http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=387027

What a union does is replaces a bunch of independent actors with a single monolithic organization. You may be a replaceable cog in the wheel and hence unable to bargain for more, but all TAs together probably can't be replaced. So the union can negotiate a better deal for all of them if they strike together.

Like all competition-elimination strategies, this decreases economic efficiency. However, you shouldn't feel too bad about this: so do corporations, and any other form of organization. People live with big corporations, even if they are ultimately worse both for consumers and for employees.

When unions have struck themselves out of existence, it's usually because the statement "But they'd certainly care if all X no longer worked for them" is no longer true. Most Americans don't give a damn about Detroit and would happily go on with their lives if all 3 American automakers and their workers just disappeared. (My parents haven't bought an American car since the 1960s.) So when the UAW tries to bargain, they just end up taking the corporations down with them.

Unless you work for a really sucky university, I don't think you need to worry about that.

1. your pay is very pathetic even for TAs.

2. You can find how much your officers and staff are getting paid here: http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/regs/compliance/rrlo/lmrda.htm At my school, officers get a $50 honorarium month, and staff get nonprofit compensation (low pay, decent benefits, and the thanks of thousands).

3. Some one described them as a "mob of idiots." A democratically run organization of graduate students is a "mob of idiots"? What does that make the United States?

4. Management gets the union they deserve. The big 3 have disfunctional management so they get a disfunctional union as well.

5. The Big 3 have been pissing away all their profits while ignoring their building obligations for decades. It's management's job to make sure the budget works. You don't get paid to make those decisions.

6. It's a matter of priorities. You aren't a priority (and a football stadium or refurbished admin offices are) unless you make yourself one.

7. The time to start worrying about this is way sooner in the bargaining process. Don't need to be on the negotiating team, but know who they are and tell them what you do and don't want. If you don't participate, don't expect to get what you want.

8. Union internationals typically have very little control over union locals. SEIU being the exception.

9. There are crap unions, though they are far rarer than the WSJ editorial page would have you believe. Unions with active membership are almost never corrupt, self-serving or mismanaged, just like any healthy democratic organization.

10. I have noticed a pattern of common but very short strikes in academia. I suspect Presidents feel they have to demonstrate fiscal restraint, but the vast majority would much rather move on and get back to education. Except corrupt self-serving bastards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Joel_Trachtenberg

Hilarious and sad note: your strike pay is equal to your TA pay. This is very uncommon.

Functional management that treats their employees well don't tend to attract unions at all. While one can argue that some unions are quite predatory in expanding their membership, just the fact that a workplace becomes unionized says a lot about the failings of management.

The flip side is that unions tend to overstay their need. Once the union forms and gets what it wants, it tends to stick around and start looking for other things to campaign for. I would consider joining a union in order to address a specific grievance, but I don't think they should be permanent institutions. Once they accomplish their goal, they should automatically disband.

Making them permanent allows them to respond more quickly, but it also makes them vehicles for those seeking power, which means they usually overreach.

Also note that it's hard to start up a union if you don't already have one, since a hostile management will tend to sack anyone who looks like they might start getting organised, as well as choking off channels of communication.

Its definitely an interesting dilemma to be in. I thought a post here would give some interesting perspective on how others feel about my situation.

Of course, I don't blame the unions completely for the sorry state of the industry, but it is silly to ignore that aspect.

If you decide to break the strike, the right thing to do is to withdraw from the union first. Although, I would point out that a strike like this is only one step in a long drawn out negotiation, it would not be happening if the negotiating team thought they had a better alternative.

In your typical employee-employer relationship, the employer has the bulk of the power, and a union will tend to balance that out. Are unions great 100% of the time? No, but the best way to offset any poor behavior is to get involved (much like any government/organised body), not to ban them or ignore them.

In this particular case, it looks like the University is violating labor laws and refusing to negotiate (pretty typical in pay negotiations). If they're playing hardball, usually a strike of some form is the only option.

People who talk about unions being obstacles to progress that should be abolished are precisely as barbaric as those who advocate confiscatory taxation of the wealthy.

