Graduate Student Unions in the United States

PARBUDYAL SINGH
York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada
DEBORAH M. ZINNI
Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada
ANNE F. MAcLENNAN

York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada

Graduate student unions have been attracting considerable academic and practitioner attention recently, especially since the New York University decision in
2000. Given the declining fortunes of the union movement, it seems as if the
academic sector has the potential of becoming a vital new organizing frontier.
However, there is scant research on this issue. We trace the origins and evolution of graduate student unions in the United States, discuss the relevant statutory and case law, analyze pertinent collective bargaining and strike issues,
and suggest avenues for future research.

I. Introduction
There has been a growing academic and practitioner interest in graduate student unions
in the United States, catalyzed by the unprecedented unanimous decision by the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2000 to recognize the graduate student
union at New York University (NYU) (Saltzman, 2000). This decision, which marked
a significant reversal in the treatment of graduate student unions at private universities by the NLRB, was subsequently overturned by a 3-2 decision in Brown University
v. NLRB in July 2004. In the four-year interval since the NYU decision, there was a
spurt of organizing drives at other major universities, including Yale, Penn State, Ohio
State, and the University of Pennsylvania, all of which may be adversely affected by
the Brown decision.
The most recent NLRB ruling comes at a time when graduate students unionization was on the rise in the United States. Universities with recognized graduate student unions have grown from ten to at least 30 over the past decade. The new bargaining units have included major universities such as Temple, Michigan State,
University of Rhode Island, and Columbia. With an estimated 20 percent of all gradJOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH
Volume XXVII, Number 1

Winter 2006

56

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

uate employees now covered by collective bargaining agreements (Lafer, 2003), and
renewed interest in faculty unionization (Metchick and Singh, 2004), higher education might become a new frontier for organized labor (Chaison and Bigelow, 2002).
The unionization of graduate students is especially important for the labor movement in the United States, given the current union density rates of less than 14 percent, the lowest since workers gained collective bargaining rights through the National
Labor Relations Act in 1935. Furthermore, the organization of student unions extends
beyond the contemporaneous work of the local to provide ideological training of future
labor leaders. In fact, the current leader of the powerful Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, John Wilhelm, who many view as potentially
the next national president of the AFL-CIO, is also a Yale graduate and previous chief
negotiator of white-collar workers on campus (Greenhouse, 2003b).
Despite the importance of graduate student unions, and with the exception of the
literature in labor law, there is a paucity of research in industrial relations on this
issue. Herein, we trace the origins of the graduate student union movement, discuss the
related law, analyze pertinent collective bargaining and strike issues, describe the
Yale case, discuss the rationale and opposing views for graduate student unions, and
suggest areas for future research.
II. An Overview of Graduate Student Unions: The Nature
of the Employment Relationship and the Law
Graduate students attend university to learn and gain relevant degrees. Increasingly,
they are employed while enrolled in their programs of study as research assistants
(working primarily to help faculty with their research), teaching assistants (working primarily to tutor students or teach courses or parts thereof), and administrative assistants
(working primarily with administrators in clerical and other duties). They seek employment for two primary reasons. First, many graduate students need the extra income to
defray the costs of higher education, which can exceed $18,000 per year at some institutions (Ehrenberg et al., 2003). Second, some universities require their graduate students to teach or assist administrators. While administrators posit that this is a requirement of a comprehensive education, especially when the students are being trained for
faculty positions, others argue that this strategy is a deliberate effort to reduce the costs
of instruction in and out of the classroom (Lafer, 2003). As Cavell (2000) notes, there
was a significant increase in the use of teaching assistants at colleges and universities, with the number of faculty members who were also graduate teachers growing by
35 percent, and that "this is largely a result of cost reduction efforts" (p. 1).
Whether students are being employed for pedagogical or economic reasons, the
trend seems incontrovertible: An increasing number of graduate students are required
to work. Furthermore, the workload is becoming heavier (Hayden, 2000). The Coalition of Graduate Employee Unions (CGEU) reported that part-time faculty had grown
from 22 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1995, with graduate students providing 18 percent of all teaching in institutions of higher education (CGEU, 2000). Data collected

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

57

from major universities indicate that from 50 to 70 percent of all contact hours are
performed by graduate students and contingent faculty (Digest of Education Statistics, 1999). Moreover, student labor is relatively cheap. For example, senior faculty can
earn an average of $80,000 per year, while a graduate assistant/teacher has the potential to earn from $5,000 to $20,000 per year (Digest of Education Statistics, 1999).
Even though universities increasingly depend on graduate students to perform
teaching assignments, practically speaking, graduate students need money to live and
so this collaboration of sorts can be beneficial to both the universities and to graduate
students. Compared to undergraduate students, they are typically older, less likely to
have family support, and more likely to have family responsibilities of their own (Task
Force, 1999). They are also likely to have depleted savings and possibly incurred significant debts in the course of their undergraduate studies. Without offers of funding,
usually in the form of academic assistantships or scholarships, few could choose to
pursue graduate studies on a full-time basis (Task Force, 1999).
Although graduate students may depend on this type of temporary work to support their studies, they do not occupy a core position in the academic framework making their positions transitory and precarious. Cranford et al. (2003: 455) posit that
precarious employment is characterized by atypical employment contracts, "limited
social benefits and statutory entitlements, job insecurity, low job tenure, low earnings, poor working conditions, and high risks of ill health." Essentially, the issue is
the quality of employment. The conditions of employment for graduate students share
many of the dimensions of precarious employment. Nonunion graduate students in a
precarious employment situation are challenged by limited access to job security and
tenure, lower wages, limited benefits, and increased risks of ill health due to stress.
Given the foregoing, graduate students across North America are increasingly seeking collective action through unionization to remedy real and perceived inequities.
However, the unionization process is fraught with legal hurdles. As with other
sectors in the United States, there are different industrial relations frameworks and
laws governing the public and private sectors. In public universities, state laws govern the unionization process and the acquisition of collective bargaining rights. The
University of Wisconsin became the first university to recognize its graduate student
union in 1969, albeit voluntarily, as there was no state law at that time that protected
the students' right to collective bargaining--that came much later in 1986. Currently,
there is no uniformity at the state level in dealing with student unions. While at least
ten states guarantee this right, including Massachusetts, Kansas, Florida, and California, others do not. Essentially, as with other legal initiatives, political and other forces
drive the legislation at the state level. In Florida and Kansas, the relevant statutes
were adopted after spirited opposition by those who felt that students were not employees and, therefore, should not be guaranteed the right to organize and bargain collectively (Hayden, 2000). Moreover, many of the states that guarantee this protection do
not permit the students to strike, a situation not unlike that of other state employees
(Leatherman, 2000).

