 |
Carleton
University The
Politics of Graduate Student Funding: An Examination of the Graduate
Assistant Negotiations at an Ontario Public Research University ROSLYN THOMAS-LONG
|
|
This
paper is about the challenges faced by graduate students in their
quest to secure research and teaching assistantship at a public
research university. My story focuses in particular on the negotiations
which took place with respect to the graduate assistant strike at
the University of Toronto in January 2000.The intense negotiations
between CUPE3907 and the University of Toronto management lasted
about two weeks. The issues of contentions were around pay equity
and increased access in the form of additional appointments to these
positions at the University. Pay equity concerns arose around the
discrepancy between the income of Graduate students at the University
of Toronto as compared to other universities in Ontario whose graduates
earn higher wages and receive more benefits. This paper is thus
a snapshot of a political moment in the history of the university
as a site of struggle.
As a graduate student, I am particularly interested in how inadequate
funding affects this student population. The lack of graduate and
teaching assistant positions affect students psychologically, emotionally
and financially. Psychologically, lack of funds means that one's
ability to concentrate in the face of financial constraints is impaired.
Economically, it means that students' academic survival may be in
jeopardy as this frequently results in a longer time for completing
their program. Academically, it means that students are unable to
take advantage of career development opportunities such as conferences
and mentor ships from professors. Altogether, financial instability
detrimentally affects the quality of students' experience and scholarly
achievement.Without institutional and social support, graduate students
face a constant struggle for survival. This is the local context
of this paper.
On
the broader level, this paper addresses how the government dictates
the rationale for decreasing funding (federal and provincial)
in Canada.The crisis of governance in education that we
are witnessing today is part of a broader trend oftransformation
in thesocial relations of higher education administration. The
funding process has implications for a much broader social analysis
about the nature of contemporary academic institutional life.
Hence, I will be examining boththe local and the broad systematic
approaches in this process. METHODOLOGY The
methodological tool used in this paper is Dorothy Smith's investigative
approach (1987), which she calls Institutional Ethnography. Smith's
usage of institution has specialized meanings of a Acomplex of
relations forming part of the ruling apparatus, organized around
a distinctive function (McCoy,1998, p.398). This notion of institution
direct the researcher's attention to the various ways in which
the activities of many agencies, organizations, professional associations
and individuals are coordinated into a 'functional complex' (p.398).The
central role of documentary forms of knowledge in contemporary
relations of 'ruling' is a major theme in Dorothy Smith's work.She
uses the term broadly to encompass varied and interconnected practices
of management, administration, government, law, finance, education,
business and the professions (Smith,1987, p.3). Further, Smith
posits that a mode of ruling has become dominant that involves
the construction of the world as texts whether on paper or in
a computer and the creation of a world in text as a site of action
(p.3). Smith
argues that understanding organizational power in contemporary
society requires attention to the textual practices through which
they represent the social and physical world as the object of
administrative and professional function (McCoy,1998, p.395).One
way this carried out is through the ideological practices of the
administration using text as its primary medium. This paper is
especially concerned with how organizational power is manifested
through bargaining relations and how it determines and shapes
the lives of people within this structure. Smith's
method is most instructive for this undertaking as it describes
how people's lives are determined beyond the scope of their everyday
world. It also provides a way of exploring from people's standpoint,
how the world works and how it is put together with a view in
helping them to change it (Smith,1990, p.629). Research strategies
employed by researchers doing Institutional Ethnography include
in-depth interviews (Smith 1987; Griffith, 1995), participation
observation (Ng, 1996), the collection of naturally occurring
talk (Jackson, 1995; Turner, 1995; McCoy, 1995 and 1998) and textual
analysis (Ng, 1995; Smith, 1996). My paper will stake out an ontological
commitment of how social order is constituted in the practices
and activities of people.This will be accomplished by using analysis
based on meetings with administrative and union personnel and
memoranda in developing a description of how the social relation
of graduate funding works. To undertake this work, I will conduct
a textual analysis of E-mail correspondence during the bargaining
process. In so doing, I hope to start from the active knowers
in the real world---that is the world of a graduate student. HISTORY
OF GRADUATE STUDENTS UNIONIZATION The
union representing Graduate Assistants (GAs) at OISE/UT [1] is the Canadian Union of
Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3907, an outgrowth from Local 7
of the Canadian Union of Education Workers (CUEW Local 7).The
CUEW began in 1973 as the Graduate Assistants Association at the
Victoria College at the University of Toronto.In 1994, the CUEW
merged with CUPE Local 3907 through a member's secret ballot and
was certified as the CUPE Local 3907. The Canadian Union of Public
Employees retained many of the CUEW practices and procedures such
as walkouts, campaigning against homophobia and sexual harassment
