• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grad Students Win Right to Unionize in an Ivy League Case

jet57 said:
first of all, (cough)...... I was referring to THIS RULING: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-unionize-ivy-league-case.html#post1066241652 which is what we're discussing. And secondly: I have experience in these matters too ya'know. I've just laid out my predictions based on my experience, as you have yours. So, since its a dark area right now, we won't know who will be right. My point is the more democratic "let it take its own course", while your's is to deny it right off the bat.
Click to expand...

I know what you were referring to. As I said, I believe the earlier ruling was the correct one.

You had no predictions at all. You just said " The point I;m making is that, we can only learn by letting it take it's course. Moreover, on the collective bargaining side, the next generation, as well as Millennials are very very angry at establishment polices that have all of them on the ropes. So the probability that they would respect a picket line which is all it takes, is quite high. So whatever "road blocks" your experience might predict can be run over completely by a new experience."

That's not a prediction. No where is there a dynamic that shows how this can affect tuition or an oversaturated job market. You just said "well we got to try it because......[blank], and something about respecting picket lines. but that has nothing to do with the fundamental as to why dynamic can actually bring about the changes. It's just empty rhetoric.

I gave reasons why this could increase tuition. I demonstrated how this can lead to a more caustic relationship between students, faculty, and administration. I argued how this could negatively impact the educational experience and quality of the grad student. You have no argument, you have no data, you have no proof. In spite of the negatives here and no argument to the contrary, you're only excuse is "let it take its own course".

These are students, and I don't see how negatively affecting their education is going to produce something positive on the other side, and neither do you. So why should we risk such negative repercussion for a complete unknown? Gather some data, make a case, and then we can proceed.
 
radcen said:
Even if they have a good deal now, as some have said, that's great but I don't see how that's any sort of argument against the right to unionize.
Click to expand...

The unionization of graduate students doesn't stand to make any of the problems go away. It does make for a more caustic environment that can negatively impact their education.

If the school allows them to unionize, then so be it. But to pretend to live in some fantasy land where that unionization some how solves overcrowded job markets or tuition (which many grad students aren't paying anyway) is baffling. Why risk harming a system for something that cannot be demonstrated to have beneficial gain?
 
jet57 said:
If they thought they had a good deal now, they wouldn't want to organize in the first place. It's collective bargaining 101. Some people just don't get that.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily agree with that. People are always looking for more. It's greed. It's human nature.
 
Ikari said:
The unionization of graduate students doesn't stand to make any of the problems go away. It does make for a more caustic environment that can negatively impact their education.

If the school allows them to unionize, then so be it. But to pretend to live in some fantasy land where that unionization some how solves overcrowded job markets or tuition (which many grad students aren't paying anyway) is baffling. Why risk harming a system for something that cannot be demonstrated to have beneficial gain?
Click to expand...
I didn't say or suggest it was justified or even a good idea. Be careful what you wish for. I'm just saying they should have the right to organize. People have the right to be boneheads.
 
radcen said:
I didn't say or suggest it was justified or even a good idea. Be careful what you wish for. I'm just saying they should have the right to organize. People have the right to be boneheads.
Click to expand...

They do, but in the end these are students, not employees. The new ruling reverses that, but I think the original was correct. The TA and RA positions provide invaluable experience that they'll need later in their careers. There's no way to address an oversaturated job market through unionized graduate students because there is no way for that dynamic to affect how many people are attempting degrees in a particular subject and how many the job market can support.

They just need to do the work, no one said higher education and advanced degrees would be easy to obtain. But if they get through it, there is a huge payoff on the other side (I suppose, this is degree specific though, apparently lawyers are hosed). It's education, they are students not employees.

I have to think that Physics and Engineering students aren't the ones pushing for this.
 
Ikari said:
I know what you were referring to. As I said, I believe the earlier ruling was the correct one.

You had no predictions at all. You just said " The point I;m making is that, we can only learn by letting it take it's course. Moreover, on the collective bargaining side, the next generation, as well as Millennials are very very angry at establishment polices that have all of them on the ropes. So the probability that they would respect a picket line which is all it takes, is quite high. So whatever "road blocks" your experience might predict can be run over completely by a new experience."

That's not a prediction. No where is there a dynamic that shows how this can affect tuition or an oversaturated job market. You just said "well we got to try it because......[blank], and something about respecting picket lines. but that has nothing to do with the fundamental as to why dynamic can actually bring about the changes. It's just empty rhetoric.

I gave reasons why this could increase tuition. I demonstrated how this can lead to a more caustic relationship between students, faculty, and administration. I argued how this could negatively impact the educational experience and quality of the grad student. You have no argument, you have no data, you have no proof. In spite of the negatives here and no argument to the contrary, you're only excuse is "let it take its own course".