58

JOURNALOFLABORRESEARCH

The situation at private universities has its own peculiarities. At first, the NLRB
refused to hear the cases, arguing that they were not within its jurisdiction. Essentially, it was determined, in part, that student employment does not affect interstate
commerce and that it is educational or charitable in nature, which does not trigger
the provisions of the NLRA. For instance, in the 1951 Columbia University ruling, the
NLRB held that without significant commercial activity and with an educational
focus, a private university can bypass the NLRA (Trustees of Columbia University,
1951). This argument was reversed in 1970 when the NLRB accepted the Cornell
University case. It was held that given the changing economic realities, with the lines
blurred between business and education, and between commercial and noncommercial activities, the NLRB "can best effectuate the policies of the Act by asserting jurisdiction over nonprofit, private educational institutions.., whose operations have a
substantial effect on commerce" (Cornell University v. NLRB, 1970: 334). Now, the
central debate at the labor board and courts revolves around the issue of whether students are employees under the law. The relevant section of the NLRA (s. 7) states that,
"employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection." The definition of "employees" then becomes crucial. Section 2(3), in a somewhat circular manner, defines employees: "The term employees
shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular
employer, unless [the Act] explicitly stated otherwise." Evidently, the Act does not
specifically exclude students.
Over time, labor boards and courts have used two tests to ascertain whether students are employees. First, there is a "primary purpose" test, whereby the validity of
a bargaining unit is decided by examining its primary purpose. If the primary purpose
is economic, then the unit can acquire collective bargaining rights; however, if it is
educational, with economic purposes secondary, it is not a valid unit (Gartland, 2002;
Rohrbacher, 2000). For instance, in the Adelphi University case, the NLRB denied
graduate students who were teaching assistants collective bargaining rights. The students were required to work for 20 hours per week and were remunerated with $1,200
to $2,900 per academic year. In coming to its decision, the Board distinguished student
assistants as being different from full-time faculty because of the economic benefits
provided to faculty but denied to students. The Board found that graduate students
worked as part of their educational training in attaining a degree, and the primary purpose was not economic (Adelphi and NLRB, 1972). This line of reasoning was maintained over the next three decades, as exemplified in Leland Stanford Junior University and NLRB (1974) and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and NLRB (1976). In a
dissenting opinion in the Cedars-Sinai case, Chairman Fanning argued that the Board
was wrong, and asserted that whether or not people are "primarily carpenters" or "primarily students," they are still employees. He further contended that the fact that students received remuneration, or "stipends" for their services, sometimes as much as
$20,000 is evidence that they are employees.

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

59

This line of argument is the essence of the second criteria in adjudicating the
employment status of students, namely the "service test." Essentially, this test is
grounded in the contention that anyone who provides compensated services is an
employee. In Boston Medical Center and NLRB (1999), the Board ruled that medical
interns, who were also degree-seeking students, were employees under the NLRA. The
house staff/interns received annual compensation from about $34,000 to $44,000 and
were entitled to several other benefits including paid vacation, sick, parental and
bereavement leave, and health, dental, and life insurance, among others. Applying the
service test, the Board held that the house staff worked for an employer within the
meaning of the NLRA, were compensated for their services, and provided patient care
for the Hospital, and that all of these "obviously define an employer-employee relationship" (Boston Medical Center and NLRB, 1999: 14).
This reasoning prevailed in the historic New York University (NYU) decision in
2000 that granted graduate students working as teaching assistants the right to form a
union and bargain collectively. The Board ruled that:
Graduate assistants work as teachers or researchers. They perform their duties for,
and under the control of, the Employer's departments or programs. Graduate assistants are paid for their work and are carried on the Employer's payroll system. The
graduate assistants' relationship with the Employer is thus indistinguishable from a
traditional master-servant relationship (NLRB v. NYU, 2000: 2).
However, the determination that graduate students are employees under the law does
not automatically grant them collective bargaining rights. If they are found to be
employees, the courts and administrative bodies must decide whether or not the relationship gives rise to collective bargaining rights (Hayden, 2000). In the NYU case,
the Board also found that the students had such rights.
The Brown v. NLRB decision, in overruling NYU, reverts to the pre-2000 position held by the NLRB. The NLRB decision was along party lines, with President
George W. Bush's appointees voting against unionization, and the two Democrats
offering a dissenting opinion. The majority ruled that:
we have come to the conclusion that the Board's 25-year pre-NYU principle of
regarding graduate students as non-employees was sound and well reasoned. It is
clear to us that graduate student assistants, including those at Brown, are primarily
students and have a primarily educational, not economic, relationship with their university. Accordingly, we overrule NYU and return to the pre-NYU Board precedent
(Brown v. NLRB, 2004: 5).
The two dissenters argued, among other things, that the majority ignored contemporary
economic realities facing universities and graduate students, as well as empirical evidence showing that collective bargaining would not have a "deleterious impact on
overall educational decisions" and that the NYU decision was correct. They stated
that the majority erred "in seeing the academic world as somehow removed from the
economic realm that labor law addresses--as if there was no room in the ivory tower
for a sweatshop" (Brown v. NLRB, 2004: 13).