on campus. The union was certified to represent all graduate assistants
sincethey are automatically registered members. However, membership
is voluntary (CUPE3907 Members' Manual).The employees who organized
the merger felt that their position was being eroded by inflation
and budget cuts and felt that a more democratic way was needed
to ensure that GAs were not arbitrarily exploited or eliminated.It
was one method whereby GAs could take an active role in defining
their working lives. It
is especially noticeable that the unionization of Graduate Assistants
was initiated during an era of government fiscal constraints.The
unionization of academic workers in Canadian universities emerged
as a national pattern in the early 1970s.The process first took
hold in Quebec, where by 1975, over 60 percent of professors were
unionized.By early 1980s, over 50 percent of the Canadian professorate
belonged to certified bargaining units.Seven out of Ontario's
fifteen universities have faculty associations across Canada where
there has been a formal collective bargaining over terms and conditions
of employment.The experience of university unionization in the
United States followed similar patterns (Newson & Buchbinder,
1991, 88). Penner, (1978-79, p.72) a former president of the Canadian
Association of University Teachers (CAUT) states that, Collective
bargaining seems to have appeared in Canadian universities for
the same reasons as in the United States, namely, the poor academic
job market, the erosion of rights and perquisites lacking legal
protections, budgetary cutbacks, the increasein size and remoteness
of university administrators, and the growth of unionism in the
public sector. Likewise,
Newson and Buchbinder (1991) believe that the unionization of
academic workers did not stem from any particular ideological
standpoint in order to make the university a source of social
transformation about workers conditions but was rather a response
to economic contraction.Unions were needed to confront administrations
who were agents or implementors of unfriendly government fiscal
policies. Historically,
bargaining relations at the University of Toronto has been quite
progressive in terms of the negotiation for better pay and working
conditions of its graduate assistants. However, this changed in
the collective agreement of 1996. CUPE 3907 members went on strike
demanding wage increase and better working conditions, but none
of their demands were met. The exception was new wording around
constitutionally-based sexual harassment grievances.The only concession
given was a deal to maintain the funding level for 181 GAs.Unlike
other unionized workers in the public service, the GAs decided
not to take a pay roll back. Giuliani, a CUPE representative,
believes that a large part of the problem relates to the economic
climate at the time and management's perception that GAs were
not 'real' positions but a ploy used by OISE's faculty to get
more funding from the University. According to the Union, part
of this reasoning is attributed to the administration's hidden
agenda to decertify all unions in the amalgamation process. This
attitude continued throughout the amalgamation between University
of Toronto and OISE administration where the 'us and them' attitude
persisted. Inherent in this process is the deep-seated mistrust
between the union and management.In that sense, bargaining positions
are embedded in an ideology of opposition and confrontation between
both sides not cooperating anymore. In
the negotiations of January 2000, issues were centred around the
Union seekinga guaranteed number of GAs whereas OISE/UT administration
wanted to tie funding to scholarship. The administration's standpoint
reflected its flagrant corporate-style management ethos of maintaining
minimal student spending. The ultimate end was to make the personal
cost of education to the student higher. The Union argued that
GAs would be worse off as scholarships are highly selective and
are only guaranteed for two years. Essentially, they were concerned
about the implications for OISE students.Therefore, union officials
felt that to tie scholarship with funding means that a large segment
of the student population would be excluded. Additionally, the
Union demanded pay equity on par with universities in Ontario
where GAs and TAs earned twice as much as OISE/UT plus benefits
(health, rental coverage and tuition reduction). The
union-management relationship in the January 2000 negotiations
was especially hostile. When the agreement came up for renewal
in July 1999, the Universityadministration cancelled meetings
at the last minute or it would send a junior administrator who
had no power to negotiate.This was construed by the Union as an
attempt to break CUPE.The general belief among union representatives
was that the final terms of the agreement could have been dealt
with sooner and the strike would have been much shorter since
they were not asking for anything other Ontario universities were
offering their GAs (Personal Communication with Union Representative,
2000). DISCOURSE
ON FUNDING The
funding of graduate students can be viewed in context of government
policy toward spending in post-secondary institutions. According
to Newson and Buchbinder (1991 ), university funding experienced
three phases of funding namely the expansion, contraction and
decline. The 1950s and 1960s are referred to as the expansion
period during which the university sector underwent spectacular
growth.Undergraduate enrolments increased fivefold between 1955
and 1975; operating and graduate enrolments grew by a factor of
twelve during this period and government spending rose in line
with these trends (Hardy, 1996, p.21). As the numbers of universities
increased, academic leaders were required (i.e., deans, presidents)
to administer and manage larger budgets, expanded facilities,
increased staff and a growing student population. A direct result
of this expansion was an increase in the administrative function.
