> I can't say that I buy this logic. First of all, if a union wins agency shop
> in its contracts -- and this is a basic demand -- the rate of turnover is
> really not that important: under agency shop, one has to opt out of being a
> member of the union, and even then, still has to pay a fee for the services
> of the union. This option is as open to grad unions as any other unions, and
> I would be very surprised if they did not seek to avail themselves of it, for
(1) This is *required by Federal law* (collective bargaining means, everyone in the bargaining unit has to be treated alike), and (2) turnover in grad school is 30% per annum. Grad unions have to organize, or perish.
> operating funds, it would be more democratic. More likely, I am afraid, that
> it would have to spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on the most
> basic tasks of organizational survival, with a correspondingly diminishment
> in its ability to organize its members around important political and
> contract struggles and to provide basic services, such as grievances, etc.
But those tasks are *not* mere "organizational survival". Those tasks are essential to what a union is. Grad unions don't have the resources to hire huge staff, so we've had to invent our own, low-cost ways of mobilizing people -- everything from department stewards to email lists, to training new folks to handle grievances to community involvement, etc. It's not easy, it's not simple, it can be the most frustrating thing in the world. But you get a long-term payoff: large numbers of union members who develop the skills and training to be leaders themselves. If time-harried, overworked grads can pull this off, other unions can surely do the same.
As we like to say, today the University of Oregon, tomorrow Microsoft!
-- Dennis