{"id":3197,"date":"2019-04-22T15:35:00","date_gmt":"2019-04-22T15:35:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/?p=3197"},"modified":"2019-04-22T15:41:54","modified_gmt":"2019-04-22T15:41:54","slug":"bargaining-session-6-columbia-continues-to-deny-the-reality-of-our-working-conditions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/2019\/04\/22\/bargaining-session-6-columbia-continues-to-deny-the-reality-of-our-working-conditions\/","title":{"rendered":"Bargaining Session #6: Columbia continues to deny the reality of our working conditions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bargaining continues! During our 5-hour long session this Thursday, the key issues we discussed were workload and intellectual property. In what was our <\/span>fifth<\/span> bargaining session, the GWC-UAW Bargaining Committee continued the push for a strong and fair contract only to be met with the University’s strategy of denying reality: That we are workers (as well as students) whose labor should be valued as much as any employee at this university. That means agreeing to meaningful protections against unfair demands and recourse when necessary. <\/span><\/p>\n

To start with, Eva from the Architecture Department presented an article that would establish protections for student workers against unreasonable work demands and give them an opportunity to initiate a grievance. Dan (Earth Science) presented an article that would ensure student workers are properly acknowledged for the intellectual work they do and protected from retaliation if they shine light on cases of scholarly misconduct. At an elite research university, these basic protections are fundamental to our fight for a contract that establishes fair and stable working conditions.<\/span><\/p>\n

We expected the administration to disagree with us on the extent to which things need to change (see our last blog: <\/span>Columbia Clings to the Status Quo<\/span><\/a>). Columbia University did not disappoint. They not only rejected our proposals, but reacted with \u201cshock\u201d and disbelief that we claimed SAs are routinely required to perform tasks that have nothing to do with their assignments or made to work excessing hours. Indeed, throughout the session, we were met with a paternalistic attitude: The administration\u2019s lawyer described the compensation we receive for our work at Columbia as a \u201cgift,\u201d for which we should be grateful.<\/span><\/p>\n

Responding to their objections to our Workload proposal, and their claim that all research assistant work was to our own benefit, we patiently and firmly informed the administration that, in fact, there is an urgent need for workload protections such as defining required tasks in a job description. Noura (Computer Science) provided examples of work from our RA survey like maintaining server equipment or organizing lab seminars, that do not coincide with our own research work. The administration\u2019s bargaining team, including STEM faculty, said this was all part of our \u201ctraining,\u201d and was to the benefit of our education. Ian (Public Health) countered the University\u2019s claims with examples of his RA tasks that included helping his supervisor move apartments \u2014 to which one of the administration\u2019s members claimed that he didn\u2019t mind helping his advisor with personal tasks, because they were friends. Yash (Environmental Engineering) pointed out that some RAs are required to work seven days a week in the lab, sometimes ten or more hours a day. We explained that the power imbalance between student workers and advisors, as well as the oppressive atmosphere and unhealthy work culture that prevail in some labs and departments, leave student workers without recourse in case of abuse. The administration\u2019s response was: \u201cWe don\u2019t believe that too many \u2013 or any \u2013 RAs are exploited\u201d, ignoring the fact that our RA survey indicated otherwise, and calling it “subjective.” <\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, pretending that there is no problem seems to be where the Columbia administration is at right now. During the previous session they termed our Workspace proposal \u201cpie-in-the-sky\u201d because it called on Columbia to provide student assistants with a desk in a designated space in order to help TAs and RAs to effectively support students and carry out \u00a0duties. When we proposed a reasonable limit on the number of students a TA can be asked to teach at one time, Columbia’s lawyer asked what the university was supposed to do if a class becomes oversubscribed. \u201cWell, hire another TA,\u201d we replied. When he cast doubt on the university\u2019s ability to afford that, Dominic (Sociology) reminded him that the university can afford to pay his salary. (For reference, Columbia\u2019s lawyer earned more than $5,000 during Thursday\u2019s bargaining session alone \u2014 a senior lawyer from <\/span>Proskauer<\/span> typically bills at well over $1,000\/hr \u2014 which approximately equals what a TA earns in the course of a semester.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Columbia\u2019s insistence on the status quo was also visible in their counter to our proposal on Paid Leaves \u2014 theirs simply referred us to the existing student leave policy, calling our proposal \u201cout of the realm of reason.\u201d When we asked them to explain exactly which part of our proposal they considered \u00a0unreasonable, they refused to answer, asserting that they would not discuss it, and requesting that we \u201cgive them a more reasonable proposal.\u201d Helen (Philosophy) and Dan pushed back, explaining how student leave policies, which differ across schools, are written with students\u2019 concerns in mind, not those of workers. And that we are here to bargain over our working conditions!<\/span><\/p>\n

The session ended with a reminder to Columbia about our most recent Request for Information. The University’s team suggested that we reach out to our own department administrators for the data instead of providing us with the information themselves, claiming it was extremely difficult to \u2018capture the data\u2019 on payment histories and rent charged to student assistants. <\/span><\/p>\n

We are sitting at the table with Columbia to strengthen the benefits we currently enjoy and provide protection against the abuse and exploitation that we have no recourse against. A strong contract must address the very real concerns that we are fighting for \u2014 concerns that arise directly from our daily experience as student workers at this university. Our demands cannot be dismissed by a patronizing wave of the hand, and we will continue to remind Columbia of that. Come join us for our <\/span>next bargaining session<\/b>, taking place <\/span>on Morningside campus<\/b> for the first time: May 1st, 2-6pm, Lerner Hall Broadway Room. If you can\u2019t make it in person, student workers are now <\/span>live tweeting<\/span><\/a> from the sessions \u2014 please follow, share, and comment!<\/span><\/p>\n

Also, we\u2019d like to hear from you! During your time at Columbia, have you ever been asked to work an unreasonable amount? Has your PI skirted lab safety standards? Have you had to wait months to get reimbursed for work-related travel expenses? Have you found it difficult to get access to the health care you need, or been shocked at the bill you received afterward? Please tell us what your work has been like for you \u2014 it is clear that we need to educate the administration about the daily reality of life as a student worker at Columbia. Your personal experiences will be a powerful force driving the bargaining process forward. Send your stories to <\/span>gwc.bargaining@gmail.com<\/span><\/a> and let’s make Columbia University a truly excellent place to study and to work. We look forward to hearing from you!<\/span><\/p>\n

See you on May Day!<\/span><\/p>\n

Yours,<\/span><\/p>\n

GWC Bargaining Committee<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bargaining continues! During our 5-hour long session this Thursday, the key issues we discussed were workload and intellectual property. In what was our fifth bargaining session, the GWC-UAW Bargaining Committee continued the push for a strong and fair contract only<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3198,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[17,21,16,5,4],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/IMG-20190418-WA0002.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3197"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3197"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3197\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3204,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3197\/revisions\/3204"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3198"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3197"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3197"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/columbiagradunion.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3197"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}