Which side are you on?

The contract has been ratified by a vote of 633 (for ratification) to 167 (against ratification) with 22 voided ballots.Whether one was for or against ratification, all members should be proud of this vote because it is the highest voter turn out in GSEU history.

A majority of the GSEU/CWA1104 negotiation team has signed a settlement with the state of New York. Ballots have been sent out, and they are due back by March 18, 2005. Please note that although the voting instructions state that the tentative agreement has received the "unanimous recommendation of the decision making body of the Graduate Student Employees Union," the "unanimity" was only achieved by excluding from the vote the four DMB representatives who are against ratification. This refusal to allow these representatives do their job of representing the interests of members is deplorable and signals a desire within the union to short-circuit a genuinely democratic process (yet another reason GSEU needs new leadership). We believe that before a radification vote occurs, members need easy access to the agreement in question, several points of view on it, and a forum to discuss and openly debate the merits of the agreement. Since that is not likely to occur on the cwa1104.com and gseu.org sites, we are bringing it all to members here. You can download a pdf of the tentative agreement by clicking here (Tentative Agreement).

Below is a pro and con assessment of the agreement. We hope that this gives members a sense of at least two interpretations of the agreement. For more on the No-Vote (click here), and for more on the Yes-Vote (click here). We further hope that members will carry on a lively debate on this agreement at their workplace and at the Discussion Board.