By the late 1970s, the period of contraction, rising inflation
and declining productivity signaled the beginning of an economic
crisis in Canada (Newson & Buchbinder, 1991, p.14). In
light of this economic reality, the government began curtailing
social spending. The proportion of government expenditure for
education fell from 22.2 percent in 1970 to 16.7 percent in 1975.The
university'sshare of the education budget declined from 24.7 percent
in 1967-68 to 19.5 percent in 1977-78 (Hardy, 1996, p.22).The
outlook predicted at the end of the 1970s was one of contraction
in enrolments and funds allocated to universities.However, in
the 1980s, universities were forced to juggle increases in student
enrolments with decreases in government support.The 1981 recession
made things worse with all levels of government finding themselves
hard pressed for cash.Accordingly, the federal government began
to implement restrictions on transfer payments.At the provincial
level, even when grants were increased, it did not keep pace with
inflation nor enrolment increases (p. 22).All Provinces except
Prince Edward Island saw a reduction in the grant per student
between 1976-77 and 1986-87, ranging between 14 and 28 percent
(p. 22). The pressures universities are now experiencing is a
continuation of funding policies from the 1980s.Recently, the
introduction of deregulation of tuition fees serves to exacerbate
the problem as the various levels of governments seek to reduce
funds to universities. These national funding pressures represent
the financial backdrop of this paper. In
a real sense, inadequate funding from provincial governments have
forced universities to look in new directions for the fiscal resources
that they need to preserve the quality and viability of their
programs and resources (Newson & Buchbinder, 1991, p.69).
Universities now make a concerted effort to seek funds externally
from corporate funding partners and other external bodies such
as alumni.However, this has resulted in universities which accommodate
their ruling practices to that of the private sector. The vision
of the university as an arena for the pursuit of liberal education
is no longer seen as efficient. Universities are now seen as an
economic tool to help in the creation ofa technological advanced
societyBthe best means for increasing the country's prosperity
(p.64).For instance the current Ontario government's fiscal policies
reflect its right agenda by bringing education into its corporate
strategies.The introduction of private universities in Ontario
is one such move. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) argue that this
move heralds a new era that can be characterized as the beginning
of marketization.Under marketization, faculties compete for monies,
external grants or contracts, endowment funds, university partnerships
and increased student tuition. In thatsense, universities must
now be managedlike businesses in order to be more efficient in
the allocation of their resources.This means that programs are
more closely tied to the private sector and professors and staff
is required to compete for scarce resources in funding research
projects (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997, p.11). This
trend is not likely to disappear as governments, provincial and
national, encourage university faculties to direct their efforts
toward programs and research that align with the labour market.Slaughter
and Leslie (1997) refer to this process as academic capitalism
while Hardy (1997 ) calls it 'managerialism.' The thrust of managerialism
is the need to take decisive action in the form of funding cuts.Managerialism
concentrates on the role of the president that is decisive and
unitary. It emphasizes cost cutting whereby areas viewed as inefficient
are eliminated.In this sense, increase in employment and wages
ofGAs necessitates increases in spending which management does
not view as cost effective.It also means that faculty's work load
increases as they must work with less personnel at their disposal.
The problem with managerialism is that it offers little advice
on how to implement these actions in a decentralized university
setting (Hardy, 1997, p.6). The diversified nature of universities
and the highly specialized nature of expertise means that this
style of leadership may not be appropriate. Centralizing power
and increasing controls may only hamper strategic negotiations
in academia.Hardy (1997), believes that more effective institutions
have a relatively decentralized form of leadership. This
trend has powerful implications for post-secondary education.It
means that fewermonies are targeted for programs in education
and social welfare functions of the state (Slaughter and Leslie,
1997, p.14). National policy makers are moving discretionary
research and training monies into programs that compliment high
technology manufacturing, development of intellectual property
and product services (such as life insurance, accounting, legal
services).Higher education policies therefore encourage greater
student participation but at a higher personal cost. This is reflected
in a move away (in most Western countries) from a grant to a loan
system and increased tuition (Slaughter and Lesley, 1997, p.16).The
implication for graduate students is that they will be expected
to pay higher tuition fees with far less funding from the government.
The graduate and teaching assistants at the University of Toronto
have fought for a feerebate, however, they were forced to abandon
this idea as the strike intensified.A direct result of this cost
cutting exercise is the increase in unionization of faculties
as professors and staff fight with management to control autonomy
over work.In that sense, the GA negotiation is not merely about
pay increases but also about control over work. Control over work
also include the need to partake in decision making process that
affect staff and the need for respect. This brings up an important
issue about the value of graduate students' work in universities.
What are the economic benefits to the University in employing
graduate students as opposed to external instructors? Should they
enjoy similar benefits as faculty and staff? I argue that graduate
students are a comparatively cheap source of labour and their
advantages to the university outweigh the disadvantages (whatever
they may be). BARGAINING
RELATIONS During
the negotiation process, I have been trying to understand what
it means to be a graduate student within the context of ruling
and bargaining relations. Particularly, I was interested in finding
out how the ideological practices of the University administration
and the Local CUPE3907 achieved legitimacy and hence organized
the lives of students and faculty as a whole.As I learned about
the strike, I began to see those interactions as an experiential
moment in the social relation between the personal and historical
relationships of unions and the bureaucratic coordination of administration's
relations. The
collective bargaining process involves a formal multi-step format
geared toward an agreement between union and management. This
process is inherently confrontational given the ideological positions
of both sides. The unions goal is to seek the best interests of
its members whereas management's goal is to keep the union out
of the University's financial resources. The first round of negotiation
entails the union presenting a list of demands to managementas
contracts comeup for renewal. Typically, these demand entail better
wages, improved working conditions for its members. Management
responds with a counter offer much smaller than the union's demands,
a typical case of 'low balling.' The bargaining teams will meet
to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to both parties.Usually,
it is a midrange offer that gives concessions to both sides. If
union and management representatives cannot agree on a settlement
of the issues presented by each side, a conciliation officer is
appointed by the labour relations board in an attempt to resolve
the differences. When this is not possible, a conciliation board
attempts mediation and compiles a formal report.In cases where
the offer is deemed unacceptable, the union members can vote to
strike or to continue bargaining.Ifa strike is called, bargaining
usually continues until an agreement is reached. In the final
step, both sides sign the agreement with the approval of the majority
oftheir members.This is a very simplified version of the bargaining
process.In reality, it is much more complex especially when a
mediator is required to get both sides to 'hammer out a deal'
(Guiliani, Union representative). The negotiation between OISE/UT
administration and the Union followed similar steps. LOCAL
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS The
following is a textual analysis of various pieces of E-mail correspondence
during the strike in the later part of January 2000.I have chosen
to use computer mediated communication (CMC) because it provided
immediate access into the opinions of the University community.Although
the E-mail communication was not synchronous, it provided a rich
source of information at one's doorstep and allowed people to
interact with potentially thousands through the simple act of
typing words on the keyboard. In that sense, efficiency and speed
equalled 'nearness' because computer mediated communication 'shrinks'
the world. (Ignacio, 2000, p.553).What was particularly interesting
was the far reaching effects of the strike as coalition building
became important. Supporters from Yale, York, alumni and the general
public flooded the University website.The role of E-mail correspondence
during this strike is integral to understanding the impact of
the negotiations. It had forced both the University administration
and the Union to make important decisions toward ending the strike.
Both management and the union have made extensive use of this
media, thereby changing the way in which labour relations are
conducted in Canada.Although I have kept track of the correspondence,
I have chosen to analyze selective pieces of E-mail which are
indicative of the mood in which negotiations occurred. Additionally,
I have numbered the lines of the E-mail correspondence as reference
points to this analysis. These pieces of E-mail on the University's
website are dated to the show the chain reactions set in motion
by the Union's demands. The E-mail correspondence begins with
the Union's demands, administration's response and ends with alumni's
support for the graduate and teaching assistants. When
the GAs' contract came up for renewal, the Union put forward proposals
for changes in their membership's contract.The demands centred
around equity and increased access to graduate assistant positions.The
resulting negotiations were a demonstration in the use of power
relationsby both parties. The
first document is a letter written by Mr. Sousa, a CUPE3907 union
representative to the OISE/UT community.The letter dated January
17, 2000begins by stating that no new proposals have been tabled
and that it will be in a legal strike position as of January 21st.Mr.
