I believe everyone should get paid fairly at current market value for their work performed. a universal tuition waver can work during good economic times, if right now it does comes to remove tuition waver. University/union has to analyze the value of work performed by the TA and the value of tuition waver + stipend. So if TA perform work valued at $30k/year and instate tuition valued at $13000, TA should get paid $17k/year. An out state TA has to pay $20k tuition and perform work valued at $30k then he gets paid 10k/year. Lets say a TA did research his work is valued at $50k/year then he should get paid more accordingly. (I used undergrad tuition, adjust accordingly for grad)

Union under my impression always demand higher than market wages/compensation, thus cause problem for the employers. Without TAs work valued, union demand can be higher than reasonable.

On the university side, it will be pretty lame to get rid of tuition waver to save money, it's not a people pleasing way. Just to show how much money we are talking about, if tuition waver is completely gotten rid of for 1000 TAs at 20k each, that's 20million, if tuition waver is gotten rid of TAs has to get compensated another way, so savings might be 5-10 million/1000TA, but I think there are way more TAs though.

You do realize that tuition waivers are expected in graduate school right? The administration is only interested in waiving them to try and tap another potential source of cash so they can line their own pockets with money.

By the way, if UIUC does not continue to offer tuition waivers...graduate students will leave the university or not come here at all. The lack of protection waiver protection harms UIUC, the GEO, and the graduate and undergraduate students alike.

From a money perspective, we teach roughly 23% of all classes but get paid a small fraction of tuition that undergraduates pay (and that is fine with me but you get the point). UIUC profits from us teaching, no matter what they pay us.

On the research side (not that RAs are protected by the GEO thanks to UIUC's divide-and-conquer) for each RA that participates I'm sure that millions of dollars of grant research money are received by the university. Again, UIUC continues to profit from us researching too, no matter what they pay us.

So really, it just comes down to competing with other graduate schools and UIUC's administration's pathetic attempt to take more from students.

Some of the things stated here are plain false and merit immediate correction. Please, DI, fix this paragraph:

"The GEO accepted a roughly three percent increase in wages per year, which amounts to nearly 10 percent over the three year contract period, according to a University press release."

The GEO accepted a 3% increase to the MINIMUM STIPEND each year, but every single graduate employee making above the minimum stipend will receive a 0% increase for the entire three years of the contract.

Please stop spreading the University's lies and correct this immediately.

think of it this way. using your numbers, if in-state undergraduate students pay $13k/year and take 8 classes, that's $1.625k/class. let's say that's a class taught as a standalone by a graduate student, who teaches two such classes at 25 students each. so that grad student brings in $81,250 to the university for that labor. obviously some has to go to facilities and whatnot, and a lot of it goes to administration, but there's a number. that's before we even start talking about the more intangible types of value graduate students provide through doing research that adds to the university's prestige.

Getting rid of waivers doesn't "save" the university any money (unless they have fewer students and therefore fewer faculty). Instead, it is a lost opportunity. They simply cannot make the same money off of graduate students that they would if they treated them like a revenue stream. There is a major difference, so the logic here doesn't work.

Let's be clear: The Interim Chancellor/Provost's email reads "Graduate students with assistantships will not have their tuition waivers reduced while they hold _qualifying_ assistantships, are in good academic standing, and are making proper progress toward graduation in the program in which they began." [emphasis added]

I understand negotiations broke down over securing full (ie. in- OR out-of-state) tuition waivers for 25% appointments. The GEO is asking for the continuation of current practice, which is to guarantee that ALL graduate students in good standing receive a tuition waiver--essentially a full scholarship and not a form of compensation, as the writer below suggests--for 25% through 67% assistantships. No money changes hands for a tuition waiver (unless the student has an outside grant, in which the grant pays the University). What we are proposing would cost the administration nothing. It would also prevent them from using graduate students as sources of revenue. Administration, please stop playing word games.

As a supporter of the GEO demands I am once again disappointed (as I was the last time that they had a work stoppage) with the repeated exaggerations, distortions, and outright lying on its part. 1,000 picketers - what a whopper? Going to march 24/7 - yeah right. The GEO is a shameful organization that is guilty of situational ethics. It is too bad that the hardworking and underpaid TAs don't have better representation.

Don't try to apply reasoning to this strike. It's a GEO power grab plain and simple. They're already getting raises and might be exempt from furloughs as a result of their incessant belly-aching and bully tactics, but the rest of campus doesn't have that, so their "concessions" are just going to exacerbate it for the rest of us when furloughs do come. If I get furloughed I'll be sure to mark one of the days I'm locked out of my building as GEO Day, in honor of all the entitled brats who think they deserve better than the rest of us.

Kelly Pimblott, lead GEO negotiator, announced to the crowd "We control this campus; we decide if they have instruction on this campus," according to the Daily Illini. Sorry Kelly, but the people who control this campus are the people who pay tuition to come here. Without them there is no campus, and you're shutting them out. People pay thousands to come here and you may as well be flushing their money down the toilet every moment you intimidate them from entering the building. You are mistaking disorderly conduct for power.

To end on a good note, many thanks to the Daily Illini. You have covered this with more rigor than even the pros. It was here that I learned that yes, while 92 percent of voting GEO members called for a strike, only a quarter of them even bothered to cast a vote. The News-Gazette didn't get that email. You've taken a lot of heat from the GEO department of propaganda for not repeating their spin, but there are many readers without an axe to grind who appreciate you even more these days.

While your market argument stands to reason, I have to disagree with the idea of subjecting the tuition waivers of graduate assistants to it. This is for a simple reason; if we have to pay tuition in order to go to grad school, then grad school would inevitably cater to a particular demography and leave out others. Should we allow graduate education to be limited to those who can afford it? I really don't think that's right, and I sincerely doubt anybody does. Tuition waivers, despite the enormous amounts that are quoted, are not actual 'costs' to the university- grad students are often completely responsible for their academic efforts, and their work plus studies are just as important to the university as it is to themselves. The waivers are, if anything, missed opportunities, from a business perspectives, at generating revenue. The question is, is it worth exploiting that revenue by sacrificing the provision of education without discrimination based on personal wealth and income? To me, and I hope to everyone, the answer is a resounding NO.

This protest has got to be the most immature showing of herd mentality I have ever seen. Regardless of whether these students deserve more tuition security, the protests are downright childish.

Grad Students:

1. You're literally chanting at brick buildings; there's no one inside who cares about you or how much money you get. LET ALONE anyone who is going to do anything about it. If this is how smart our TAs are, we're better off without you! It's laughable, really.

2. You're disrupting undergraduate classes more than already have. We get it, you want a vacation and this contract negotiation was a good excuse, but shut the hell up already. Unlike you guys, undergrads are still working on their responsibilities. We don't want to here you complain because you made the wrong decision and went to grad school when you couldn't afford it.

So seriously, be quiet and let us learn. You're the bottom of the totem poll, you’re no glory workhorses, and you knew that when you applied to grad school. You're here for your own education, not a taxpayer funded holiday from reality.

I'm a graduate student who completely agrees with you. We're here for a set period of time to receive a degree, then we'll go on to receive much more money in our chosen career path. Staff members will continue to live and work here, raise children and retire on whatever the university decides to pay them. I'm far more concerned about them than I am about my 6 years here on campus. I personally apologize to all staff who feel that the grad students do not respect them. There are some of us working to bring this strike to an end.

Secondly, there is NO chance that the waivers for PhD students will be pulled. The graduate programs, one source of prestige for the university, would collapse. Without decent grad students, professors would leave and recruiting more, good professors would be nearly impossible. The administration may be greedy,but they are not suicidal. PhD students making progress are fine. But it's probably a good idea to stop spending so much time feigning oppression and get to work on some publications.

Let's analyze this by analogy:

If we have to pay tuition in order to attend college, then college would inevitably cater to a particular demography and leave out others. Should we allow a college education to be limited to those who can afford it?

Hmm. Your argument seems to break down pretty quickly, considering we already do that. And not only do we have to be able to pay for OUR share of the education, but we have to subsidize YOURS too, since you don't pay for your education (or you pay very little) and yet you use the university's resources.

Tuition waivers are a HUGE cost to the university community. Instead of having a tenured professor teach a class, I might have a TA or an adjunct. Or, instead, I might have to sit in a class with 500+ people in it, so while I get first-class instruction from a tenured faculty member, he or she doesn't even know my name and any real interaction with him or her is minimal. Are you really expecting me to believe that when I have 400-level classes with 70-400 people in them, and you have graduate courses with 8-15 people, that there is no cost to the university community by granting you a tuition waiver? This is no less than intellectually dishonest and you and your union knows it. There is a tremendous cost to granting so many tuition waivers, and anyone who states otherwise is being disingenuous.

This isn't a question of "discrimination" based on income. The real question is, given the fact that we're in a terrible recession right now, what tools can the university use to control costs and keep its head above water? The state is bankrupt so that's out. Cutting costs within our university may have to happen. We have already laid off some service workers for the university. If you didn't read the DI a few weeks ago, a former laborer wrote a letter explaining about how his job was cut. The furlough discussion is real, and not just for graduate students, but for faculty and staff as well. And, in case you've missed the news, the unemployment rate is over three times what it was just a few short years ago. People in our economy are suffering not just from underemployment, but some from a complete lack of it.

It is sickening to me, a person who has worked hard to be here, to see the GEO's ungratefulness for an exceptional opportunity that most people could only dream of. I am a veteran, and I can definitely tell you that if you think being a TA requires long hours and is tough, I suggest that you work start working 18 hours a day, 6 days a week for less than $2 an hour. And when you think you're going to get a shower and get some sleep after that 18 hour day, I'll wake you up in the middle of the night to stand guard duty over your fellow Soldiers, to protect them in case of fire or worse while they are sleeping. There is no organized labor here. Only merit will help you move up the chain, where increased pay will come with substantially increased responsibility, including for the welfare and health of the Soldiers in your care. All of this for $2 an hour. Care to sign up and take the challenge?

It is amazing to me how ungrateful you all are. You have a great opportunity. Use it wisely. Others have offered you the experience because you have shown academic promise and they believe that you'll become something great if just given the chance. You, in return, supply your labor and accept the low wage. If this isn't good enough, you can leave anytime you like. There's no slavery in this country; every single one of you is free to leave at any time.

It just seems to me that this entire thing suffers from a glorious lack of perspective. It is even more shocking to me when I see GEO members picketing who are older than me. Surely they have lived long enough to see what I've seen--that you could be working a hell of a lot harder, for a hell of a lot less. People do it every day--they're all around you--and they do so happily because every job for them is a stepping stone to a better life.

Right. Because I'm sure the entire reason they might have to cancel your waiver is just so they can vote themselves a huge bonus. Did you ever consider that, perhaps, the reason the University won't contractually obligate itself to those tuition waivers is because it may not be able to perform to those terms?

These are tough times. Nobody wants to see graduate students lose the tuition waivers that they expect and depend on to attend school. The fact of the matter is, though, that they may have to. The administration must do what is necessary to keep the University's proverbial head above water. Some may have to suffer for this. I understand that you don't like it, but this is a fact of life. Deal with it.

"We don't want to here you complain" - Please stop striking and teach this person how to spell.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let's clear some things up. It sounds as if you are also a student which is "laughable, really." The first sentence in your second statement is missing something, maybe like the word "you" and the last sentence of point number two has a grammatical error. I don't think you want to "hear" them complain.

Next, are you even sure what a strike is? These TAs are not being paid during this fiasco. This is no vacation, they are putting a lot at risk for things in which they have strong beliefs. It's a statement they are trying to make, of course people inside the buildings aren't going to be able to help them, but that doesn't mean they don't care.

It doesn't seem like you are going to make it to grad school, so this is something you don't have to worry about. These people love their jobs. If you talk to them, not being with their students is hard, but so is living below poverty, which I know has been straightened out. Also, most students can't afford the expenses when they go to college, but that doesn't mean they can't come. I pay out-of-state tuition, which is a lot. This is a great school and I'm not cutting corners with my education, tuition waivers allow some of the brightest students to earn their education at this institution without having to worry about the massive loans they have waiting for them.

