Comments on: GSRA Bill: UM Regents Debate Opposition

By: Jens Zorn

Jens Zorn — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:34:23 +0000

Those members of the University of Michigan faculty most involved in research have a strong and well-reasoned opposition to the unionization of research assistants: Research being done by a student for a thesis is not suited to formal rules regarding work hours. Moreover, the money for this research is often constrained in amount and in duration; this makes it difficult for a research group to meet typical union agreements with regard to continuity of support. Nevertheless, the University has worked to assure that non-unionized graduate student research assistants have basically the same pay and benefits as the unionized graduate student instructors.

As Smith points out, it may well be that the majority of the board had to publicly support the unionization or risk alienating their union supporters. Understanding their position as being one of of political expedience, but recognizing that they were in opposition to a very successful faculty as well as a distinguished president, the regents may well be seeking to have it both ways. Not the best situation, I suppose, but we have larger problems on the horizon.

By: Douglas Smith

Douglas Smith — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:14:42 +0000

There is something going on that goes far beyond the question of uniionization. Who sets the policy of the University of Michigan? Is it the Board of Regents or President Coleman?

The Regents adopted a resolution supporting the right of GSRA’s to unionize if a majority wish to do so. That should be the official policy of the University but President Coleman and her lieutenants are testifying before the legislature opposing unionization. The University President is a Chief Executive, which means that she is supposed to execute the policy that is set by the Board. If she cannot support the policy set by the Board she should resign. If she is unwilling to support the policy set by the Board, she should be fired. The fact that this has not happened shows that the Board wants it both ways.

The majority of the Board is made up of Democrats who have been sponsored by specific unions. They had to publicly support the rights of the students to unionize or alienate their union supporters but they are allowing President Coleman to pubicly oppose the issue. The Board is being dishonest about their true policy on this issue.