Yale Bulletin and Calendar

December 6-13, 1999

Volume 28, Number 15

From the University Provost

To: Members of the Yale Community

November 30, 1999

I write to bring you up to date on two developments that may affect whether graduate teaching assistants at Yale have the legal right to unionize.

Yesterday the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) upheld the August, 1997 dismissal of all unfair labor practice charges against Yale for actions taken in response to GESO's "grade strike" at the end of the 1995 fall semester. The Board affirmed that the grade strike was not protected under federal law, both because it was a partial strike and because the withholding of undergraduates' papers and exams amounted to "misappropriation of University property." At the same time, the Board remanded for further hearing the issue of whether four statements made by faculty members during the grade strike may have been unlawful "threats." Yale will have an opportunity at that hearing to present its evidence, which it has not yet had a chance to do. We continue to believe that these charges are baseless and will vigorously defend the right of all members of our community to express their views.

In a separate case involving the Boston Medical Center, the National Labor Relations Board reversed its precedent of over twenty years, which had held that medical residents and interns are not "employees" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because they are primarily students and provide services in connection with their programs of study. This precedent has also been applied to cases involving graduate student teaching and research assistants. The NLRB has now held that medical residents and interns at Boston Medical Center are "employees" under the Act.

The NLRB has not decided in either case whether graduate assistants will now be considered "employees" under the Act. However, the Board directed that in the further hearing on Yale's case, the administrative law judge should rule on the employee status of Yale's teaching fellows.

Even if graduate assistants are determined to be "employees" under the Act, it would not change the process by which a labor organization must seek recognition as an exclusive bargaining agent. GESO, which has been trying to organize graduate assistants at Yale, would still have to file with the NLRB a petition seeking certification, supported by authorization cards signed by at least 30 percent of the proposed bargaining unit. The NLRB would conduct a hearing to resolve any issues presented by the petition. It would then order a secret ballot election in which graduate students eligible to vote would indicate whether or not they wished to be represented by GESO as their exclusive collective bargaining agent. This election, which would decide an issue of great moment for the Yale community, would be determined by a majority of those voting, no matter how few eligible students cast ballots.

In light of these legal developments, I take this opportunity to review why I believe that unionization of graduate assistants would not be in the best interests of the graduate students themselves, of undergraduates, of the faculty, or of the institution as a whole.

First of all, however, let me emphasize that the record of change in the Graduate School provides a ringing demonstration of the fact that the voices of graduate students are heard and heeded through existing means of communication and representation, notably the Graduate Student Assembly, as well as the countless formal and informal contacts that the Dean and her staff have with graduate students. A flexible and responsive environment can and is being fostered at Yale, to the great benefit of the Graduate School community. For example, the programs offered by Graduate Career Services, by the Teaching Fellow Preparation Program, and by the McDougal Center have multiplied in number and kind; faculty and students are being drawn together by new programs like the fund that supports departmental colloquia and student-initiated symposia, by the FEAST program, and by the Dean's lecture series; tuition and stipend support for graduate students has been extended from only some to all entering Ph.D. candidates; stipend levels have increased; a Health Award now provides free hospitalization coverage; funding for summer research and language study has increased; and the opportunities and services available to international students have improved through the introduction of new courses in English as a Second Language and the strengthening of the Office of International Students and Scholars.

Against this background of ongoing, flexible problem-solving, we should be deeply concerned about the potential effect of unionization on students themselves, both graduate and undergraduate. Our concern also encompasses the potential effect of unionization on faculty, for in a vibrant and productive academic environment, the professional well being of faculty is inevitably bound up with the academic well-being of their students. Among the many limitations unionization might bring, let me highlight the following few:

* Unionization entails collective bargaining, an inherently rigid, adversarial process that would severely limit the Graduate School's flexibility to address its students' concerns. Positive changes -- such as the recent increase in stipend levels and the creation of the Health Award -- would have to await the outcome of bargaining of multi-year contracts, possibly delaying them for long periods and perhaps even years. At the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, stipends were frozen for three years pending resolution of a graduate student union contract.

* With a union as their exclusive bargaining representative, graduate students would have only one voice, the voice of the union leadership. Graduate students individually or in other groups would not be able to discuss many issues relating to teaching with the Dean, faculty, or other University officials because the University would be required to deal exclusively with the union about such matters.

* By mandating how teaching assistantships are structured and assigned, a union contract could turn over to the bargaining process decisions that faculty and graduate students now make about how to tailor teaching opportunities to meet students' interests and needs, and how to provide the best classroom experience possible for undergraduates. Labor issues could easily dominate decision-making about issues for which academic considerations should always be primary.

* Decisions previously made by faculty as matters of academic policy and judgment (for example, course content and assignments) might now be treated as "terms and conditions" of employment; disputes over such issues would likely result in a stream of litigation, issue by issue, before arbitrators, administrative law judges, and courts.

* Unionization would cast students as "employees" and faculty as "managers," substituting an intrinsically adversarial relationship for the collegial relationship between students and faculty. It could inject into their relationships fears and threats of grievances and charges of unfair labor practices that could also lead to protracted litigation. For example, in our recent NLRB case, the Board is requiring further hearings to determine whether certain statements by faculty concerning the appropriateness of unions in the academic setting constituted unfair labor practices.

* Unlike many state labor relations laws, under which students have unionized at public universities, the NLRA permits strikes, with all their divisive potential to pit students against other students, faculty, and administration, and to disrupt the education of undergraduates.

As a final note, I want to emphasize that my concerns about a graduate student union are not generic responses to labor issues or fears of possible economic consequences. Rather, my deep reservations arise from the potential danger that unionization poses to central elements of what Yale is and does for its students. Debate on this subject will certainly follow in the aftermath of recent NLRB decisions. As we engage in this debate, let us ask whether the fundamental, and potentially irreversible, change in the central principles of graduate education brought by unionization would provide a system better designed to address the needs and concerns of graduate students and higher education.

Alison Richard
Provost of the University

T H I SW E E K ' SS T O R I E S

Divinity School gets $6 million grant

CMI will boost faculty's use of new media

'Accelerated life' suits Yale's youngest star

From the University Provost

Endowed Professorships

Gifts support use of new technologies in teaching and learning

Yale SOM experts take to the airwaves

Actors must connect with their characters, says Pacino

Interior Secretary to discuss environmental ethics

Ralph Reed to give lecture at Law School

Scientists' characterization of yeast gene may yield clues about how human cells work

Keith Wilson earns high honors for his musical contributions

Drama takes audience on metaphysical train ride

Doctor helps design Disney exhibit on high-tech world of radiology

Yale-related renovation projects win design awards

Researcher wins competitive McKnight Investigator Award

Duke's Men to perform in the 'Do Downtown' lunchtime series

Holiday Toys for Kids drive

Modest measures advised in preparation for Y2K

Hawkshaw speaks at conference on Bruckner

. . In the News . . .