Eric Dash: The three ironies of unionization

Although former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stweart once said it about pornography, the same holds true for irony: you know it when you see it.

And when it comes to identifying irony, Penn English professor and Deputy Provost Peter Conn probably has as keen an eye as anyone. After all, irony is bandied about in Bennett Hall classrooms about as often as the word "synergy" is used in the offices of College Hall.

I'm guessing Penn graduate student union activist Ed Webb can spot irony, too. The concept made famous by Alanis Morissette must surely pop up pretty often in the doctoral candidate's political science readings.

Still, neither Conn nor Webb seemed to notice all the ironies entangled throughout last week's debate over whether or not graduate students should unionize.

Consider the verbal irony found in Conn's e-mail statements last week. Responding to the pro-union sentiment of groups such as Webb's Graduate Employees Together-University of Pennsylvania, Conn made the University's position known loud and clear: "Graduate students are graduate students," he said. "They are not emloyees," and consequently, are not entitled to unionize.

But if graduate students aren't employees, then why is the Penn so concerned about them unionizing? After all, Conn's message was part of a subtle, yet highly orchestrated propaganda campaign launched on behalf of the University. In an e-mail memo to Penn's 10,000 graduate students, the deputy provost went out of his way to point out the costs and complexities that unionization brings -- binding discipline, fines, dues and assesssments. But he stopped short of flatly discouraging graduate students from organizing.

In short, it was a plan straight out of any private employer's playbook: quell the threat of unionization before it swells into a reality.

But if Penn graduate students are not a labor force, why was the University using the tactics of management?

The second irony was one of situation and timing. On the same day that GET-UP members explained in the DP how a union would give them a legally binding voice -- required for Penn to take their views on wages and benefits into consideration -- their peers on the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly were praising administrators for one of the biggest extra "benefits" they received in years: a new graduate student center.

More than that, the ribbon-cutting ceremony at 3615 Locust Walk culminated a two-year collaborative process between graduate student leaders and University administrators, which both parties found to be mutually beneficial.

"It's a very visible symbol of the University's commitment to graduate students," GAPSA President Christopher Leahy told The Daily Pennsylvanian last month. "The University was incredibly responsive to what we saw as the need for a center."

The new graduate center stands as testament to the impact of the very thing GET-UP thinks it needs: the power of "voice" to make sure that the Penn administration -- management, if you will -- understands their concerns.

The irony, of course, is that Penn graduate students already have a number of forums to get their "voice" heard -- GAPSA, GSAC, the university ombudsman and even representation on committees concerned with hotbed issues like healthcare benefits. It's just that very few graduate students actively participate -- or even care enough -- to ensure their elected really press hard to represent their needs.

To believe GET-UP, a formal union is the answer to this problem. Only a union, they argue, can provide the legal protection for members to safely articulate their concerns. Only a union, they say, can require the University to negotiate.

That may be so. But in a collegial academic environment, there is also evidence that informal, good-faith discussions between student leaders and administrators has the potential to work. Didn't student pressure lead the University to make changes to its health care package? Didn't collaboration between GAPSA and the Penn administration lead to the construction of the student center on Locust Walk?

There's no reason to believe that GAPSA or GSAC couldn't take up the issues of wages, benefits or working conditions if their constituents demanded it. What's more, the "voice" mechanisms are already in place for graduate students to utilize, and they already have the credibility that a union would likely lack.

That brings me to the final irony I would like to point out, one that might be considered the most dramatic. Despite a vocal minority of GET-UP supporters, the idea of unionization has really yet to catch on among the mainstream of Penn graduate students. (Because their needs are different, it's quite difficult to unite the Wharton doctoral proleteriat with the dissertation toilers of the Chemistry or History departments.)

But don't get me wrong: GET-UP has already made an impact -- one that ironically, GAPSA and other graduate student organization should recognize and use. While unionization may not be the answer, the credible threat of unionization certainly is.

Eric Dash is a senior Management and American History major from Pittsburgh, Pa.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.