These are students, and I don't see how negatively affecting their education is going to produce something positive on the other side, and neither do you. So why should we risk such negative repercussion for a complete unknown? Gather some data, make a case, and then we can proceed.
Click to expand...

Dude: the earlier ruling is toilet paper now: that's the issue. So your opinion on the ruling means nothing. THAT has been my point about an anti union stance that you have proffered in this discussion.

Your "predictions:" are that it won't work and that the students / employees (so says the ruling), have a better deal now than they'll get through collective bargaining.

You don't know that!

You don't know WHAT'S gonna happen! Neither do I. So we'll see who has the better hand as this thing goes along. THAT'S my other point to you.

I think you're just beating a dead horse now really.
 
jet57 said:
So your opinion on the ruling means nothing.
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't, I offered it as my opinion and nothing more. That's why I said that I think the earlier ruling was the correct one.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick, this shouldn't be THAT tough.

jet57 said:
You don't know that!
Click to expand...

You don't either! And you're the one pushing for the change saying that it can help, you're the one that has to demonstrate HOW it can help. You cannot. I can show how it will hurt, you cannot show how it will help. Do you get any of this yet?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Adjuncts are totally getting the shaft. Universities use them in much the same way as companies use temporary labor from companies like Pro Staff. They fill a void without having to offer them the benefit package that comes with full time employment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, adjuncts don't get much. I teach a couple courses as an adjunct for a local community college. This semester my students will pay a hair over 30k in tuition for the classes I teach. I think I pocket less than $2,500 of that. I teach because it's fun and as an excuse to stay current in my field. No way could I afford to teach full time as an adjunct. That's what my real job is for.

I feel for the folks who take a full-time adjunct load because they don't have other options.
 
Ikari said:
They do, but in the end these are students, not employees. The new ruling reverses that, but I think the original was correct. The TA and RA positions provide invaluable experience that they'll need later in their careers. There's no way to address an oversaturated job market through unionized graduate students because there is no way for that dynamic to affect how many people are attempting degrees in a particular subject and how many the job market can support.

They just need to do the work, no one said higher education and advanced degrees would be easy to obtain. But if they get through it, there is a huge payoff on the other side (I suppose, this is degree specific though, apparently lawyers are hosed). It's education, they are students not employees.

I have to think that Physics and Engineering students aren't the ones pushing for this.
Click to expand...
Just working throughout one's career gains them more and more valuable experience from which to build. That argument means nothing.

If they are providing value to the schools, and they since the school is compensating them then they are, then they should have the right to organize no different from any other occupation. If they were only students they would only be learning, they wouldn't be teaching nor would they be in positions of authority (graders, etc.).
 
radcen said:
Just working throughout one's career gains them more and more valuable experience from which to build. That argument means nothing.

If they are providing value to the schools, and they since the school is compensating them then they are, then they should have the right to organize no different from any other occupation. If they were only students they would only be learning, they wouldn't be teaching nor would they be in positions of authority (graders, etc.).
Click to expand...

teaching is learning. All of that is learning because those in the PhD programs are going on to big labs, private business, and academia where they will be doing all that and more. Sure, when they develop their careers they will build even more experience, but you have to start somewhere. These days, it seems like unpaid internships are where it's at, but in grad school you get your tuition covered and you get a stipend to go to school. Fundamentally they are students, even if they are teaching or doing research or writing papers or giving talks; they are students. And when you are done with that degree, you're not looking at unpaid internships to up your experience, you're looking at 6 figures (depending on degree and subject).

If the schools are going to allow them to unionize, so be it. But I see a lot of damage that can be done and very little upside. While there are some issues with they system, I do not see how they will be addressed by a unionized graduate student population.
 
Ikari said:
teaching is learning. All of that is learning because those in the PhD programs are going on to big labs, private business, and academia where they will be doing all that and more. Sure, when they develop their careers they will build even more experience, but you have to start somewhere. These days, it seems like unpaid internships are where it's at, but in grad school you get your tuition covered and you get a stipend to go to school. Fundamentally they are students, even if they are teaching or doing research or writing papers or giving talks; they are students. And when you are done with that degree, you're not looking at unpaid internships to up your experience, you're looking at 6 figures (depending on degree and subject).

If the schools are going to allow them to unionize, so be it. But I see a lot of damage that can be done and very little upside. While there are some issues with they system, I do not see how they will be addressed by a unionized graduate student population.
Click to expand...
Teaching IS learning. So? It's also teaching so others can learn, which has value to the school.
 
radcen said:
Teaching IS learning. So? It's also teaching so others can learn, which has value to the school.
Click to expand...