More power to the students who are willing to stand up for their beliefs than cower in a corner and accept what they are given.

Vacation? Think what you want about TA's, our value to the university, etc. But you saw us yesterday and thought that was a vacation? I got up at 6:30 yesterday and 7:00 today to make to to campus in march around in the cold rain. I could've been at home sleeping, but I want this to be over with soon, so I came out to support the GEO, make my voice hoarse and risk pneumonia. I don't care if you support us, but don't for a moment claim that we were taking it easy yesterday.

Regardless of my opinion, this is rudeness replying to rudeness.

Nice.

Your first counterpoint, that my arguments are invalid due to grammatical errors, is not even worth fighting over. Pedant.

The context of the last statement, "You're here for your own education, not a taxpayer funded holiday from reality," does not refer to the strike itself. If I could elaborate on some of my other posts, these graduate students deserve to feel the consequences of a difficult economy just like everyone else. They are not entitled to insulation from the downturn, which I believe is what they are asking for.

Third, nice ad hominem attack, to which I won't waste my time responding too.

Being a TA is not a full time job, its a low level grading position with moderate teaching responsibilities. Graduate school is not free. Graduate school is an investment for the student by the student, and the university should not supply wavers to those students it does not need. Maybe the university is making a mistake, but a loud protest outside of undergraduate buildings will not should the administration the consequences of potentially letting some grad students go from free tuition.

"Tuition waivers allow some of the brightest students to earn their education at this institution without having to worry about the massive loans they have waiting for them." - You're right, the brightest. Not everyone. The student will receive a waver if they deserve it, and based on the university's budget constraints. The knew this coming into the school.

"More power to the students who are willing to stand up for their beliefs than cower in a corner and accept what they are given." - You mean accept what they agreed to? They signed a contract when they decided to attend graduate school here, and now that the economy has gone downhill they're looking for artificial insulation.

From what you're saying, no one benefited from your protests yesterday. I'm sure it made you feel like you were making a difference, but you were just causing problems for the undergrads. You need to go protest somewhere else, and that's the bottom line. Do not bring undergraduates into this. You've bailed on your responsibilities to them, and now you're disrupting their classes with your yelling and drumming. You're not the only people on this campus. You need to respect those who aren't involved.

Maybe you should tell the leader of your organization to protest somewhere where it will make a difference, and not where you're hurting the uninvolved. I'd love to speak with whoever that is, and give them some advice.

This is all you haveto say? Lol.

This is all you have to say? Lol.

Keep dreaming....

Holy cr@p, Concerned. You're lucky you get ANYTHING! Try getting sympathy from the thousands of faculty and APs that haven't had any kind of increase in two years.

The sense of entitlement by the GEO is truly staggering. You are here to get an education. Or have you forgotten?

I have even less sympathy for this whiny bunch of babies than I did for the baseball players in 1994.

1) If you want more classes to be taught by tenure or tenure-track professors, go to a smaller teaching institution.

Teaching assistants teach classes in part to free professors so they can do research.

If they taught more classes, tuition fees would go sky high, because you would have to hire more faculty. Keep in mind that faculty salaries make up more than half of all costs for the University. TAs only represent six.

Also, top faculty would not attend here if they had large class obligations. So you would end up with "inferior" instructors.

That's how the university works. Getting rid of TAs will cost more money and more qualified talent over the long run.

2) I feel for anyone facing a furlough. My advice? Join a union. If you don't have one, create one.

I hope the lesson for the community from this is that a union protects wages and benefits. Otherwise, you are bound to whims of university.

3) .We are grateful to be here. But being grateful does not give someone a right to treat you any way they wish. Nor does it take away my first amendment rights to speak out against what I see are injustices.

For the record, grad students have other obligations, including class work and academic work I'm don't have the time to explain, that take up much of our time. It is not uncommon to see a graduate student put in 18 hours in a day.

Are we soldiers? No. But frankly, as someone from a military family, I find it insulting to men and women in uniform to use them for any political argument. NO ONE does what they do, or makes the type of sacrifice they do.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it would help bolster you case if you first bothered to inform yourself of the subjects you are addressing.

You are very weak intellectually. But I'm sure us TAs should be able to help with that.