60

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

The Brown decision, which does not affect public universities, is a serious blow
to the graduate student union movement in private universities. However, it does not
imply the demise of the movement. Union leaders have already stated that they will
challenge the decision (AFL-CIO, 2004). It is unclear what form the challenges will
take but there are a few options. First, they can argue that Brown is significantly different from other private universities (this was one of the arguments by the administrators at Brown in challenging the NYU decision; that is, Brown was different from
NYU). The union can also appeal the Board's ruling in federal court, or it could stage
strikes and other labor actions to force voluntary recognition by universities (AFLCIO, 2004; Smallwood, 2004). And, of course, the student union movement can also
wait to file new cases whenever the composition of the NLRB changes in favor of more
sympathetic members.
Interestingly, in Canada, the issue of students as employees was settled in two
cases in the mid-1970s. In the 1975 York University case (Graduate Students Association v. York University, 1975), the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) ruled that
teaching assistants were employees under Canadian law because they were remunerated for their services and that their work was not part of their graduate programs of
study. While the OLRB found that graduate research assistants were not employees,
because their income did not depend on their services, this was quickly overruled by
the British Columbia Labour Relations Board the following year, when it held that
interns and research assistants were also employees and had the right to organize and
bargain collectively (Rogrow and Birch, 1984). This essentially settled the matter for
all Canadian universities.
III. The Origins, Prevalence, and Functions of Graduate Student
Unions in the United States
While many researchers trace the origins of graduate student unions in the United
States to the recognition of the bargaining unit at the University of Wisconsin in 1969,
the roots of the student union movement can be traced to the Free Speech Movement
at the University of California at Berkeley and the related student protests in 1965
(Rhoades and Rhodes, 2003). The protests were partly in response to the university's
rules that limited and censored student organizations on campus; graduate students
were consequently ruled out of the student government (the Associated Students of the
University of California). The protests were also held against a backdrop of anti-war
campaign on campuses across the United States.
The University's policy towards organizing on campus had a long history. In
1962, the California Labor Federation had accused the University of limiting the right
of its students to protest. The Free Speech Movement demanded the right to negotiate
with the university administration as a bargaining agent for teaching assistants, following which the students went on strike. Graduate students subsequently formed a
400-member teaching assistant union, a local of the American Federation of Teachers
(Lipset and Wolin, 1965; Draper, 1965). Faculty members were divided in their opinion about student organizing and the Free Speech Movement. Those who supported it

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

61

formed the Committee of Two Hundred. Others who did not favor student organizing
united in another group, called the Faculty Forum (Lipset and Wolin, 1965).
One of the most important consequences from the Free Speech Movement strike
was that it changed the way students thought about labor and more particularly about
working on campus (Draper, 1965). It also opened a discussion about on-campus relations and organizing and the importance of college students to the society.
In 1969, the Teaching Assistants' Association (TAA) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was voluntarily recognized by the university administration and
gained rights to bargain collectively (Cavell, 2000). Ed Young, the chancellor at that
time and an institutional labor economist, favored collective bargaining and granted the
TAA their demand for recognition despite a lack of legal protection by state laws
(Saltzman, 2000). The TAA went on strike in March the following year, demanding
better wages, benefits, reasonable workloads, and the right to participate in curriculum planning. The local court determined that the strike was "illegal" and ordered the
teaching assistants back to work. In April 1970, the strikers reached an agreement with
the University whereby teaching assistants were promised guaranteed appointments for
four years and reasonable workloads. However, they were not included in the course
planning process (Rowe, 1970). A lack of legal protection continued to affect the work
of the TAA and, after a five-week strike in 1980, the university withdrew recognition.
However, following political pressure, a state law in 1986 finally gave the graduate students the right to organize and bargain collectively, but it also subjected the TAA to the
strike ban that applied to other state employees (Saltzman, 2000).
Graduate student unions at other universities have not been voluntarily recognized
and have needed legal protection to win collective bargaining rights. Initially, many
graduate students became organized by joining faculty unions. The City University of
New York teaching assistants and part-time faculty members were organized under the
United Federation of College Teachers. The union had its first contract with the Board
of Higher Education in 1969. The goal was to raise the salaries for untenured college
teachers. At that time, the average salary for new teachers was $5,500 per year, and
$5,950 for experienced teachers (Handler, 1969).
The economic crisis in the 1970s led to budgetary cuts in graduate programs and
stipends. Enrollment in these programs went down and students complained about
lower stipends. At the same time, the cost of living rose. Students became more active
on campuses, leading to several graduate student unions being formed at some universities and protest action taken elsewhere. Table 1 contains a chronological listing of
graduate student unions in the United States, as well as the central labor organizations with which they are affiliated.
After the initial thrust, the growth of graduate student unions became sluggish
over the next two decades; however, a resurgence has recently occurred. According
to Ehrenberg et al. (2002), by 1999, graduate students at 19 universities had formed
unions; however, another 13 major universities were added to the list between 1999
and 2002. The University of California (UC) system may have contorted this figure,

Milwaukee Graduate Assistants

Association
Rutgers Council of AAUP
Chapters National AAUP
GEO

Graduate Student Organizing

Congress
Graduate Teaching Fellows
Federation
Graduate Student Employees Union
Student Workers Union
Graduate Employee Organization
Graduate Employees' Organization

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

University of Minnesota

University of Massachusetts-Lowell

State University of New York System

University of California-Berkeley
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign

University of Oregon, Eugene

University of Michigan

GEO

Graduate Assistants United

University of South Florida

Rutgers University

AFT 2334 AAUP

NEA/AFT, Florida
Teaching Professionals
NEA/AFF

Professional Staff Congress

Graduate Assistants Union

City University of New York

University of Florida

UAW Local 1596

CWA Local 1104

UAW Local 2865
UAW Local 2322
AFT

AFT Local 3544

UE

AFT Local 3550

CGEU & National AAUP

AFT Local 2169

AFT Local 3220

Teaching Assistants Association

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Affiliated Union(s)

Graduate Union

University

1993

1982
1988
1990
1993

1975

1975

1975

1972

1971

1971

1969
1971

1969

Formation
Date

Recognized Graduate Student Unions, United States

Table I

1995

1992
1991
1991
2002

1978

1989

1975

1992

Recognized in
1981
Recognized 1992

1969
1982

1970

Recognized/
First Contract*

Graduate Students
Graduate Students
Graduate Employees
TA/RA/Grad Asst./
Pre professional
Grad Asst.
TA/RA/Full-time
Grad Students

Graduate Employees

Graduate Student
Instructors
TA/GA

TA/GA

Grad Students, TA

GA/RA

Graduate Employees
(TA/RA)
Graduate Assistants
TA/RA/TA Associates

Membership Type

Coalition of Graduate Employees

Student Workers Union
Graduate Student Employees
Graduate Employees Union
Graduate Student organizing
Committee
GEO
Graduate Student Employee
Action Coalition
Graduate Assistants United

Temple University Graduate

Student Association
Graduate Employees Organizing
Committee

Campaign to Organize Graduate

Students (COGS)
Graduate Assistants United

Graduate Teaching Assistants

Coalition
GEU

Uri-AAUP

UAW Local 1596

UAW

AFT Local 6123, AGEL,

CGEU, MFF-2AP,
AFL-CIO
AFF Local 6069
UAW Local 2865
UAW Local 2110
AFT Local 1996
UAW, Local 2110

2002

2000
2000

1999
1999
2000
2000
2000

1998

1998

1997

NEA/AFT
AFT, AFL-CIO

1996

1996

1995

CWA Local 4730 &

AAUP
UE Local 896

KAPE/AFT Local 4565

*Note: In some instances, the bargaining units have been recognized but no first contract exists.

University of Rhode Island

University of Massachusetts-Boston
University of Washington, Seattle

Oregon State University

University of California System
Columbia University
Michigan State University
New York University

Wayne State University

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical

University
Temple University

University of Iowa

Indiana University, Bloomington

University of Kansas

2003

2001
Pending

2001
2003
Pending
2001
2002

1999

2002

1998

Health plan 1986,

'96,'97
1996

Recognized 1995

Graduate Employees
Academic-Student
Employees (ASE)
GA

Graduate Students
Graduate Students
TA/RA
Graduate Assistants
Graduate students

Graduate Assistants

TA/RA

TA/RA

RAFFA

Graduates, TA's
(Excludes RA's)
Graduate students

JOURNALOFLABORRESEARCH

however, as eight of its campuses were given collective bargaining rights in 1999. This
occurred 16 years after the TAA union sought recognition at Berkeley and 11 years
after the union sought collective bargaining rights at other UC campuses (Saltzman,
2000). Nevertheless, as Lafer (2003: 26) reported, with 27 graduate unions existing in
2001, approximately 20 percent of all graduate employees in the United States were
covered by union contracts, "a level comparable to the most highly organized states
in the country and fifty percent above the national norm." Our own research suggests
that, counting the campuses at the UC and SUNY systems individually, there are now
at least 40 universities with recognized graduate student unions (Table 1).
Furthermore, there are organizing drives and recognition battles at more than 20
other universities, including Yale, Penn State, Ohio State, University of Maryland,
University of Pennsylvania, University of Virginia, University of North Carolina, and
the University of Illinois-Chicago. With the unionization of the first private university at NYU, a symbolic victory was achieved, albeit short-lived. The Brown decision
will certainly affect the future of current organizing drives. While graduate student
unions at public universities will most likely continue to grow in the next few years, the
situation at private universities would depend on the success of the challenges being
planned by organized labor and students groups against the Brown ruling.

The functions of graduate student unions may be gleaned from an examination of

the collective bargaining and strike issues. Not surprisingly these issues are similar to
the ones that led to the initial formation of the unions, including demands for better
wages and stipends, decreases in tuition, lowering of workloads, better benefits, and
more systematic grievance procedures. Recently, other issues have become highlighted,
including same-sex benefits and race and gender discrimination (Gubrium, 2001).
While some of the issues in the Yale University case are unique to that institution, a detailed examination of this case illustrates many of the intricate issues facing
graduate student unions and universities, as well as the methods of protest action, and
routes for conflict resolution.

The Yale University Case. The origins of the graduate student organization at
Yale University can be traced to 1987, when 25 teaching assistants formed a group
called the Teaching Assistant Solidarity, or the TA Solidarity (Johnson and McCarthy,
2000). They argued that teaching assistants had poor working conditions and were
not paid regularly. After they threatened to take legal action against the University,
the administration established a paycheck schedule for the following fall. In February
1990, the University adopted the Kagan-Politt Plan, which slashed teaching assistant
positions by 30 percent, imposed restrictions on teaching positions for students in their
fifth year, and a six-year registration cutoff. TA Solidarity members decided to form
the Graduate Employees Student Organization (GESO) in order to initiate discussion
with the University officials on the Kagan-Politt plan (GESO, 2004).
Yale did not recognize the new organization, maintaining that it had an educational, not an employment relationship, with the teaching assistants. GESO subsequently led a one-day walkout in December, 1991, and a three-day strike in February,