It does, but it doesn't mean that the grad student isn't a student. It's part of their education.

As I said, if the school allows it, then they can. But no one has thus far been able to demonstrate how this will address any of the problems at hand.
 
radcen said:
I don't necessarily agree with that. People are always looking for more. It's greed. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not: we're not them so we don't really know. What we know is what has been reported about what their grievances are.

Thus far, it looks as though they are pursuing the right to organize as a solution to their grievances rather then greed.

Greed doesn't always work.
 
Ikari said:
I know it doesn't, I offered it as my opinion and nothing more. That's why I said that I think the earlier ruling was the correct one.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a pogo stick, this shouldn't be THAT tough.



You don't either! And you're the one pushing for the change saying that it can help, you're the one that has to demonstrate HOW it can help. You cannot. I can show how it will hurt, you cannot show how it will help. Do you get any of this yet?
Click to expand...

There's nothing tough abut it. You're making more work than it has to be with pretty ridiculous reasoning and drawing conclusions that really have noting to do with the ruling or the reasons for the organizing drive. What's going on is that you don't want to accept it, and that's just too bad, because it's going on with or without your approval.

The ONLY way ANYBODY is going to know, is to let nature take its course. I don't know why you're having difficulty with that.
 
Ikari said:
They do, but in the end these are students, not employees. The new ruling reverses that, but I think the original was correct. The TA and RA positions provide invaluable experience that they'll need later in their careers. There's no way to address an oversaturated job market through unionized graduate students because there is no way for that dynamic to affect how many people are attempting degrees in a particular subject and how many the job market can support.

They just need to do the work, no one said higher education and advanced degrees would be easy to obtain. But if they get through it, there is a huge payoff on the other side (I suppose, this is degree specific though, apparently lawyers are hosed). It's education, they are students not employees.

I have to think that Physics and Engineering students aren't the ones pushing for this.
Click to expand...

Graduate students have a different relationship within the system and with faculty. There is a long history and tradition. There is a mutual understanding that I find difficult to describe. I very much enjoyed graduate student status and the unique relationship I had with faculty and staff. It was not, nor did I ever see it as, an employer/employee relationship. IMHO such a relationship would have altered and negatively affected the (my) experience.

I worked my ass off and damn near starved and loved every minute of it. OK, most every minute of it.

I can't imagine factoring unionized grad students into grant applications. :roll:
 
What this thread demonstrates in part is that those who've been to graduate school themselves have a different viewpoint than theorists. ;)
 
nota bene said:
What this thread demonstrates in part is that those who've been to graduate school themselves have a different viewpoint than theorists. ;)
Click to expand...

As Ikari said, it is an apprenticeship. There is an expectation shared by grad students, faculty and staff. The expectation is unspoken yet palpable. Doors open and knowledge is acquired, often in a different manner and at an entirely different level. Grad students sweat blood for the knowledge, but the knowledge often comes differently. I know no other way to describe it. Help me out here.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As Ikari said, it is an apprenticeship. There is an expectation shared by grad students, faculty and staff. The expectation is unspoken yet palpable. Doors open and knowledge is acquired, often in a different manner and at an entirely different level. Grad students sweat blood for the knowledge, but the knowledge often comes differently. I know no other way to describe it. Help me out here.
Click to expand...

I used the term "apprenticeship" too because that's what it is. I'd say that grad students are provisional recruits to the Academy, future professors/researchers in training. It's an opportunity and a privilege, especially if you go all the way.

This probably wasn't helpful at all, Risky; sorry. Despite its intensity (and the loss of my intellectual innocence), I loved most of grad school. But it took years for me to get over feeling guilty about taking a long bath or nap when I "should" be researching.
 
nota bene said:
I used the term "apprenticeship" too because that's what it is. I'd say that grad students are provisional recruits to the Academy, future professors/researchers in training. It's an opportunity and a privilege, especially if you go all the way.

This probably wasn't helpful at all, Risky; sorry. Despite its intensity (and the loss of my intellectual innocence), I loved most of grad school. But it took years for me to get over feeling guilty about taking a long bath or nap when I "should" be researching.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL! That is exactly how I felt. Well, not the long baths, but it took me at least a year to stop feeling guilty about reading the newspaper from front to back, especially on Sunday. For the longest while I couldn't enjoy it for the guilt.
 
Risky Thicket said:
LOLOLOL! That is exactly how I felt. Well, not the long baths, but it took me at least a year to stop feeling guilty about reading the newspaper from front to back, especially on Sunday. For the longest while I couldn't enjoy it for the guilt.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Just about every second you're awake, you're thinking about the research...and sometimes in your dreams too. I actually remember the 3 A.M. when I said screw it and fell into bed, having decided that fate would decide my fate. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom