International Students

Undergraduates

Basic GESO FAQ

Notable Quotables

General FAQ on labor law

CGEU FAQ: Basic, Organizing, Legal

The website of Yale's Office of Public Affairs has a section on "Frequently Asked Questions." Although much of the text is purely informational and accurate enough, some of the answers contain distorted interpretations designed to dissuade graduate students from exercising their rights and responsibilities as members of the Yale community, members of the academic community, and as teachers.

This section of our website is designed to provide more accurate responses. For most questions, the administration's response is reprinted on the left, while an alternative graduate student response appears beside it. We have reprinted the administration's phrasing of the questions exactly as they appear on their website.

The Administration has asked:

How prevalent are graduate student unions outside Yale?

If the University wanted to improve a graduate student benefit provided for in the contract, would it be able to do so?

Once a student has signed a membership card, can he or she take it back?

Can graduate students at private universities unionize?

Who would sit at the bargaining table?

If the union decided to strike, would all unit members be forced to participate, even if individual members disagreed?

How does GESO differ from the GSA?

Is GESO affiliated with any national or international union?

Could GESO go out on sympathy strikes with Locals 34 and 35 and vice versa?

What would be negotiated at the bargaining table? What would not?

What role would HERE play if a graduate student collective bargaining agreement were to be recognized?

If there were a union, would faculty members be limited in what they could discuss with graduate students?

What if an individual graduate student disagreed with a provision in the contract?

Would all members of the bargaining unit have to join the union? Would they have to at least pay some representation fee?

How else would unionization affect faculty-student relationships?

Administration Responds:

There are none that we know of that have been recognized in the private sector. There are only ten states in which graduate students have formed public sector unions which have been recognized.

GESO Responds:

Around 20% of the 200,000 graduate student teachers in the United States have union representation.

The administration is correct that at present no private universities have recognized TA unions. However, the NLRB General Counsel has stated that graduate teachers at private universities have the right to form unions under the NLRB (below) and one private university, NYU, has already filed with the NLRB for recognition.

Most dramatically, 9000 graduate students at all 8 University of California campuses voted in the summer of 1999 for union representation. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Rutgers are the oldest TA bargaining units. Oregon, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Wayne State, the SUNY system, and Florida also have unions. Organizing drives are underway at the University of Pittsburgh, George Washington University, University of Ilinois, and the University of Indiana. Students at New York University, Oregon State, and Temple have recently filed for elections.

Administration Responds:

Under current precedent of the National Labor Relations Board, no. Since 1972, the NLRB has held that students who provide to universities services that further their educational programs are primarily students and therefore are not employees for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act.

The NLRB, however, is currently reviewing a case involving medical house staff at Boston Medical Center whose outcome might affect the status of graduate students under the NLRA.

GESO Responds:

Absolutely, yes. The Yale administration could recognize GESO today, and it would be done. The University of Wisconsin recognized their TA union without involving any governing agency.

However, there remains the question whether TAs at private universities can use the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and its processes to achieve recognition. This hinges on whether the NLRB considers TAs to be university employees.

This question has not been definitively settled, but the highest determination to date is the NLRB General Counsel's determination in February, 1997, that Yale graduate TAs are employees, and hence merit the legal protections of all employees (this led to the General Counsel's complaint that Yale violated the law during the 1995 grade strike).

Despite this, the Yale administration continues to argue that there exists legal precedent that TAs are not employees. This argument has been attempted and explicitly dismissed twice: once by the judge at the Yale NLRB hearings, and once by the hearings officer of the NYU case. The administation seems to recognize that this is a losing argument, however. In a public letter Yale Vice President Robinson conceded that "The NLRB's current General Counsel has taken certain legal positions [including] ... that Yale teaching fellows and PTAIs are employees entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act."

The icing on the cake came in November, 1999: The NLRB ruled that medical interns and residents in Boston are considered "employees" (in addition to being students) and that they do have the right to unionize. This removes the lynchpin in Yale's legal argument, which is now wholly untenable.

The NLRB is currently considering an election petition by graduate students at New York University. They included both TAs (teachers) & RAs (researchers), so the decision reached in their case will bear upon yet be different from the Yale case.

For more information, go to GESO's NLRB page.

Administration Responds:

The GSA, or Graduate Student Assembly, is the official representative body of students in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Chartered in the spring of 1997 and ratified by a vote of the graduate students that fall, the GSA is made up of elected representatives from the Graduate School's departments who serve as a communicate link between graduate students, the faculty, and the administration. The GSA's formal authority includes appointing graduate students to the various standing and ad hoc committees of the Graduate School and meeting regularly with the Dean of the Graduate School and other University administrators on proposed changes on Graduate School policy and other issues of student concern. In contrast, GESO has no official representative function in the Graduate School.

