inflate market rates is certainly not an "expression of basic rights within a free market system."

You ask me to compare TA/GA salaries with other Big Ten Universities. Why would you choose a sample that only includes unionized graduate labor? To make a fair comparison you must look further than the Big Ten.

Take a look at the definition of coercion maybe brush up on a little economics (I know it can be a little boring sometimes, but I think there are some wonderful Econ TAs that will be able to help you while everyone else is on strike) then let me know if you still think my argument is anti-capitalist, anti-free market and anti-American

Sincerely, Brooks Schaffer Deer Huntin' NASCAR Watchin Southerner

Mr. Claborn,

My problem with the GEO, is that i do not have the "freedom to support or not support." I am forced to pay 'Fair Share' dues to the GEO. They are automatically withdrawn from my paycheck (as they are of all TA's).

TAs/GAs are selling a commodity and the should be compensated. I have no disagreement with that. The thing that is so conveniently left out of all the debate is the fact that while at the university, graduate students are accumulating human capital for which the university should be fairly compensated. If you do the full accounting, than you MUST include this when examining TA's wages. If you want to argue that TA's are not fairly compensated for their teaching responsibilities, then you should separate the two parts. TA's should fairly compensate the university for the human capital they are accumulating in one contract, and in a separate contract the TA's can negotiate a wage that is fair for their teaching services.

You also assert that "in a truly free market the seller has the right to *negotiate* his/her price with the buyer." When sellers collude in an attempt to achieve market power and influence the market price this is a market failure and must be corrected by government involvement. However unions, who do this very thing routinely, are not stopped because they have generated political clout. The right to collude and artificially inflate market rates is certainly not an "expression of basic rights within a free market system."

You ask me to compare TA/GA salaries with other Big Ten Universities. Why would you choose a sample that only includes unionized graduate labor? To make a fair comparison you must look further than the Big Ten.

Take a look at the definition of coercion maybe brush up on a little economics (I know it can be a little boring sometimes, but I think there are some wonderful Econ TAs that will be able to help you while everyone else is on strike) then let me know if you still think my argument is anti-capitalist, anti-free market and anti-American

Sincerely, Brooks Schaffer Deer Huntin' NASCAR Watchin' Southerner

This conversation shouldn’t be about these issues. I’m sorry to see that it has taken this turn and I understand your need to defend your friend. The real concern here should be the content of this letter. I disagree with Brooks largely because he makes uninformed and illogical claims. His general anti-union stance seems to suggest that he approves of an elitist class system which prevents workers from withholding the one thing they have—their labor. His faith in the market is problematic because, at the moment, even hardened capitalists are questioning their previous understanding of how the market operates. If the past 14 months have proven anything, it’s that greed at the *top* can destroy the market it relies upon. This university’s administration has been a runaway train of bad financial decisions in the past several years, and I think it’s time they were held accountable. This strike is one example of that. He also supports a rather simplified idea of educational economics, suggesting that higher education should function like any for-profit industry. But it isn’t one and the administration has lost sight of that, as demonstrated by their priorities. Finally, Brooks claims that a strike will damage the U of I’s reputation, but, honestly, after the clout scandal, it would be hard to do much worse.

Brooks clearly understands economics but I am disheartened by the complete lack of understanding of economics displayed in many of the comments. Perhaps if more people paid attention to their undergrad econ courses, the economy would not be where it is today. To "TA" who thinks that self interest and "the invisible hand" are different things-- please read some Adam Smith in the free time you'll have on account of the strike.