From The Daily: A strike would be bad on your record

On March 7, 2023, University President Santa Ono was inaugurated as the 15th President of the University of Michigan, and was immediately greeted with a crisis inherited from presidents past. Promptly after his inauguration ceremony, freshly minted President Ono was met by hundreds of students in front of Hill Auditorium. Among those present were members of the Graduate Employees’ Organization carrying signs with their demands for the University, ranging from increased compensation to better healthcare coverage and childcare benefits. This picket comes on the heels of another unfruitful month of bargaining between the labor union and the University. On many occasions, GEO and the University have been able to come to a compromise — but at this moment in time, a strike is imminent. 

GEO last went on strike in Fall 2020; for nearly two weeks, thousands of graduate student instructors didn’t show up to work. Discussion sections went unattended, some professors canceled class in solidarity and, for some students, education ground to a halt. Despite allegations by the University that the strike violated the bargaining agreement the union signed — a claim the University is making again — GEO was successful: They were able to achieve better childcare options, greater support for international graduate students and a safer working environment at the height of the pandemic. This strike, although generally disruptive to the learning environment of the University and its students, increased the visibility of graduate student conditions and inspired the action of other student employees. 

Strikes are rarely a positive thing for the reputation of the aggrieving employer. Several times in its history, GEO has protested against the University, and each time these protests have negatively harmed the University’s reputation. Canceled classes, increased media attention and many dissatisfied members of the U-M community could prove unpredictably damaging to the foundation of the institution, and could even dissuade parents of high school seniors from sending their children to the University of Michigan. In an ideal world, the University would be able to take GEO’s concerns into consideration without taking damage to its public image. However, the University’s lackluster reactions to GEO’s demands and proposals have all but necessitated this drastic turn.

These consequences are revealing. If GSIs can turn the campus upside down it is proof of the critical role that graduate students play in the University’s operations. GEO is well within their right to strike and, in using that power to attempt to change the framework of campus, they are making their platform and purpose at the University known. Whether they are in classrooms or lecture halls, labs or offices, graduate students play pivotal roles in the functioning of the University and undergraduate students’ lives.

Undergraduate students will be one of the primary groups affected by the strike. Many undergrads interact with a Graduate Student Instructor almost every day, whether that be in a lecture hall, office hours or in a GSI-taught class. Although many undergraduate students support GEO’s cause, they are nervous about what a strike will mean for their academic experience, especially as the end of the term nears. The campus is looking down the barrel of a full fledged disaster, a dissolution of trust built between students and the University — between students who picket and students who will eventually cross the picket line. In addition to upset undergrads, the domino effect of disaffected parents and donors could cause the University an even greater headache in the long term.

It is important to recognize, however, that this point could have been avoided by action on both sides. There have been moments where GEO’s demands have seemed superfluous in comparison to their core grievances, and there is a chance that if they had been left out, an agreement would have been reached by now. But it is the University that has, more often than not, prevented progress: the U-M administration has failed to handle these negotiations artfully, downplaying the necessity of their solution and conclusion. GEO’s most important demand, a $14,500 raise (about 60%), was initially met with a paltry $481.10 (a 2% raise) in the first year. After months of negotiations, the University increased their counterproposal to $721.65 (a 3% raise) in the first year. Most recently, the University offered a 5% raise in the first year, followed by 3.5% and then 3% raises in the second and third years of the contract.

This is not to say that all of GEO’s requests are reasonable. For example, GEO’s request to limit discussion sections to 18 students is likely unattainable without a major increase in the number of GSIs employed, and even then would not be suitable for every course. Regardless, GSIs deserve competitive wages and should feel that the academic institution they are a member of is there to support them — not to diminish the importance of the GSIs’ other needs. It is of utmost importance that, in the midst of a strike, the University thinks critically about the impact such a protest will have on student life and campus culture. While also acknowledging the difficulty of meeting certain GEO demands, the University should come to a measured and considerate decision that not only reflects the importance of GEO’s requests, but also of the well being of both graduate and undergraduate students.