Sousa's position is that the University's administration has consistently
refused to negotiate and so the GAs are on the verge of 'joining
our brothers and sisters, the TAs (CUPE 3902), on strike.' This
strategy utilized by the union entails the use of symbolic language
that hints ofsocialist/Marxist ideals, unitedin the struggle against
workers' oppression.In forming an alliance with the CUPE 3902,
the union presents a united front in seeking its ends. Thisuse
of symbolic power lends itself to a collective strategy that is
consistent with the bottom-up approach advocated by unions. It
also shows how union representatives can shape the negotiation
process by managing meaning. This means that calls to honourpicket
lines will send the message to administration that it must come
to the bargaining table with a fair deal.The hiring of a mediator
is indicative of the gap between both sides. However, this made
little impact in breaking the deadlock. The
Union'sdemands for equality of access and more institutional support
for graduate students (Lines 1-3) are attempts to ultimately address
the issue of inadequate funding.Each year 800 students apply for
only 182 GA positions.It was seeking a baseline offer to increase
the number of GAs to 300 over three years. The Union is apparently
addressing broader issues and concerns such as lack of funding
for minority students (Line 4).While most agree that student funding
should be a top priority, the University's priority is to provide
an education to students with as little cost as possible to itself.This
means that students will be bearing most of the costs of their
education. In terms of the funding protocol, faculties are allocated
a sum of money by the University to administer all its affairs.The
funding of GAships is therefore in accordance with the budgetary
control process of administration.It means that GAships are predicated
on how much money is available for such positions in any given
year. For
the Union, the government's policy of deregulating tuition is
very much in the forefront of this conflict (Lines 8-15).Deregulation
of tuition fees was started in 1998 by which the provincial government
removed the cap on tuition fees.This means that universities can
charge tuition fees at market value.The immediate consequence
of this policy has been the dramatic increase in tuition fees
in the past two to three years.Consequently, students are finding
it difficult to complete their education or, it is taking them
longer to do so. This is essentially an issueabout access.Students
who are aspiring toward graduate school are least likely to attend
if they are from a lower socioeconomic background given high tuition
fee and lack of administrative support. The union views this policy
as inherently exclusionary and helps to maintain social inequality
whereinonly those who can afford to pay for their own education
will be able to attain it.This policy has consequences for international
students whose population has decreased.As tuition doubled and
medical coverage rescinded,international students' enrolment has
plummeted.The administration's negative response is in keeping
with its cost cutting objectives which entails low financial investment
in students. In
their third demand, the Union has sought parity in terms of benefits
with universities in Ontario. This includes: dental, vision, UHIP
payment and the establishment of a child-care/dependent fund.
In addressing this issue, the union has done its research in drawing
connections to other educational institutions to build its case
(Lines 16-20).The Union views this policy as exploitative as it
highlights the differential treatment given to graduate employees
in other universities. The premise here is the idea of being 'disposable'
in that the University views the GAs asmerely casual workers and,
as such not entitled to any benefits (Lines 16-20).The GAs position
then is one of a bifurcated consciousness as students and as workers
at the University.It should be noted that the casual workers at
the University have just ratified their contract that gives them
benefits similar to full time workers. The CUPE3907 believes that
graduate assistants deserve the same. The
fourth demand for increased wages is one of the most important
issue of the negotiation process. It was the rallying point for
many union supporters. The Union is seeking four per cent across
the board for two years andincrease working hours in order to
attain parity with that of other universities. Management's counter
offer is (Lines 24-25) typical of the bargaining process as it
seeks to offer the bare minimum. The University agreed only to
tie wage increases to the number of hours worked. It has given
the Union much less than what they were seeking namely, 1 percent
in the first year, 1.5 percent in the second year, and 1 percent
in the third year.In drawing attention to the administration's
exploitative practices (Lines 25-26), the Union is making a brilliant
case about injustice emphasizing the disrespectful treatment of
its members. In
the final demand, the union seeks a rebate on par with other universities
and a tuition waiver not unlike that given to many employees at
the University.The union believes that itsdemands are neither
unfair nor unjust rather it is in seeking to legitimize its terms.The
contradiction inherent in the governance stems from the management's
abuse of 'prestige' in its recruitment of graduate students. Slogans
such as 'Great minds for a Great future' attest to the University
use of prestige as a selling point to potential and existing students.