Given that, if you choose to cross the picket line, what you're saying to your employer is that you're happy with your pay which you say is not the case. You're also making the statement that you either think your co-workers who will be striking are either malcontents or greedy, unless you know they're getting significantly less money that you for the same job.

Your decision is simply whether or not you believe your and co-worker's current compensation is fair, or if the deal the union is proposing better represents your market value.

However paying tuition brings up a whole new set of problems. As masters students, we take 2-3 upper level graduate classes, which are very challenging and demanding. We also take up a lot of the faculty's time with these courses. I am receiving something of value, that I probably should pay for. However, as graduate students, we are practically researchers for the faculty, so at some point we transition from pure consumers to net zero or net producers as we become more experienced. Perhaps by teaching one of the universities courses, I should receive the education and a small stipend in return? Its all about expectations.

Being a TA is much different than being an auto worker. Normal employees have a long time to bargain. You move around the industry, there gets to be a market for a job, and a fair price gets created. But as a TA, you can't really move between different universities. Plus, any individual is only a TA for a few years, after which your salary will be totally unrelated. So nobody really has that much incentive to negotiate hard. As a result, universities typically have a much stronger negotiation position and can give extremely low wages.

There is no danger that TA unions will become strong enough to cripple universities. This is totally different than car manufacturers. Strike!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/education/10education.html

Basically, unions have made it so difficult to fire or discipline teachers that the management resorts to a "reassignment center" where teachers while away months or even years. Very quickly, education professionals are reduced to fighting over the best chairs, just like jail.

I'm not sure what's worse. The "rubber room" is someplace you go involuntarily. The UAW created the Job Bank voluntarily.

I don't know if we can blame unions, exactly. Without them, management would have overwhelming power. But we need something else too -- a way of resolving differences that doesn't incent management or union leaders to plunder the organization.

Hint: "dehumanizing" was not the word you were looking for, there.

Curious that you didn't point to the billions of dollars "extracted" on salaries, benefits, and golden parachutes for executives who have mismanaged that industry into ruin over decades.

And here's another hint: "free market" effects and "competition" take a toll on real live human beings. It's not some abstract little academic and mathematical simulation of "efficiency". When businesses screw up, people suffer. Workers who may not have the savings and golden parachutes and the perks and a ton of resources to fall back on have to somehow continue to put food on the table, pay mortgages, and buy braces for their kids teeth.

The efficiency and good work of American labor has never been in doubt. The same cannot be said for the intelligence and ethics of business owners.

Dehumanizing is exactly the word I meant. The lure of safe income was used to render incapable and irrelevant a great many human beings. Now they are scarcely fit for work. What now?

"I felt like I was useless -- like I was put out to pasture," he said. "It's just like how they treated the veterans. During the war, we were heroes. When we came back ..."

We are all party to stupid choices that these industrial behemoths have made. But laying blame won't solve all the problems. We need to specifically confront and dismantle the practices, organizations, and mindsets that lead us into this mess.

Board positions!

Not all management is necessarily clueless and incompetent. Alan Mulally was a brilliant engineer and manager at Boeing ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Mulally ). He was recruited to come in and essentially fix Ford. He doesn't need to work. He is already a multimillionaire from working at Boeing. The reason management is well paid is because you need a way to motivate the very small group of managers that are qualified for the job. If you are worth millions - why would you ever take a job that pays one dollar a year and makes the entire world hate you? Well because if they do pull this off - the stock will recover and everyone will make a lot of money. And management could be credited with saving the industry. I know this is hard to imagine but every executive manager I have known worries about their employees and how their decisions effect the community and world they live in.

I've known a number of engineers who have been laid off, including myself and it almost always comes out as a huge improvement to the individual. Anytime you leave a failing company and enter a company which is hiring it's likely to be a big big improvement.

The real question, assuming it's unavoidable with a democratic congress and president incoming, is how do we make sure the US tax payer doesn't get screwed. We shouldn't be giving ANYTHING away. I agree with you there.