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

65

1992. As a result, GESO achieved an increase in pay for the teaching assistants and
cancellation of the six-year registration rule.
On April 6, 1995, teaching assistants walked out of their class sections demanding the right to be represented by GESO. In a subsequent election, 600 students voted
for the union and 120 voted against it (1,080 graduate students from the humanities and
social sciences were qualified to vote in the election). Some graduate students, who
opposed unionization, did not agree with GESO's strategies to cancel TA classes and
to "use" undergraduate students to achieve their goals. For the first time GESO opposition united in a group, called the Graduates Against Unionization. These students did
not consider themselves employees and believed that their teaching assignment was a
practical experience rather than a job. Despite the vote, Yale refused to negotiate a contract with GESO.
In December 1995, GESO organized a grade strike and again demanded union
recognition from the administration (Bodah, 2000; Rowland, 2001). About 200 teaching assistants did not submit the final grades of the undergraduate students by the due
date but fulfilled other duties for the Fall 1995 semester. The strike ended on January
15, 1996. At least two deans and faculty members of one department may have threatened the strikers with the loss of their positions as teaching assistants and the prospect
of negative recommendations which would affect their future careers (Hayden, 2000).
GESO took the case to the NLRB by filing an unfair labor practice charge. The General Counsel for the NLRB supported GESO's claim and issued a complaint in 1997
(NLRB v. Yale, 1999). At the hearing, Yale denied the charges and maintained its
position that the students were not employees under the law. The Administrative Law
Judge ruled that the strike was not protected under the NLRA because it was a partial
one; that is, the students continued to perform some of their duties after the strike was
called and, thus, were working and striking at the same time.
The grade strike case was appealed to the full NRLB, and in March 2000, Yale
settled the case. The charges against the University that it illegally threatened the striking TAs were dismissed, but Yale had to post official rules for the right of free speech
of its employees. However, the NLRB did not issue a decision whether the graduate
students were employees. Instead, it referred the issue back to the administrative law
judge. The decision is still pending. While the grade strike was unsuccessful for GESO,
the NLRB General Counsel argued that graduate teaching assistants were "employees"
and contended that they had the right to be protected under the National Labor Relations Act. This was the first time that U.S. labor law opened a window of opportunity
for a discussion about the status of teaching assistants at a private university.
In March 2003, GESO went on a five-day strike along with the other Yale unions.
Yale workers wanted better wages and pensions, and graduate students demanded the
right to organize in a union (Greenhouse, 2003a). Of the approximately 1,000 GESO
members, 482 voted to strike, and 141 opposed it. On April 30, 2003, GESO held
another vote, monitored by the League of Women Voters, seeking recognition by
Yale students (Zandonella, 2003). The organization did not seek the standard proce-

66

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

dure for an election under the supervision of the NLRB because they feared that Yale' s
administration would appeal the vote in a long legal procedure. Furthermore, there was
no outcome yet in the cases involving Brown and Columbia Universities about graduate students having the right to unionize in private universities. The union was surprisingly rejected by a slim 694q551 vote (Greenhouse, 2003a).
There were several reasons behind the union's defeat. First, GESO's members
may not have been united in their decision to strike in March. Second, GESO may have
lost many supporters because of its aggressive tactics after the March strike. Many
graduate students did not approve of the group's practice to interrupt lab classes and
visit students at home in order to get them on GESO's side. GESO also claimed unfair
practices by the administration and some faculty. In fact, GESO filed unfair labor practice complaints with the NLRB against five professors, who allegedly did not let union
activists speak to the students, conducted surveillance of union-related conversations,
and threatened not to write recommendations on behalf of graduate students in the
event of a strike.
Today, GESO, a member of the Federation of the Hospitality and University
Employees, along with the other Yale unions, still tries to influence decision making
on campus. In addition to the traditional issues driving unionization (such as demands
for higher wages, lower tuition, good working conditions, reasonable workloads and
class sizes, and health care benefits), GESO is now involved in helping to bring to the
fore several contemporary issues, such as the discrimination of minority groups and
women, and the "corporatization" of universities. It is still not recognized by Yale as
the legal bargaining agent for students.

IV. Discussion and Future Research

Graduate students are, first and foremost, students who enter academic institutions to
study in their chosen fields under the tutelage of faculty members. Historically, the right
of passage for a graduate student has included such duties as teaching, marking papers,
or leading seminars, which have been seen as training for future academic positions.
This role has been identified as an "apprentice." However, with increased workloads,
sometimes matching that of their faculty advisors, students are finding it difficult to
complete their course work, and with full-time academic employment in decline, students have had to rethink their role. Between 1975 and 1995, universities eliminated
an average of 10 percent of their tenure-track faculty, thus pushing the workload onto
graduate students and part-time faculty (Lafer, 2003). Partly because of the increased
workload, students have fought, and as noted, won the right to unionize in some
instances because their status has been recognized legally as employees. So, for graduate students, they serve dual-roles: one as a student, and the other as an employee.
In addition to increased teaching loads, the main issues behind organizing today
relate to demands for increased stipends, wages, and benefits such as health insurance, and in some instances, child care, due to increased financial difficulties faced
by these students. Students are faced with increased levels of debt, and for many the