The University of Toronto has been referred to as the Harvard
of the North. Indeed, the University's slogan is entrenched in
the ideology of 'the brightest and the best.' The union feels
that prestige should be reflected in the way the University treats
its graduate assistants. Here too, administration's response was
negative. If
we were to situate the context of this letter, it is apparent
that the Union is referring to the bargaining relations/outcomes
with other workers on campus.The teaching assistants (TA s) have
been on strike for two weeks with no possibility of a quick resolution
in sight. The University was also bargaining with grounds-keepers
andcustodians in reaching a deal. The part-time administrative
staffaccepted an offer on January 12, 2000 with their union, the
United Steel Workers of America by voting 90 percent in favour
of the deal. This included wage increases of 5 per cent over three
years and extending benefits to casual staff. Likewise, the library
workers were also threatening to go on strike. The University
administration was busily prioritizing its bargaining positions.
On January 21, 2000 the administration appeared to offer an olive
branch. The
second document is a memorandum from Dr. Fullan, Dean of Studies
at OISE/UT. On Friday January 21, 2000, Dr. Fullan, sent out a
memorandum to the OISE community about the latest bargaining developments.
The letter could have been a response to the Union's strike mandate
as of January 21, 2000. The administration's stance is that the
money it had could be used for research and scholarship funding.The
Union on the other-hand proposed that this money could be utilized
to increase GAs wages and to increase the number of GA positions
since graduate students are in dire need of additional financial
support. The position of either side became positioned along a
line of fault that separated administration and Union who knew
the administration's position to be otherwise.The Union is aware
ofthe University's $1 billion surplus so it is not struggling
financially. The conflict becomes more intense since both parties
envision quite different views on how this money should be spent.
Dr.
Fullan's letter aimed at doing two things. First, he is putting
forward an offer to the Union. The offer includes: a four-year
guarantee for GA students, an increase in available work hours,
wage increases, and reinvestment of unallocated funds in the following
sessions (Lines 1-7). Dr. Fullan proceeds to set down terms of
the administration's offer suggesting that 'it is significant,
substantial and fair.' When one compares the University's offer
with that of the Union's demand, theyseem worlds apart.The administration
did not address issues regarding tuition rebate and dental benefits.It
is important to note that this letter was issued on the same day
that the union and administration were scheduled for mediation
talks.This could have been apolitical move on the part of administration
to be seen as co-operative in offering a solution to the problem. Second, Dr. Fullan is telling the OISE/UT community that while the union is in a legal strike position, the University remains firmly in control of the bargaining process.Although it makes mention of the strike mandate given to the union by its members, it immediately proceeds to inform the OISE community that the University has decided 'not to lock out CUPE 3907 in the foreseeable future' (Line 13). Therefore, the fact that the University has 'decided not to lock out CUPE 3907, at least for the foreseeable future' attempts to maintain power firmly on the side of theadministration. The threat of a lockout is an attempt at social control which places the union in a reactive situation. The
negotiations highlight the fact that ruling does not take place
in a vacuum.It is also affected by external forces/bodies that
have connection to the University. By January 28, 2000 supporters
from other universities (Harvard, Yale and York ) and alumini/friends
of U of T show their displeasure with administration. The deadlock
in negotiation was broken by the attention given to the above
issues in the media. This letter by Margaret Atwood, a renowned
writer and graduate from the University of Toronto is indicative
of the kind of response that can influence the stance taken by
administration. I believe that their action was an underestimation
of the collectivepower of the OISE/UT community. The
third document was a letter sent in by Margaret Atwood , on January
28, 2000 to voice her disappointment in the way management is
handling the strike.This letter highlights the importance of voice
and power. As an alumni, Atwood is showing outright indignation
about the way her money as a funder is utilized.She is putting
forward a counter position of education as just being about money
by squeezing students. She is targeting the liberal education
ideal and is appealing to that ideal to get fairness for the GAs
and TAs. Essentially, she is adopting the language of a donor
in using righteous indignation to get management to change its
