I wanted to take a moment away from the primary discussions to talk about why I support Clinton in the general. This isn't meant to be an argument over who would be better between Clinton and Sanders, but rather why I would see Clinton’s incrementalist approach to liberal politics as valuable in and of itself. I would like to share some of my experiences and hopes regarding an issue that is by its nature technical and easy to overlook, and yet which has deep meaning for tens of thousands of Americans- the unionization of graduate workers.
Graduate workers are a major part of the contemporary university system, and provide substantial services and support for both research and education. In particular, students pursuing PhD’s, Masters, and other degrees beyond a bachelors, often serve as Teaching Assistants in undergraduate courses, providing students with more personal interaction at large universities, or teaching courses wholesale. Likewise, many PhD. students are responsible for running major pieces of research, as the PhD. has far more in common with an apprenticeship than it does with other degree programs. Even recently, PhD students have been vital in the sciences at coming up with revolutionary advances- such as the discovery of the lymphatic system in the brain(www.nature.com/...). Graduate students in the humanities likewise tend to contribute exciting new ideas to research (for example, bell hooks had her launching point as a PhD student).
At the same time, graduate students often perform much of the more menial work in laboratories or in other fields- supporting their advisors research. This work is vital to the smooth running of any research. Yet graduate students are often overworked and underpaid- tending to be paid for 20 hours a week of work, but being asked to work 40-60 hours a week under the guise of the remaining work serving only as “academic” or personal enrichment. Yet, we all know that this is nonsense. Cleaning beakers, keeping detectors well maintained, digging through references can only be done so many times before they no longer serve any higher purpose but getting the work done. Yet for that work, students are generally paid well under $20,000 a year- despite teaching many of the courses each student is paying many thousands of dollars to take.
In this environment, a movement to unionize graduate assistants has taken root. The oldest such unions include the Teaching Assistant Association at the University of Wisconsin dating back decades, but sadly now one of the many casualties of Walker’s union busting crusade (taa-madison.org), and unions like the Graduate Employees Organization at the University of Michigan (www.geo3550.org). More recently, unions affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, the AAUP, the National Education Association, the United Auto Workers, and even independent locals have been formed in universities including the University of California, the University of Connecticut, Michigan State University (where I am a proud member: geuatmsu.org), the University of Oregon, Florida State University, the University of Iowa and others. These unions negotiate contracts for Teaching Assistants generally, and in some cases Research Assistants, which have provided in my case, the right to be paid for the hours one works, the right to teaching materials not coming out of our paychecks, substantial raises, high quality health insurance for students and their families, and most of all for dignity on the job. Having a union has on numerous occasions made a huge difference in the lives of student workers, who can afford now to have a family, take a sick day off, and afford rent and food.
However, if you look at the list of universities listed you will see that they are all public universities. Indeed, there is only one graduate local in the country that has bargaining power that is at a private university, New York University(www.makingabetternyu.org/...). This is because under an NLRB ruling involving Brown University during the Bush Administration graduate-employees are not considered workers by the NLRB, and so are not entitled to NLRB election rights. This means that as in the other cases where private employees are not allowed to unionize through an NLRB election, the only means to recognition is through the employer’s own choice to recognize the union. As you might imagine, that rarely happens. NYU in part chose to recognize the union because in a previous ruling during the Clinton administration, graduate workers had been granted the right to NLRB elections, and there was simultaneous fear that a favorable ruling under a new NLRB decision would open the floodgates for private university unionization and more fear from direct action from students themselves. Public employers at the state level, like public universities, are governed by their own state laws, like Michigan’s Public Employee Relations Act (PERA), and so may allow unionization of graduate students.
This gets to the heart of the issue of this reason why I believe electing Clinton is vital: The NLRB is a partisan board made up of presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate. It is widely expected that the Obama majority NLRB will soon rule for students at Columbia University to have the right to unionize (www.bloomberg.com/...), but of course this could again be overturned under a Trump administration. Whereas a Clinton administration could continue the right of graduate students to unionize until it became far more entrenched and difficult to reverse. Students now are gearing up to unionize at the University of Chicago, Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and numerous other private universities in the country- demanding that some very large hedge funds (those used to support those university’s endowments) no longer go to supporting just the wealthy, but also the graduate students who make those universities and so many others the great academies that they are.
And the benefits go so much further: when younger students are introduced to labor at a younger age, we will want to have unions at our later careers, fighting for an institution that is proven to reduce income inequality and protect the rights of the most marginalized among us. Students will have teachers who are better respected and able to provide them with the best education in the world when they no longer are spending class worried about having enough money to eat. And graduate unions often provide numerous additional benefits- helping fight for racial justice, ending sexual assault on campus, and otherwise advancing justice in our broader communities. A key example: the University of Missouri, where the Coalition of Graduate Workers- the proto-union seeking representation for graduate employees at the University- played a major role in the protests demanding racial justice that led to the ouster of their president. (www.mugradrights.org/...)
Does the appointment of NLRB appointees count as a revolution? I doubt it. It is a down deep in the weeds issue, something that only a small percentage of Americans will encounter. But for those for whom it does matter, it matters a great deal, and the effects are wider than you might imagine. All of which is controlled by the President (and the Senate!). Whether or not students without rich families are able to study the arts and humanities and make those fields reflect the diversity of America and our world, whether or not our future scientists and inventors are able to stay in school and pay for their rent depends in part on these decisions. So it’s not a revolution, but it is a vital incremental change that will make our country just a little more just.
I believe that policies, and appointments like this matter to each of us in ways we may not directly be aware of. We’ve seen it with Obama though: the new overtime rules, DACA/DAPA, the Dear Colleagues letter on sexual assault in colleges through the DOE, the establishment of ARPA-E, appointments to the EEOC, etc. These changes and policies are all in themselves small and most don't affect us directly, but in total they radically shape our nation, and they do so despite our gerrymandered house and state legislatures. This is why I don't see Clinton as a lesser of two evils: she will expand the labor movement in the country, reduce inequality, and expand educational access by just a single case at the NLRB- a single division of the federal government.
What excites me most is then: What else is possible with her appointments throughout the rest of the government?
#ImWithHer