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

67

prospect of paying these debts is potentially problematic because of poor job opportunities in some areas (Joseph and Curtiss, 1997). Students would expect to be able to
pay off their debt in a reasonable amount of time, but doing so requires them to have
well-paying jobs. Today, students, particularly those pursuing an academic career are
facing the reality that there are limited tenured-track jobs available on graduation
(DeCew, 2003). With fewer job prospects, students are staying in school longer, thus
compounding their debt load even further (Smallwood, 2001).
Real benefits apparently have been gained through graduate student unionization,
thus affording unions with "pragmatic legitimacy" (DeCew, 2003). For example, students at NYU have been guaranteed higher stipends and have full health insurance,
while at Michigan State, students have secured excellent child-care benefits. Student
unions and their sympathizers have argued that:
when unions help teaching assistants win better wages and working conditions, the
mission of the university is ultimately served: Students don't have to work extra
jobs that take them away from their teaching and scholarly work, and students from
a wider range of economic backgrounds can afford to pursue graduate education.
Unions also fight for better training, smaller classes, and other improvements in
undergraduate education. Indeed, we have found that faculty members who attended
unionized graduate schools themselves generally support unions for teaching assistants (Shapiro, 2001: B20).
University administrators, on the other hand, have some understandably tough
issues to deal with in the face of student unionization. Essentially, they find themselves
in the unenviable position of having to do more with less. With generally declining
government support, administrators are forced to seek alternative financing arrangements that ultimately can affect both faculty and students. What has evolved over the
years is a rise in what is termed "the corporate university." The traditional model of the
university, as we once knew it, is now replaced by one that runs itself as business, seeking to make profits. Additionally, with decreased funding for research, universities
have had to forge partnerships with corporations in order to find funds. Not only does
it find itself increasingly corporatized, but it also finds itself in the midst of union
unrest. In arguing against unionization, administrators state that universities are not the
same as big business and that unions don't fit in the academic culture. As one administrator puts it: "What I would emphasize here is the lack of fit between what a union
is and does and the character of an educational community we should aspire to
achieve" (Bollinger, 2000: 1).
The views of university administrators and others who oppose graduate student
unionization come as no surprise, given the efforts that have been made to fight this
proliferation of organizing on campuses throughout the United States. Perhaps the
most contentious of all issues pertains to the handling of economic versus academic
matters at the bargaining table. Administrators believe that academic issues should
not be discussed at the bargaining table and should remain the right of the university.
During their first agreement, NYU won the right over the union to remove academic
considerations from the table. Even though the union potentially could have bargained

68

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

for certain academic rights, they agreed to drop those issues for the sake of gaining a
first contract. Without this agreement negotiations might not have proceeded. Although
a number of unions have focused mainly on economic factors through collective bargaining, others view these issues as inseparable and attempt to negotiate related
clauses. For example, the union representing graduate students at University of Massachusetts-Amherst has tried to negotiate the assignment of teaching assistants based on
seniority rather than qualifications, and others have included class size (Williams,
2002). The question of teaching load becomes an obvious contentious issue that
remains an impetus for unionization. Given the current labor market, where academic
positions are declining, this issue may continue to gain noticeable attention.
Opponents of graduate student unions also argue that because graduate student
teaching and research assignments vary by semester, students voting for unionization are
those who are currently working as teaching or research assistants, and therefore only a
limited number of the total graduate student population is represented at any given time
(DeCew, 2003). Once a union is accepted, all students are then covered by that union, and
have to begin paying monthly union dues. Except in the fight-to-work states in the United
States, students who do not wish to be represented cannot opt out of the union.
Increased wages and benefits also represent increased costs to the universities.
With increased costs, universities can find it difficult to grant increased stipends and
provide health insurance and childcare. Ultimately, tuition must be increased. Coupled
with the issue of costs are assertions that having a unionized institution results in a negative image that potentially poses difficulties when attempting to attract the best students. Union critics propose that, "unionization modeled on i n d u s t r y . . , is highly
inflexible, bureaucratic, formalized, and potentially divisive. It is the antithesis of the
collegial model needed at a university" (DeCew, 2003: 104). Along similar lines,
George Rupp, former president of Columbia, wrote in response to a scheduled vote
regarding the representation of graduate teaching and research assistants by the UAW,
that "a union would reduce the flexibility that faculty advisors and students currently
have to structure teaching, and research assignments to meet individual education
needs as well as other aspects of graduate training" (Rupp, 2002: 1).
From the foregoing, there are clearly legitimate issues raised by those favoring
and those opposed to graduate student unionization. The NLRB and courts are in a
difficult position as they ponder the cases before them, and as they deliberate on the
cases that may arise following the Brown decision. Given that the economic realities of
universities are changing and that students, in many cases, are indeed employees under
the law, it seems just a matter of time that more universities, at least those that are
public, become unionized. Whether or not this is good for students or bad for administrators is moot at this point. But, as evident in the recent move by the administration
at Columbia University to meet and discuss a contract with union leaders has shown,
the two parties can peacefully coexist. This is, after all, the model envisioned by those
who chartered the NLRA and its associated institutions. Furthermore, as the evidence
in Canada shows, the university has not been turned upside down as a result of graduate students' unionization.

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

69

We have discussed the development of and coverage by graduate student unions

in the United States, the related law, and issues facing unions and universities. There
is, nevertheless, much work left to be done, especially empirical research on the
antecedents of unionization. Not unlike traditional trade unions, an intricate and interconnected network of factors is obviously driving the unionization of graduate students. First, as recognized in the NYU 2000 decision, the economics of colleges and
universities are undergoing change. Economic factors have historically been central
in the organizing drives of traditional unions (Fiorito et al., 1982; Murray and Reshef,
1988; Ofari-Dankwa, 1993; Perlman, 1928). Economic realities in universities have,
for instance, forced many administrators to depend increasingly on graduate students
and part-time instructors, relatively cheap sources of qualified labor, for teaching and
related work. This may be further compounded by heavier workloads, increases in
student-faculty ratios, and longer times for students to complete their degrees, all of
which may influence unionization. However, there is a paucity of empirical research on
such matters. While on the surface these factors may be driving student unionization,
we cannot conclude that this is the case with any certainty without empirical evidence.
The related issue of precarious employment of graduate students is also relevant
since it has implications for unions. The number of years that graduate students remain
on campus varies by field of study. Additionally graduate students may only teach a
limited number of semesters and not be actively involved in the university on a day-today basis. Their transient nature therefore may negatively affect union organizing.
With high membership turnover year after year, unions continuously lose experienced
members (union leaders and members) once their members stop teaching or if they
graduate (Dirnbach and Chimonas, 2003). The result of such turnover results in loss
of continuity of the union function, which has to be relearned and sometimes revitalized. Vosko's (2000) research focuses, in part, on the shifts in the standard employment relationship and the links between an increased feminization of the workforce
that coincides with a casualization of employment. Outside of the United States, in
the United Kingdom tenure was abolished in 1983, profoundly changing the way many
faculty view their careers (Weiner, 1996). A number of U.S. universities have also
attempted to dismantle tenure, such as the University of Minnesota in 1996 (Rabban,
2001). The uncertainty about future full-time positions for graduate students and the
changing views of employment within the larger university environment must be considered in research on student unionization.
Second, the political and legal environments may be influencing graduate student unionization, as they do generally (Curtiss and Joseph, 1997; Fiorito et al., 1982;
Murray and Reshef, 1988; Ofori-Dankwa, 1993). For instance, following the NYU
decision in 2000, many academics, practitioners, and activists looked to the incoming
Bush administration with either apprehension or expectancy, depending on their interests and positions. After the case, many of those involved were quick to note that the
case was appealed and that future cases would depend on the new administration's
appointees to the NLRB. As evident in the Brown decision, this proved prophetic.
Political and legal factors are not restricted to the operations of the NLRB but perme-

