Strike at New York University

Some of you might have heard about the graduate assistant strike at New York University. It’s been going on for three weeks now, longer than I think most people expected. It’s been an inconvenience: my one class has bounced from location to location, meeting at a coffee shop one week, then in a theater space (the rent for which my professor paid) the next. But, it’s not really more inconvenient than getting anywhere else in New York City, so I don’t really mind.

To be honest, I don’t know too much about the strike, and it seems that many of my classmates (who aren’t GAs or TAs, teacher assistants) don’t know either. But everyone is either for or against the strike. I’ve heard some grumblings in class, and after three weeks, quite a number of people are tired of not knowing where their next class will be held.

I decided it was time to educate myself on the strike.

The NYU administration’s response can be found at http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/gata/. Here is a passage from a FAQ the administration put together about NYU’s GAs:

The financial aid package is worth some $50,000 dollars per year for doctoral students carrying a full course load, including:

a full tuition scholarship (the value of which for most students ranges from $25,183-$33,880 per year)

a minimum stipend of $19,000/year for doctoral students ($14,000 for masters students)

100% payment by NYU of the premiums for the student health insurance plan for each GA (approximately $2,000)

(For fully-supported graduate students, this same financial aid package applies even in those semesters in which graduate students do not have assistantship duties).

On average, a graduate assistant is expected to spend about 20 hours per week during a 30-week year satisfying the requirements of his or her assistantship, typically through teaching or research related to his or her degree.

The union’s Web site is http://www.2110uaw.org/gsoc/. (The GAs are part of United Auto Workers Local 2110.) What does the union have to say? Here is a passage from their Web site:

Economic Package: NYU suggested pay increases of $1000 for the first three years of the contract, followed by four years of 2 per cent increases (a significant reduction from the current 4 per cent increases enjoyed under the current contract, in the case that your stipend is above the minimum). The administration’s offer fails to address many other concerns that are important to GSOCers [Graduate Student Organizing Committee], like housing, child care, job security, and overtime protections.

Healthcare: While there would be no premium costs for individual health care, NYU would be allowed to reduce benefits over the life of the agreement. Moreover, their offer does not include any of the improvements that our members asked for in our bargaining survey, like dental and vision coverage.

So now I know a little bit more about the strike. But mucking around online, one might come across media coverage like this New York Daily News op-ed:

New York University’s graduate assistants are learning a valuable life lesson: You don’t always get want you want. … For 20 hours a week of classroom-related work, they get at least a $19,000 stipend with guaranteed raises, free tuition and free health insurance. They get the money and benefits even for semesters when they don’t teach. That’s a good deal. And NYU has committed to maintaining it. What the university will not put up with is further disruption of classes for undergraduates, who pay $31,000 a year in tuition alone.

What bothers me about the op-ed is that the writer basically rewrote the administration’s press release. Is the situation really that simple?

But even the New York Times glosses over the reasons for the strike. A Nov. 1 article states, “The university said that some of the grievances the union had filed interfered with academic decision-making. The union denied that it had encroached on N.Y.U.’s academic rights and rejected the offer.”

A Nov. 29 Times article says, “N.Y.U., which was the first private university to be told to allow the unionization of graduate students, in 2000, said the union had tried to interfere with setting academic policy. It said it would continue to recognize a union only if it would forgo grievances. The union said the university exaggerated the impact of the grievances filed.”

Neither Times article tells me what the grievances filed were. Instead of delving into the exact claims made by each side, it’s as if the writer acknowledges that no one party is right and that it boils down to a case of he said, she said.

It’s possible the writer talked to a number of representatives on both sides and that the article was edited for length. But then, how are the interests of the reader served? If I’d wanted a summary, I’d read a story off a wire service.

What I’d like to see is an article that breaks down the numbers. NYU thinks the GAs are paid a fair amount, and the GAs think what they received as the result of negotiating as a union got them a living wage.

My own quick search reveals that, according to the NYU Office of Financial Aid, grad students living on or off campus can expect to pay $22,934 in living expenses alone (room and board, etc.). (Students living with their parents get a reprieve from New York City’s high rents — the estimated cost of their living expenses is $8,214.) So even though a GA does not have to pay tuition nor health insurance premiums, the minimum stipend he or she might receive still barely covers the cost of living in New York City.

One might argue that all students should expect to take out loans, whether or not they work. GAs do teach classes, however, classes that count equally toward students’ degrees and for which students pay full tuition. The university saves money by having GAs teach classes instead of hiring more tenured professors, who are obviously paid a lot more.

Those are just my initial thoughts on the strike. Maybe with more reading, my sentiments will change.