GESO Responds:

The GSA is the only graduate student representative body that the current Yale administration chooses to recognize. The GSA's role is only to "discuss and comment" on the administration's policy decisions. In contrast, GESO seeks to negotiate a TA contract with the university.

Once contract negotations have drawn a clear line between graduate teacher- and student-issues, GESO would negotiate the former and the GSA would advise on the latter. At other universities with recognized TA unions, the student government structure continues to function.

There is every reason to expect that the members of the GSA and GESO would continue to cooperate after a TA contract is settled, as they have for the past three years.

The administration's response (see left) mentions a ratifying vote. It should be noted that there have been many votes concerning grad student representation:

1. In a 1995 secret ballot election, graduate students voted 600-166 (80% yes) for union representation by GESO.
2. In 1997, graduate students voted 479-25 in favor of an agreement-reaching GSA rather than a discuss-and-comment GSA.
3. The administration did not recognize either of the previous two referenda. So the administration held its own referendum, in which grad students voted 422-407 for having a discuss-and-comment GSA rather than nothing.
4. In a 1999 referendum to decide whether the GSA should continue to exist, 196 graduate students voted "yes", while 154 voted "no". Read the eye-opening official GSA history of this referendum.

Visit the GSA website, esp. the discussion webboard.

Administration Responds:

The National Labor Relations Act requires employers and unions to bargain collectively with respects to "wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment" -- concepts that the NLRB and the federal courts have interpreted broadly. Because the NLRB and the federal courts have no experience analysing what are "terms and conditions of employment" for graduate students who teaching is part of their academic training, disagreements over what is bargainable or not in the context of higher education could spawn litigation that might complicate and delay negotiations.

GESO Responds:

Federal labor law distinguishes between different kinds of issues. Some issues, like wages and benefits, must be negotiated. Other issues, such as housing, can be negotiated if both sides agree. Other issues, such as the academic evaluation of students, cannot be covered in a collective bargaining agreement.

There are plenty of examples of such distinctions, which have already been clearly drawn at the dozens of already unionized campuses.

Administration Responds:

Only if the two parties specifically bargained for such flexibility and included it in the contract, or if the union consented to the change on an ad hoc basis.

For example, if there had been a graduate student union this past summer, Graduate School Dean Susan Hockfield might not have been able to increase health care benefits for all graduate students as she did. Since health insurance would arguably be a term or condition of teaching assistants' "employment", she could not have unilaterally responded to the perceived need for improved coverage for teaching assistants.

GESO Responds:

Of course, yes. Even during a contract, anything to which both the administration and GESO agrees could be immediately implemented.

Given that Dean Hockfield's announcement of increased health benefits followed a year-long GESO campaign advocating for cheaper health care, it is absurd to suppose that GESO members would have opposed the benefit for which they had been fighting.

Administration Responds:

Representatives of both the University and the bargaining unit would sit at the bargaining table. On the University's side, labor relations managers, administrators, and faculty members would likely participate.

On the other side, GESO would be able to pick its own bargaining team. That team might include GESO leaders, members, and staff, together with representatives of HERE or any other labor organization that is recognized by the University. GESO has wide latitude in making such choices and can do what it deems tactically advantageous at the moment.

GESO Responds:

Yale graduate teachers would negotiate the terms of their own TA contract.

Currently, the GESO Coordinating Committee (CC) is named as the negotiating committee. The CC is comprised solely of graduate students representing every department in the graduate school.

Administration Response:

GESO is affiliated with the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (HERE), AFL-CIO.

Does HERE represent any other units at Yale?

Yes. There are two other Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees units at Yale -- Federation of University Employees Local 34, which consists of clerical and technical employees, and Local 35, which is made up of service and maintenance workers.

GESO Responds:

Like hundreds of other local unions, GESO is affiliated with the Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees (HERE) union. This affiliation means that GESO benefits from the legal and collective bargaining expertise of HERE and its other local affiliates, Locals 34 and 35, which represent the university's clerical, technical, and manual labor workforces. GESO has affiliated itself because HERE has a proven track record of protecting the working conditions, compensation, and dignity of its members, and of insuring that Yale is a responsible member of the New Haven community.

Our affiliation with HERE leaves graduate students in control of GESO. Graduate students elect other students to be officers, run the daily affairs of the union, decide what issues to work on, and vote on major policy decisions and initiatives.

Administration Responds:

If GESO were to become the exclusive bargaining agent of Yale teaching fellows and part-time acting instructors, it could choose to have HERE representatives actively involved in the formulation of the unit's contract proposals as well as in the negotiations with the University -- for example, sitting at the bargaining table and even being the chief negotiators for the unit. And even if GESO chose not to publicly involve HERE in this fashion, its officials could nevertheless play a very important role behind the scenes. Although Locals 34 and 35 are the bargaining agents for clerical and technical employees and service and maintenance workers, respectively, the current president of HERE has been involved from time to time in their negotiations. The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees could also contribute funding and staff to GESO's efforts.