course of action. Power relations are implicated between the University as employer versus students (GAs and TAs) as unionized employees.What does it say about social relations in a unionized setting? It draws on a bifurcated consciousness on the part of students. As employees of the University, students feel that they are entitled to certain rights. On the other hand, as students, they feel that they are betraying the notions of collegiality inherent in the university system.The letter therefore expresses the contradictory nature of the students and the University. In questioning the administration's ruling relations in a liberal democracy, Atwood is also questioning their managerial practice such as their use of threats to lock out the GAs.The contradictory nature of collective bargaining in the academy is the adoption of the industrial style of ruling relations. This
in itself creates enormous ideological conflicts between management
and the union since the university is not a production line.In
many ways, work to rule does not necessarily work to the benefit
of anyone but only serves to destroy working relations with those
on campus who will ordinarily support the union. The letter highlights
the powerful impact of local protest, of informal sites of power
and the use of the media in bringing about public awareness. Worried
about tarnishing its public image, administration quickly sought
an agreement to end the conflict thereby averting a strike. The final agreement ratifiedon January 30, 2000 is a compromise for both sides.The GAs were given 1.5% increase effective January 1, 2000 and a 2% increase effective September 1, 2000. Although the Union originally sought4% increase, it settled for 3.5%.The graduate assistants did not receive the extra benefits, however, they settled for more working hours per term and guaranteed appointments for the duration of their four-year study period.Unlike the University of York graduates who held out for tuition waiver, the graduate and teaching assistants at the University of Toronto had chosen not to pursue that issue. Many felt that it was the least they can do since they were promised a commission would be formed to examine the issue of graduate funding at the University. One of the most important outcomes of the negotiation is the establishment of a special graduate assistant fund valued at $45,000 for the creation of research and development projects. In bringing attention to the severe under funding faced bygraduate students, OISE/UT agreed to set up a committee to examine the situation and forward recommendations for action. DISCUSSION:
POWER AS A TOOL FOR BARGAINING The
OISE/UT negotiation offers many lessons about organizing for equity.It
demonstrates that collective struggle creates the space to name,
share, and support complex needs of different groups. However,
the process highlights the adversarial nature of bargaining. Very
often, this happens in a highly legalized contextby which management
and unions must interact within certain guidelines to mutually
determine terms and conditions of employment. The fact is where
contracts are negotiated in an inflexible manner it creates an
atmosphere ofopen warfare which inevitably results in divisiveness
(Birnbaum, 1981). Alternatively, collective bargaining can be
seen as representing the activities of groups already in conflict.When
this is the case, bargaining becomes a game designed to defeat
or harm an opponent as each side seeks its own interests as we
see in the strike at the University of Toronto. The strike also
confirms that the power of seeking broad-based alliances with
other equity seeking bodies (TAs faculty and external university
support) only serve to increase the union's ability to influence
positive outcomes for its members. In reality, bargaining is
more about seeking a consensus.Birnbaum (1981) views this as a
Amixed-motive@ game in which both elements of competition and
cooperation are necessary in order to attain favourable results
for both sides. Most importantly, bargaining is a recurring game,
so that both parties must consider how today's outcomes will impact
on future negotiations. Ultimately, unaddressed issues will continue
to simmer until the next round of negotiations. Hence, it will
not be surprising in the next round of negotiations for CUPE3907
to negotiate for tuition waiver for its members since that issue
was not completely dealt with. Inherent
in the notions of ruling relations is the recognition and the
use of different sites of power. Power is used to influence outcomes
by overcoming opposition through the use of instrumental power,
or by trying to prevent opposition and conflict from occurring
altogether through the use of symbolic power (Hardy, 1996,
p.181). This type of power was utilized by the Union to achieve
consensus and collaboration around the demands it was seeking.It
was therefore important to avert conflict and present a united
front to management.This could have only been achieved through
the use of symbolic language in evoking the image of brotherhood
and sisterhood in the struggle against capitalist oppression.
More specifically, symbolic acts such as Atwoods letter and political
language were used to legitimize the Union'sactions (or delegitimize
those of administration) and render them acceptable to the broader
university community by producing agreement and avoiding opposition
and conflict. Symbolic power is effectively used unobtrusively
to influence attitudes. It helps to secure agreement, prevent
opposition, and elicit collaboration where differences in opinion
might otherwise occur. Indeed, it was the symbolic acts (or informal
players) that were effective in bringing an end to the deadlock
in the negotiations. Unlike the Union, OISE/UT utilized instrumental power.Instrumental power is conferred by control over scarce, valued resources to which others are dependent. The utilization of instrumental power is premised upon an industrial model made to fit in an academic setting. The objective is to influence behaviour directly. What people think about the use of this power is not taken into consideration, as long as their behaviour is affected in the desired way.In this case, the Dean who has considerable power over faculties can regulate/control work by locking out the GAs. The administration's stance that the money could be use for research and scholarship is in line with the University's marketization policies in terms of its budgetary control policies. Likewise,the cancellation of meetings and the sending of junior managers are indicative of other sources of instrumental power available to the University administrators. Consequently,
instrumental power has an alienating effect, creating the A us
and them@ syndrome.Hence, it is not surprising that faculty, GAs,
students and alumni rally against administration's stance. This
type of power is therefore highly visible because it is used as
a blunt instrument of social control (Hardy, 1996, p.186). The
effect of this letter was immediate as the OISE/UT community began
to consider the ramifications ofa looming strike. Faculty
and students began to consider their course of action which resulted
in restructuring and cancelling classes since many refused to
cross picket lines. What
is especially interesting about this strike is the fact that conflicting
goals served to inhibit positive progress in the negotiations.
Conflicting goals are not necessarily the result of greed and
self interest but it is due to the result of differing power relations
strategies.The University administration was primarily concerned
with managerialism which tends to focus on instrumental power
based on formal lines of authority.Opinions diverge because both
sides have different perceptions of the funding problem and the
means to solve it. When administration believes in spending the
least amount of money per student through the distributing of
scholarships, the Union thinks that more graduate assistant positions
should be created. Since both sides are not bound by a conception
of the GAs common interests, they are in effect pursuing different
agendas in the face of seemingly scarce resources. The increase
function of management is unlikely to remove this potential for
conflict in the future. CONCLUSION Universities are the ideal places to study the ebb and flow of organizational politics.The variousgroups, both inside and outside the institution, that influence university decisions havedifferent world views and objectives which must be addressed equally. The unionization of the University's staff is one arena in which conflict and contradictions result from the pursuit of differential objectives. However, not to engage in collective bargaining would render graduate assistants more vulnerable to the processes that had begun outside of the University.The conflict between Union and administration has mutually reinforced ideologies which shape relations between management and unions as they struggle to control academic work processes. The use of symbolic power lends itself to collective strategy-making has practical advantages over the top down approach because it is easier to achieve a consensus. The concept of power in universities therefore, must be that of achieving common goals and not only power over others (Hardy, 1996, p.10). The present centralized authorityadvocated by the OISE/UT administration is inadequate in bringing about change because it fails to take into account the political realities of university life and ignores the role played by symbolic power. In the context of deep cuts in education spending, sustained attacks by the right on collective bargaining, and the corporate driven marketplace mentality reshaping universities in Canada and elsewhere in the 1990s, we need to better understand how to build communities of both resistance and renewal (Briskin & Newson, 1999). This paper is an attempt to make some contribution to that end. ENDNOTES
1.OISE/UT is the abbreviated form for Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education, University of Toronto.The two organizations were
merged in 1996.
REFERENCES Hardy,
C. (1996).The Politics of Collegiality: Retrenchment Strategies
in Canadian Universities. Canada: McGill-Queen's University
Press. Jackson,
S. (1995). These Things Just Happen: Talk, Text and Curriculum.
In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, Experience
and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge
(pp. 164-180) Toronto: University of Toronto
Press Ng,
R. (1996).The Politics of Community Services: Immigrant Women,
Class and State. Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Penner,
R. (1978-79).Faculty Collective Bargaining in Canada: Background,
Development and Impact. Interchange, 9 (3). Slaughter,
S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies
and the Entrepreneurial University.Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press. Smith,
G. (1995). The Political Activist As Ethnographer. Social Problems
37 ( 4). The Canadian Union of Public Employees Members Manual (1999-2000). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Turner, S. (1995). Rendering the Site Developable: Texts and Local Government Decision Making in Land Use Planning. In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (pp. 234- 248) Toronto: University of Toronto Press Walker, G. (1995). Violence and the Relations of Ruling: Lessons From the Battered Women's Movement. In M. Campbell & A. Manicom (Eds.), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (pp. 65-79) Toronto: University of Toronto Press
|
|