What Iraqi Casualties?

Heard a thought-provoking episode on the public radio show “This American Life” this past weekend. The episode, titled “What’s in a Number?”, included a discussion on a John Hopkins University study published last year in the British medical journal “The Lancet.” The study (free registration required) concluded that approximately 100,000 Iraqis had died since the beginning of the war.

Although the study did not distinguish between civilian and combatant dead, its estimate was much higher than other numbers that had been posited. Apparently, the major media outlets either ignored the study altogether or gave it very brief mention. According to the report, many pundits attacked the study without even understanding the study’s statistical method.

Also in this episode, an American soldier who served in Iraq is interviewed about his thoughts on Iraqi casualties. For full information about this episode, go to http://www.thislife.org and look in the 2005 archive for episode 300, dated 10/28/05. You can listen to the episode on RealPlayer by clicking here.

Note: The Iraq Body Count Web site is mentioned in the episode.

The "Passion of Cruise" and the Devil’s Work?

Best quote of the day, from “Miers Finds Support from Evangelical Churches” on NPR‘s All Things Considered:

“I think that she [Miers] is a wonderful person, and I just think that when opposition comes, it’s a lot of times, it’s just the work of the devil.” -Audrey McKee

On the subject of religion (or “religion”), a satirical Web site has come under fire from the Church of Scientology, even though the Web site indicates that it’s a satire and its main target is Tom Cruise. Now the site’s creator, who lives in New Zealand, says he’s being harassed by phone, e-mail and visits to his home. His site, ScienTOMogy.info, is worth a visit.

ScienTOMogy.info refers to another Web site, which I vaguely remember for its involvement in another conflict with the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology either pressured or sued Google into removing the site, which is critical of Scientology, from its listings. I’ve only browsed the site, Operation Clambake-The Inner Secrets of Scientology, on a superficial level, but it’s pretty interesting.

Politics in Media

Another interesting discussion that I heard recently on public radio is called “Political Spectacles,” on The Leonard Lopate Show. Guests Matt Taibbi and Alexandra Pelosi talk about the role of the media in the last presidential election. Taibbi is a journalist, and Pelosi directed Journeys with George.

They mention the “pecking order” among journalists traveling with the presidential candidates. As one might expect, the New York Times reporters get preferential access.

Another point is what the media focuses on, like the Dean Scream. Pelosi said the following:

“I always got the impression that the press corps really wanted to get page one above the fold. Like if you’re a reporter covering the campaign, you want to make the paper. So I always thought that the reporters did things, took moments and tried to turn them into something so that they could get in the paper.”

Referring to the bulge in the back of Bush’s suit, Taibbi said the following:

“This whole blogger phenomenon has had an impact on the way the news is covered. In the old days, in order to get a story on the front page, you had to make sure it was true. Nowadays, all you have to do is cite some blogger who’s running with a story. You can say, well, this Web site claims that it’s a transmitter, so let’s write a story about that story. It’s an end run around the usual journalistic ethics where you have to actually confirm something before it’s true.”

Pelosi and Taibbi note that there are many journalists whom they respect. But Pelosi believes some journalists are “out of control” because they just want the byline, no matter how accurate or relevant their stories. In turn, these journalists are able to influence the way the public views the viability of each candidate.

Sony Fined–Radio Still Needs Saving

When I heard the news that Sony had been fined $10 million for bribing radio stations, I thought, and how is that news? Sony settled with the office of New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. In a statement released by his office on Tuesday, Spitzer said, “Our investigation shows that, contrary to listener expectations that songs are selected for airplay based on artistic merit and popularity, air time is often determined by undisclosed payoffs to radio stations and their employees.”

I’m glad Sony was fined, no matter how useless the act. But Spitzer’s suggestion that listeners expect that “songs are selected for airplay based on artistic merit and popularity” strikes me as a little preposterous.

A few years ago, I held a menial summer job that allowed me to
listen to the radio while I worked. Now, I like Britney Spears as much as the next person who won’t admit to occasionally singing “Baby One More Time” in the shower, but the hourly repetition of what seemed like a single playlist (and the constant commercial interruptions) over eight consecutive hours quickly became dull.

In his statement, Spitzer refers to payoffs — gifts and free trips — that Sony offered radio stations. I view bribes, however, as just one more tactic record companies take to aggressively market music chosen for its salability. The radio stations, also out to make money, willingly play the same songs by the same artists over and over again, claiming all the while that that’s what the people want.

Spitzer can try to eradicate “pay-for-play” but the online sharing of songs, the defection of increasing numbers of people to satellite radio and the popularity of iPods all point to deeper problems with the music and commercial radio industry.