I've worked for a number of big businesses and know some upper management personally. I've also worked two union jobs and come from a town that was/is mostly union labor. I can tell you that the unions of today that I saw are corrupt. Management is rarely corrupt - but since managers have greater influence it gets far more media attention. I don't know and can't think of the last time I've heard anyone that I respect say anything positive about unions. This is coming from someone who lived within 20 miles of a Chrysler plant for the majority of my life. The responsibility to fix the current situation lies with management. The blame lies with unions and the management of the past.

The efficiency and good work of American labor has never been in doubt.

Unfortunately this is in doubt. Unions do not recognize efficiency or good work. I agree most employers recognize this, but Unions prevent it. Ask any above average teacher, police officer or UPS employee.

(And for the record - yes this is entirely my opinion - I don't claim otherwise. My conclusions are my own and at best anecdotal++, but none the less they are still my conclusions)

Wrong. There is not a "very small group" of people who are qualified to be CEOs at F-500 companies. There is a very small group of people who have enough connections to finagle their way into an F-500 CEO position, and that is why these positions pay so well. "CEO talent" is not some rare natural gift that very people have. The percentage of people who have the necessary talents isn't huge, but it's on the 1-10% order of magnitude, and there are plenty of capable people-- small-business CEOs, public-sector executives-- who would do a stellar job of it, given the opportunity. By and large, those people are not pulling down million-dollar salaries.

If this was true, don't you think some business somewhere would have figured it out? It' naive to think businesses and their stock holders don't do what's in their best interest.

As for small business owners - I know a few that pull down million-dollar a year profit. I think small businesses are often more profitable for the individual than being an executive at a big business. I think being an owner of a successful small business is infinitely more desirable than an executive manager at a large company from a personal perspective. I think it's comparing apples and oranges.

"CEO talent" is not some rare natural gift that very people have.

I markedly disagree. It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally. As the size of the company increases so does the demand on your time. Every moment of your time is taken up and you almost exclusively deal with difficult problems and marginal decisions. Likely these problems and decisions will require broad understanding of many technologies and meta knowledge about unions and politics. When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases). On top of this you are setting the focus for the company both internally and externally and are responsible for all P & L goals set for the market. You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year? I haven't even gotten around to family, friends, social events, volunteering, vacation, etc. It's not like a moment of time passes where you aren't the CEO of a large company.

The board sets the CEO salary-- not the mom-and-pop value investors, and not the traders who are shareholders one hour and short the company the next. Who's on the board? The CEO's friends, many of whom are CEOs in other companies, in which the aforesaid CEO a board member. So, invariably, they vote up each others' compensation. They get away with this because, although the CEO salaries don't need to be that high, it's not especially relevant to the company's success or failure whether it pays the CEO $500k or $5M per year. From a large company's perspective, that's chump change.

It's difficult job. Emotionally, physically, mentally.

Sure it is. So are a lot of jobs.

When making most of these decisions you will know partial information (which is in contrast to hacking where you likely can know all information available and understand it completely in many cases).

If you're doing anything interesting in technology, partial information is a permanent state. APIs and languages change, new libraries are built, and it's impossible to keep an intimate knowledge of everything that might be useful to the next project.

You are telling me 1-10% of capable people can do that? Or would want to do that for less than a million dollars a year.

Yes, and yes.

Wrong and wrong. If it's so easy then tell me when you are CEO of a fortune 500.

No more excuses. You say just about anyone can do it, so do it.

... that's what I thought.

I said that at least 1% of the population has the capacity to do the job. I didn't say that I'm in that 1-10%-- although I probably am-- and I didn't say that I have the social connections necessary to get a F-500 CEO position-- I don't.

There's a difference between being able to do a job and being able to get the job. I will agree with you so far as that far fewer than 1% of the population can get a F-500 CEO position, but that's not because they lack the necessary competence.

Yes, good for them -- while it lasted. But since they, like the executives, chose short-term comfort rather than enduring competitiveness, the profits they split with those executives are long gone.

Both the auto executives and auto laborers now need to find other gainful employment, like the rest of us. Maybe some will find work in a reorganized domestic auto industry -- but we don't owe them that, and we shouldn't shut our eyes to how they both reached this reckoning.

The "steal all the lifeboats" mentality shown by most of the dogshit passing for corporate executives is much worse than any "job bank", of course.

A major reason the Japanese run more efficient factories in the US, with US workers, is that they aren't constrained by the same inflexible union hiring/firing/workplace rules.

And US companies do have significantly higher costs per similar car for pay and benefits (including health and retirement), due to misguided levels set in fat-year collective bargaining.

A 'bailout' plan: adopt for factories in the rust belt the exact same contracts, rules, and pay rates that work for profitable factories in the southern US.

I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned the social consequences of the decision you are considering. If you cross the picket line you are a 'scab' and some of your colleagues, especially if they come from a working class background, will consider you to be a traitor.

The TA-like employees you work with probably do not resemble the stereotypical angry union truck driver or dock worker but some of them may come from countries where trade union organizers are routinely arrested, kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

Otherwise polite and reasonable people can take a lot of offense to a decision like this.

He's under no obligation to take a "principled stand". In fact, he didn't ask about that. He asked what to do.

I do like how you insist that he can't disagree with your position without taking a huge personal hit. Why is your position so privileged?

> If you don't like unions, then don't take a job in a union shop.

In other words, he shouldn't have gone to grad school.

> If you cross the picket line you are a 'scab' and some of your colleagues, especially if they come from a working class background, will consider you to be a traitor.

Some folks will consider you a traitor for voting "wrong", for having the wrong color skin, for liking the wrong football team, for driving the wrong car, for drinking the wrong beer. Such things are commonly recognized as "their problem".

> The TA-like employees you work with probably do not resemble the stereotypical angry union truck driver or dock worker but some of them may come from countries where trade union organizers are routinely arrested, kidnapped, tortured, and murdered.

So? His response to his union has absolutely no relationship to what happens to union folk in other countries. More to the point, what happens in other countries doesn't justify union thuggery in the US.

No chance in hell I'd let a mob of idiots influence my decision making process.

However, a few years back they did renegotiate the TA contracts through a strike mostly to just adjust them for inflation. So I feel pretty torn because the university system I am a part of does seem to take advantage of the TA labor, but I don't want to request things that are unsustainable.

It's not your job to keep your own salary down. Don't negotiate against yourself.

Do universities voluntarily avoid raising tuition because high tuitions are becoming "unsustainable"? Why, no. They do not.

Did the independent contractors who built the university's new athletic complex voluntarily lower their bids to allow the university to use some of its big endowment to pay you a better wage instead? Why, no. They did not.

The proper way to negotiate is to ask for more than you expect to settle for. Smart union organizers understand this. Let the university wail about how "unsustainable" their budget is: That's their problem, not yours. Indeed, it's particularly hilarious for you to care about the state of the university's budget or profit margin, because in a handful of years you will be gone, one way or another. It's not like the university is offering you a long-term career path. So turn 'em upside down and shake 'em.

You don't have to go out on strike. You could always just continue to be screwed, like all the rest of us who went to grad schools where organizing was not an option.

My wife's part of the teacher's union only b/c they give you 1M in legal protection if you get sued.

For TA's, I could imagine problems with patents, pharma, and medical.

I guess you could rig up the equivalent of malpractice insurance for certain fields to get around the union problem, but the current solution is the best available.

You aren't quite forced to join the union. It's just a condition of taking the job. You can find another job instead. Sucks, but I think it's legal.

This is just a matter of general principle. You should do graduate school only if you can do so with savings-neutral compensation at a reasonable (low, but comfortable) lifestyle. Otherwise, you're getting a harsh signal from the market. If you can't get a university to pay you ~$15k as a grad student, you have no hope of getting them to cough up $70k for you as a tenure-track professor.

$1000/month with 1/3 going to tuition? You're getting screwed. TAs simply should not be paying tuition. Professors' kids don't.

In my grad class at Rutgers, 3 are solidly on the tenure track (read: postdoc at good school), 3 did not finish (one is now in his 7'th year), the remainder are unlikely to get a tenured position.

I'm told that even at that other NJ school, only about 50% go on to get a tenure track job.

If by "top half", you're talking about grades, I disagree. If you're talking about research potential then I agree with you.