Article	For Ratification	Against Ratification
General Statements	The contract is good and should be ratified. The advocates of the No-Vote have unrealistic expectations and have never accepted the essential idea of give-and-take in the negotiating process. The contract is a success: it puts money in members' pockets immediately. It enhances vision and dental and eliminates the 80/20 split on hospital stays. It makes progress in maternity leave, just-cause for firing, and fee mitigation. Vote for ratification and get your raise now.	We can do better than this. The main obstacle has been that our chief negotiator is not a TA/GA and so could care less that the insurance becomes more expensive to use even as our raises fail to keep up with inflation.There was no progress in making the grievance procedure meaningful for members. The just-cause provision is not grievable, so the state can violate it if it wishes. A third tier of drugs makes many medicines more expensive than ever. Fee mitigation means that we will not be likely to ever get fees fully waived. Meanwhile, the contract flushes hundreds of thousands of dollars into state programs that members do not use. Vote this contract down and send a team of TAs and GAs to do the job right.
Article 5: Compensation: �% raises: 2.5% in April 2005, 2.75% in October 2005, 3% in October 2006. �Lump Sums: $500/$250 ASAP; $500/$250 in April 2007. �Raises to the minimum for university centers: to April 2005 raised to $7,175; in October 2005 to $7,372; in October 2006 to $7593 ; in April 2007 to $8,093.	The percentage raises are on par with what UUP and CSEA got. Because of pattern bargaining, the team could not have done better. Lumps sums offer members even more money now. On raises to the minimum, some progress has been made. Over the course of the contract, this raises the minimum by $1,000, an important raise for GAs and TAs who receive the minimum. By ratifiying the contract members get these raises and lump sums now rather than at some unnamed time in the future.	These raises fail to keep up with inflation. Yes, this is on par with UUP, except that 2.5% on a UUP salary comes out to a modest raise whereas 2.5% of our meager stipends makes no qualitative difference in our lives. Moreover, the contract includes huge co-pay increases (larger than UUP's); these raises in pay do not provide members with enough money to make up for losses in co-payments. In previous contracts we have gotten the same lump sum as UUP. Now we don't and this may mean that we will never again get what UUP gets in lump sums. We think it's odd that when percentage raises are low, we are supposed to get what UUP gets (pattern bargaining), but when lumps sums are not so low, we are supposed to get less than UUP. As for raises to the minimum, members were asking for a lot more. We didn't even come close to our original demand, and the $14,000 proposal decided upon by the GSEU's Decision Making Body was not even brought to the table. Moreover, this does nothing for the many TAs and GAs at the colleges who continue to be paid below the minimum.
Article 5: Doctoral Recruitment and Retention Fund: $2,400,000 in cash payments to members at the univeristy's discretion.And Recruitment and Retention for Colleges: $700,000	More money for ALL members now! Previous contracts have failed to address the disparity in monetary benefits between members at university centers and members at the colleges. This is the first positive step toward equity among members.	Equity? This money is not going to be disbursed equitably. This money is to be disbursed at the university's discretion. The union has no control and no oversight as to how the money is doled out. Giving money to your employer to pay out as it sees fit is a step backward for all union members.
Article 5: Fee Mitigation: $2,072,750	Finally the GSEU has found a way to lessen the burden of student fees. This again puts money in members' pockets now.	The goal was a tech fee waiver. We got an ambiguous discount. There is no explanation of how this money will be spent: will it go to pay for parking fees, a fee Albany and Binghamton already have discounted and Buffalo and Stony Brook already have waived? Will the money be divided up equally, or will it be proportionate to the fees members are required to pay (Stony Brook pays more in fees than Albany, for example)?
Article 5: Downstate Location Fund: $550,000	Money for members working in the most expensive areas of New York state. more money for member now.	No comment.
Article 6: Health Insurance: Increased co-pays and a higher co-pay for a new third tier of prescription drugs. Elimination of the 80/20 split on hospitalization. Advances in dental (two fillings added to the plan) and vision (frames and lenses every two years).Editor's note: this is a complex article. We have tried to shorten the description of the article and simplify the pro and con arguments without sacrificing the basic gist.	The numbers indicate that the majority of members do not use the health insurance, so we traded higher co-pays for enhanced vision and dental, and the elimination of the onerous 20% of financial responsibility foisted on members who have to receive hospital care. As for prescription drugs, while the third tier is more expensive (co-pay between $30 and $55), the generics are at a $5 co-pay.	The premium just went up. Now, in addition to that expense, we have to pay 20% to 100% more in co-pays to use this more expensive insurance. Many co-pays double in price, and in some areas there are co-pays where there were none. As for prescription drugs, what is not revealed in the contract is that some very highly used drugs fall into the expensive third tier; for example, the most widely used oral contraceptive is now subject to a $30 co-pay. In some cases the co-pay on the third tier exceeds the cost of the drug!!
Article 13: Family Benefits/Work-life Puts $300,000 into this program.	This enhances services to members.	$300,000 to programs less than 1% of members actually use.
Article 16: Grievance and Arbitration: Shortens timelines for the state's response to grievances.	This makes the battle field of grievances a little more level.	This is a non-change. There is no penalty if the state violates the timeline to respond. Moreover, GSEU failed to make the entire contract grievable (presently some articles cannot be grieved if violated). The main proposal GSEU desperately needed to get into the contract , however, was make-whole remedies. Currently the contract has already drawn up the remedy for any grievance; these remedies fail to take into account the effect of violating the contract. So if a member proves in a grievance that he or she has not been getting the minimum stipend for the entire academic year, the state is only required to give the grievant 30 days of backpay, rather than the entire amount saved by not paying the member the minimum. The negotiating team failed miserably in getting meaningful changes in Article 16.
Article 17: Discipline and Discharge: Now requires that when a member is discharged from work 9fired) the state issue a letter explaining the reasons for dismissal.	New York is a work-at-will state, meaning employers do not have to offer reasons for firing employees. Article 17 adds a significant protection from arbitrary and discriminatory firings.	But Article 17 is not grievable, so there is no recourse if the employer chooses to violate this provision.
Article 18: Leaves: Adds a provision for 28 days of unpaid leave and the right to return to work provided the member maintains continuous enrollment.	This is a huge benefit for members undergoing temporary disability, child-birth, or extended illness.	The original proposal called for FMLA standards to be applied to members; instead, we got UNPAID leave with NO securing of health benefits.
Article 20: Notification of employment: The letter of notification of employment shall refer members to gseu.org for more information.	This puts members in touch with the union.	First, the gseu.org site is sometimes down, an embarassment to the union, should a member actually try to visit the site during one of these down-times. Second, gseu.org does not give members the information they need: a copy of the contract, bylaws, constitution, a list of meeting dates, etc. And it's hard to navigate. If members are going to be referred to gseu.org, we'd like gseu.org include such essential documents and information.
Article 29: Employee Assistance Work-Life Program: Puts $40,000 into this program	A modest contribution to a valuable service to members.	More money flushed into a program less than 1% of members actually use.
Article 30: Professional Development Fund: $600,000 to fund professional development activities of members.	TAs and GAs present at conferences, conduct research, etc. All of this costs money. This article gives money to members for these kinds of professional development activities.	No comment.
Appendix A-7: Requires that upon a members' timely request, an administrator will meet to discuss any reduction in the member's tuition scholarship.	This is a step toward protecting members from reductions in tuition scholarships, a mjor issue over the past decade.	A meeting is NOTa protection. The administrator is NOT required to do anything should the reduction in tution waiver be proven unfair (discriminatory, etc). This is a non-victory for GSEU.