
Ask HN: What to do about a strike? - maximilian
HN Community,<p>I'm a grad student in applied math (for my masters) and I work as a TA to help pay the bills.  Now the pay is pretty pathetic (about $1000/month), but its enough to get by.  The union that represents student employees like myself decided yesterday to strike tomorrow (wednesday).  They are bargaining for "Fee Waivers" for all TA-like employees (so we don't have to pay 1/3 of our yearly pay to pay tuition.  )<p>Now I would love a fee waiver, but I'm not so sure I'm down with striking.  I don't really understand why they are asking us to strike and I don't know how I feel about unions in general.<p>Now, obviously I'll make a decision tomorrow if I "strike" (i don't teach tomorrow anyway), but I was wondering how the HN community feels about unions and a strike like this.<p>The link to the bargaining news I have:
http://www.uaw4123.org/news/bargaining.php
======
nostrademons
Read this thread about negotiating leverage:

<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.

------
mojonixon
I used to work for a union. Now in grad school, live with the grad student
union treasurer.

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.

~~~
Xichekolas
Your #4 is insightful.

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.

~~~
anthonyb
Functional management will actually encourage unions, since it's easier to
deal with your employees as one entity, rather than in bits and pieces. A good
union will also help to keep your workplace safe, employees happy, etc. etc.

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.

------
jstraszheim
Unions are a power structure. When they are weak, they are good, because they
in fact help workers who are getting screwed. When they become powerful, they
become bad, because their leadership acts as all leadership does, and seeks to
entrench its power and privilege. You are kind of screwed, because you are
caught between two power structures who both can punish you in various ways.

~~~
maximilian
From what I can tell, this union is generally pretty weak. Its not like if we
stop working, the university grinds to a halt. A few students don't get a
precalculus lecture (or in my case, some calculus review). Maybe the professor
has to grade exams or something. its more a pain in the ass if anything.

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.

~~~
time_management
A lot of graduate student unions will have "grading strikes" wherein they
continue to teach but refuse to grade papers or report grades.

------
mdakin
If you approach your management independently will they negotiate a custom
agreement with you or will they laugh? If collective bargaining is your only
option it makes sense to maximize the union's leverage and to help steer the
union in the proper direction.

------
olefoo
You do know that you can have a role in the negotiations? If you start
attending the union meetings you will find out very quickly whether you think
the unions position is reasonable or not.

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.

~~~
anthonyb
Personally I'm fairly pro-union, and I don't really understand the anti-union
sentiment that's so prevalent in the US.

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.

~~~
olefoo
Well when one side of the argument owns the channels of mass communication,
and can wave the stick of dismissal at people who speak up publicly in favour.
It's not hard to see how the public conversation gets biased.

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.

------
jamess
So, if you're not sure how you feel about unions what have you done as an
individual to improve your pay and how has it worked out? If they're saying no
to the union, I'm guessing either you've done nothing or if you did ask for
more money yourself, they simply laughed at you.

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.

~~~
maximilian
I actually feel like the pay is pretty fair. Its a pretty easy way to make
enough money to live on. Obviously, we teach math, so we are pretty uniquely
qualified, but we don't exactly generate a lot of "revenue" for the
university, so I understand being paid a small amount.

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.

------
lacker
$1000 a month for an applied math masters sucks. I am usually against unions
but you should strike!

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!

------
gojomo
Perhaps the UAW can do for American higher education what it's done for the
auto industry.

~~~
time_management
You can't pin the failure of the US auto industry on benefits and pay given to
US autoworkers. Japan doesn't beat us in this area because they shortchange
workers out of benefits or pay them poorly (they don't); they beat us because
they make fuel-efficient cars-- that more people want to buy-- and run more
efficient factories.

~~~
DaniFong
Demanding benefits or high pay isn't the only thing they've extracted. The GM
Job Bank is one of the most dehumanizing things I've ever heard of. The UAW is
only considering dropping it now.
([http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179....](http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0510/17/A01-351179.htm))

~~~
logjam
Unions locked in benefits in industries that were being, and continue to be,
mismanaged by completely clueless and yet highly paid executives. Good for the
unions.

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.

~~~
jmatt
_mismanaged by completely clueless and yet highly paid executives_

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)

~~~
time_management
_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._

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.

~~~
jmatt
_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._

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.

~~~
time_management
_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._

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.

~~~
jmatt
_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.

~~~
time_management
_You say just about anyone can do it, so do it._

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.

------
brl
Crossing a picket line is not the right way to take a principled stand against
unions. If you don't like unions, then don't take a job in a union shop.

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.

~~~
anamax
> Crossing a picket line is not the right way to take a principled stand
> against unions.

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.

------
jonallanharper
Be an individual and do what you think is most rational.

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

~~~
byrneseyeview
This is one of those comments that _loses_ authority with every upvote.

------
brk
By and large, unions serve no useful purpose these days. They exist for the
benefit of the higher-ups (union management) to make money off of the members
(think ponzi scheme).

My guess is that you had no choice but to join the union when you took the
job.

~~~
Anon84
_My guess is that you had no choice but to join the union when you took the
job._ Is this legal? How can someone force you to join a union against your
will?

~~~
steveplace
Marketing/coercion

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

~~~
maximilian
I'm pretty sure this is why we as TAs join the union as a rule. Getting sued
is a pretty scary thing. My buddy here said that is why he is part of the
union.

~~~
gcheong
Really? How often do teachers and TA's get sued? More than anyone else? Does
that cover any lawsuit or just certain kinds?

~~~
steveplace
Teachers: a lot more than you think. My wife has had threats to go to the
schoolboard for retarded stuff (crazy cheerleading parents). And we know a
couple that needed short-term legal counsel.

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.

------
time_management
If you're asking about whether or not to leave grad school for something that
pays, I'd say this: excluding medical school and elite law/business programs,
don't go into debt for graduate school, _ever_. You're much better off in the
long run if you can get a decent job (which may not be easy right now).

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.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Quite right. In fact, I'd go further and suggest if you are not in the top
half of your class after the first year, quit.

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.

~~~
time_management
_Quite right. In fact, I'd go further and suggest if you are not in the top
half of your class after the first year, quit._

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