70

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

ate other institutions as well, including the courts. For instance, some observers think
that j u d g e s in the court system are waiting on the NLRB current decisions to guide
them at the state level (Lafer, 2003). Thus another area of research is the role of politics and the legal environment on unionization.
Finally, the ideological orientation and attitudes of workers and administration
m a y also influence the decision to unionize ( A d a m s , 1974; Kochan, 1979). M a n y
workers and students join unions because of their political and ideological beliefs and
philosophies (Wheeler and McClendon, 1991; Hemmasi and Graf, 1993), with those
believing in group solidarity perceiving unions as a major vehicle for collective action
(Haberfeld, 1995). As Brett (1980) found, dissatisfied employees are more likely to
form unions if they accept that collective action may lead to positive outcomes for
them. This seems to have been the case at Yale University where many students began
to focus on getting G E S O recognized as the collective bargaining agent for graduate
students because they saw this as necessary in addressing their work-related problems (Jacobson, 2001). Furthermore, the attitudes and ideologies of administrators
are also relevant, as these may influence the degree of union resistance. For instance,
the pro-collective bargaining philosophy of the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin in 1969 resulted in the voluntary recognition of the first graduate student union
in the United States (Saltzman, 2000). Nevertheless, there is need for more systematic research on the role of attitudes and ideologies in graduate student unionization.

REFERENCES
Adams, Roy. "Solidarity, Self-interest, and the Unionization Differential between Europe and North America." Relations lndustrielles 29 (Issue 3 1974): 497-512.
Adelphi v. NLRB, 195 NLRB (1972).

AFL-CIO. "Bush's Labor Board Denies Graduate Employees of Rights of Workers." <http://aflcio.
orgaboutunions/voiceatwork/ns07162004.cfm>.Accessed August, 2004.
Bodah, Matthew. "Significant Labor and Employment Law Issues in Higher Education during the Past
Decade and What to Look for Now: The Perspective of an Academician." Journal of Law and Education 29 (July 2000): 317-31.
Bollinger, Lee C. Letter to the Columbia University Community, March 7, 2002.
Boston Medical Center, 330 NLRB (1999).
Brown University v. NLRB, 342 NLRB (2004).

Cavell, Lori. "Graduate Student Unionization in Higher Education." ERIC Digest 2000. Available at:
<http://www.eriche.org>.Accessed March, 2003.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 223 NLRB (1976).

Chaison, Gary and Barbara Bigelow. Unions and Legitimacy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002.
Clawson, Dan. "Union MembershipMay Be Down, but New Tactics and Targets Are Revitalizingthe Workers' Movement." Boston Globe, August 31, 2003.
Coalition of Graduate Employee Unions. "Casual Nation." (December 12, 2000): 1-8.

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

71

Cornell University v. NLRB, 183 NLRB (1970).

Cranford, Cynthia J., Leah F. Vosko, and Nancy Zukewich. "The Gender of Precarious Employment in
Canada." Relations lndustrielles 58 (Issue 3 2003): 455-82.
DeCew, Judith Wagner. Unionization in the Academy: Visions and Realities. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
Digest of Educational Statistics 2000, Table 238, <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest/dt238.html>.
Accessed June, 2003.
Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1999.
Dirnbach, Eric and Susan Chimonas. "Shutting Down the Academic Factory: Developing Worker Identity
in Graduate Employee Unions." In Deborah M. Herman and Julie M. Schmid, eds. Cogs in the Classroom Factory: The Changing Identity of Academic Labor. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003, pp. 139-51.
Draper, Hal. Berkeley: The New Student Revolt. New York: Grove Press, 1965.
Ehrenberg, Ronald, Daniel Klaff, Adam Kezsbom, and Matthew Nagowsi. "Collective Bargaining in American Higher Education." Paper Presented at the Conlell Higher Education Research Institute Conference, July 2002.
Fiorito, Jack, Daniel Gallagher, and Charles Greer. "Determinants of U.S. Unionism: Past Research and
Future Needs." Industrial Relations 21 (Winter 1982): 1-32.
"First Contract at SUNY." Monthly Labor Review 117 (May 1994): 62.
Gartland, Gregory. "Of Ducks and Dissertations: A Call for a Return to the National Labor Relations Board's
'Primary Purpose Test' in Determining the Status of Graduate Assistants Under the National Labor
Relations Act." Journal of Labor and Employment Law 4 (Spring 2002): 624-40.
GESO. <http://www.yaleunions.org/geso/>. Accessed 2004.
Graduate Assistants Association v. York University. Ontario Labour Relations Board Decisions, September
1975, 683-689.
Greenhouse, Steven. "Graduate Students Reject Union in Yale Vote." New York Times, May 2, 2003a.
- - .

