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.

While unions may be beneficial to an economy in its industrialization infancy to protect laborers, once the economy matures, unions outlive 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 various increases in salary for graduate students as examples of its usefulness, but it fails to mention the costs incurred in the long run that far outweigh these benefits. When labor achieves market power, they are free to drive the wage above the market rate through coercion (e.g the threat of a strike). The benefits come to those currently in the industry (e.g. students) and who carry political clout. The students who are denied funding because the GEO has made funding each person more expensive are the ones suffering the costs but they do not make their voices heard because they may not know how they were harmed.

If the GEO had not intervened and wages stayed at the market rates, more students could be funded for the same cost.

Without the GEO, graduate employees would be paid the market rate for their respective disciplines. If the university paid below the market rate for that field of study, students would be attracted away to other institutions, subsequently forcing the University to raise the wage. The income disparities across fields act as a prioritization of the disciplines that offer the greatest potential for society’s advancement.

A strike by the GEO will damage the reputation of this university as well as the quality of education provided to all current students. Please do not support the GEO’s attempt to bully the university and inflate the union coffers (GEO dues are a percentage of TA salaries and are automatically withheld from paychecks without authorization).

Brooks Schaffer,

graduate student