GESO Responds:

HERE would provide any technical and legal expertise that GESO's negotiating committee (see above) asked for. The particular issues to be covered in a contract remain the concern only of graduate student teachers.

Both the current president of HERE, John Wilhelm, and the national research director of HERE, Matthew Walker, are graduates of Yale College. They remain interested in their alma mater, and want to continue improving Yale for everyone who works there.

Nevertheless, all decisions regarding the TA contract negotiations would be in the hands of Yale graduate teachers alone.

Administration Responds:

Under federal law, if provided for in a collective bargaining agreement, a union can compel members of a bargaining unit either to become dues paying union members or to pay the union an agency or representation fee (an amount that is typically slightly less than dues). Regardless of the union membership status of individuals, though, at the negotiating table a union represents every person in the bargaining unit.

GESO Responds:

GESO membership is voluntary. GESO has also waived membership dues until after a union election takes place.

From 1993-1998, dues were voluntary and were set at $45/year. This amount is dictated by the GESO by-laws, which can only be changed by a 2/3 vote of the entire membership.

Once a TA contract is successfully negotiated, it is customary to include in the contract a "representation fee" that is paid by everyone covered by the contract, that is, by all TAs. This fee should be less than the TA raises included in the contract. Thus, no one should experience a net loss of income as a result of dues.

The benefits GESO has won have already more than paid for our dues, which will no doubt be seen as an even better investment once we win a good contract. Consider:

• 1 year of free single health care alone pays for 15 years of GESO dues.
• In 1993, those teaching 2 sections were paid a TF3.0 ($4000/semester); in 1999, they are paid a TF4.0 ($6400/semester). This annual raise is 100 times more than the annual GESO dues, which turn out to be quite a bargain!

Administration Responds:

Under federal law, a union has no legal obligation to return an authorization card once it has been signed and submitted.

Moreover, an individual cannot effectively revoke a card once he or she has signed it, as the NLRB follows a policy that any changes in employee support for unionization during a card campaign should be resolved in an election.

GESO Responds:

Absolutely, yes. It is GESO's policy to immediately return and revoke a signed membership card when a member makes such a request to a GESO organizer from his/her department. Any problems with this procedure should be brought to the immediate attention of the GESO communications committee or GESO Chair.

Nevertheless, a graduate student should not sign a membership card hastily, and should consider signing a card as important a decision as voting "yes" in a union election.

Administration Responds:

Under federal labor law, a union may fine or discipline its members who refuse to participate in union sanctioned strikes.

GESO Responds:

The administration's response here is misleading. Since GESO membership is entirely voluntary, anyone can revoke their membership at any time. This is also the law under the NLRA. A union cannot discipline someone who is no longer a member.

Furthermore, a union can only fine or discipline its members in accordance with its by-laws. GESO's by-laws do not include a policy to fine graduate students who don't want to strike. By-laws can only be changed with the approval of 2/3 of the entire membership.

To suggest that such a policy is even a remote possibility is wrong.

Administration Responds:

Yes, unless their contracts provide otherwise.

GESO Responds:

Yes, if approved by a majority of the GESO membership.

However, since no one can be forced to go out on strike, such an action could only succeed if it had a massive groundswell of grad student support.

Administration Responds:

The General Counsel of the NLRB has taken the position that faculty members are "supervisors" acting on behalf of their employer (Yale) with respect to their relationship with teaching assistants. They are therefore prohibited from saying or doing anything that interferes, restrains, or coerces those "employees." As Yale learned during the 1995-96 GESO grade strike, normal discourse that takes place between faculty and graduate students with respect to union-related issues might very well become the subject of NLRB unfair labor practice charges.

GESO Responds:

This question has been partly answered in a 1998 letter from Yale's Vice President and Counsel Dorothy Robinson, who wrote to faculty:

[The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)] should be followed by faculty when addressing GESO-related issues with teaching fellows and PTAIs. This does not mean, however, that faculty cannot express their opinions about these issues. Indeed, they are very free to do so provided a few simple rules are followed. Section 8(c) of the NLRA states: "The expression of any views, arguments, or opinions or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit." This provision is simply a statutory codification of the right to free speech on these and other subjects guaranteed by the United States Constitution as long as those expressions contain no threat of reprisal or force.

The "normal discourse" mentioned at left was judged by the NLRB General Counsel to "contain threats of reprisal", and hence was alleged to be in violation of this law.

One hopes that the administration does not continue to view threats of reprisal as constituting "normal discourse" at Yale.

You may contact us by email

This page was last updated on: January 20, 2000

Graduate Employees and Students Organization
425 College St.
New Haven, CT 06511
(203) 624-5161

http://www.geso.org
http://www.yale.edu/geso