"In Yale's Eternal Fights, A Volatile Mix Fuels Walkouts." New York Times, September 4, 2003b.

Gubrium, Erika. "A Brief History of Graduate Assistants United: Student Organization Graduate Employee
Union." Available from <www.ufgau.org>. March 2001. Accessed May 21, 2004.
Haberfeld, Yitchak. "Why Do Workers Join Unions? The Case of Israel." Industrial and Labor Relations
Review 48 (July 1995): 656-67.
Handler, M.S. "City U. and Untenured Teachers Reach Agreement on a Contract." New York Times, September 11, 1969.
Hayden, Grant. "The University Works Because We Do: Collective Bargaining Rights for Graduate Assistants." Fordham Law Review 69 (March 2000): 1233-64.
Hemmasi, Masoud and Lee Graf. "Determinants of Faculty Voting Behavior in Union Representation Elections: A Multivariate Model." Journal of Management 19 (Spring 1993): 13-32.
Jacobson, Jennifer. "Yale Increases Stipends for Students by 20%." Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (February 2, 2001): A12.
Johnson, Ben and Tom McCarthy. "Graduate Student Organizing at Yale and the Future of the Labor Movement in Higher Education." Social Policy 30 (Summer 2000): 11-18.
Joseph, Tamara and Jon Curtis. "Why Professors Should Support Graduate Student Unions." Chronicle of
Higher Education 43 (February 21, 1997): B6.

72

JOURNAL OF LABOR RESEARCH

Kochan, Tom. "How American Employees View Labor Unions." Monthly Labor Review 104 (April 1979):
23-31.
Lafer, Gordon. "Graduate Student Unions: Organizing in a Changed Academic Economy." Labor Studies
Journal 28 (Summer 2003): 25-43.
Leatherman, Courtney. "NLRB Ruling May Demolish the Barriers to TA Unions at Private Universities."
Chronicle of Higher Education 46 (April 14, 2000): 18-20.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Sheldon S.Wolin. The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations. New
York: Doubleday, 1965.
Metchick, Robert and Parbudyal Singh. "Yeshiva and the Unionization of Faculty." Labor Studies Journal
28 (Winter 2004): 45456.
Murray, Alan and Yonathan Reshef. "American Manufacturing Unions' Stasis: A Paradigmatic Perspective." Academy of Management Review 13 (October 1990): 615-26.

New York University and NLRB, 332 NLRB (2000).

NLRB and Yale, NLRB LEXIS 820 (1999).
Ofori-Dankwa, Joseph. "Murray and Reshef Revisited: Toward a Typology/Theory of Paradigms of
National Trade Unions." Academy of Management Review 18 (April 1993): 269-84.
Perlman, Selig. A Theory of the Labor Movement. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
Rabban, David. "Academic Freedom: Individual or Institutional?" Academe 6 (November-December,
2001): 16-20.
Rhoades, Gary and Robert Rhodes. "The Public Discourse of U.S. Graduate Employee Unions: Social
Movement Identities, Ideologies, and Strategies." Review of Higher Education 26 (Winter 2003):
163-87.
Rogrow, Robert and Daniel R. Birch. "Teaching Assistant Unionization: Origins and Implications." Canadian Journal of Higher Education 14 (January 1984): 11-29.
Rohrbacher, Bernard. "After Boston Medical Center: Why Teaching Assistants Should Have the Right to
Bargain Collectively." Loyola Law Review 33 (June 2000): 1850-916.
Rowe, James L. "Wisconsin Teaching Aides End Strike." Washington Post, April 17, 1970.
Rowland, Joshua. "Forecasts of Doom: The Dubious Threat of Graduate Teaching Assistant Collective
Bargaining to Academic Freedom." Boston College Law Review 42 (July 2001): 942457.
Rupp, George. Letter to the Columbia University Community, February 15, 2002.
Saltzman, Gregory. "Union Organizing and the Law: Part-time Faculty and Graduate Teaching Assistants."
NEA 2000 Almanac of Higher Education, 2000, pp. 43-55.
Shapiro, Juddith. "Faculty Support of Unions for Graduate Students." In Letters to the Editor, Chronicle of
Higher Education 48 (September 14, 2001): B20.
Smallwood, Scott. "Labor Board Rules Against TA Unions at Private Universities." Chronicle of Higher
Education 64 (July 16, 2004): A5.
- - .

"A Big Breakthrough for TA Unions." Chronicle of Higher Education 47 (March 16, 2001): A10.

Task Force on Graduate Student Employment Recognition, Representation, Rationalization, and Remuneration. Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta, July 1999.

Trustees of Columbia, 97 NLRB (1951).

PARBUDYAL SINGH, DEBORAH M. ZINNI, and ANNE F. MACLENNAN

73

Vosko, Leah F. Temporary Work: The Gendered Rise of a Precarious Employment Relationship. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2000.
Wall Street Journal. "Labor Letter," February 12, 1969.
Weiner, Gaby. "Which of Us Has a Brilliant Career? Notes from a Higher Education Survivor." In Rob
Cuthbert, ed. Working in Higher Education. Buckingham, U.K.: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1996.
Wheeler, Hoyt and John McClendon. "The Individual Decision to Unionize." In George Strauss, Daniel Gallagher, and Jack Fiorito, eds. The State of the Unions. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research
Association, 1991, pp. 47-83.
Williams, Marcellette G. "Why a Union for RA's Makes No Sense." Chronicle of Higher Education 48
(April 26, 2002): B24.
Zandonella, Catherine. "Yale Students Strike." The Scientist [Online]. Available: <http://www.biomedcentral.corn/news/20030303/03/>. Accessed March 2003.