GEO proposes wage increase to 'U'

As negotiators walked past, about 40 Graduate Employees Organization members crowded the LSA Building's second-floor hallways last night in support of the GEO's bargaining team.

"It's not just the bargaining committee," GEO member Ulrike Peters said. "The membership supports them."

Last night, GEO presented University bargainers with a wage proposal asking for a 37 percent increase in pay.

The demanded wage increase stems from statistics GEO gathered on Ann Arbor housing costs and the percentage of a graduate student employee's income rent consumes. GEO negotiators are asking for what they call "a living wage."

Currently, the average Graduate Student Instructor earns $1,133 per month. GEO presented information gathered from University Housing last night which illustrated that splitting a two-bedroom apartment costs $453 per month. As one of the cheapest options available, rent amounts to 42 percent of the average GSI income.

According to GEO literature, the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates 26 percent of income should go to rent. The proposed increase would raise GEO wages to $1,557 per month and reduce to 30 percent the amount of GSI income spent on rent.

Many of the signs carried by GEO members before the bargaining session displayed rent cost figures as a percentage of income.

GEO member John Minderhout held a sign that read "67 percent of my salary goes to rent, and that doesn't include heat."

"A lot of it depends on your individual circumstances, but Ann Arbor is a very expensive city," GEO member Bruce Spencer said.

Academic Human Resources Director Dan Gamble, chair of the University's bargaining committee, said GEO's wage proposal ignores important concerns.

"It doesn't take a lot of things into consideration," Gamble said. "The University tries to divide our limited funds fairly among employees.

"It's probably pretty consistent with first wage proposals from the past," he said. "It's pretty rich."

GEO President Eric Dirnbach said financial security partially determines how well a GSI can concentrate on the responsibilities of the classroom.

"Some of us run out of money," Dirnbach said. "This affects our ability to teach and research, and hurts the University."

Gamble said GSIs currently earn $16.34 per hour, and the proposal would increase that to $22.38 per hour.

While economic matters dominated last night's bargaining sessions, a number of other contentious issues remain unresolved.

Between now and the current contract's Feb. 1 expiration, negotiators will have to deal with GEO proposals concerning affirmative action, medical and dental benefits, training compensation, employment definition and non-discrimination issues.

During Tuesday's bargaining session, the GEO negotiating team proposed two changes to the previous contract's non-discrimination clause.

Currently, some departments' graduate employee appointment applications include questions about tuition status. GEO Bargaining Committee spokesperson Chip Smith said these questions discriminate against out-of-state applicants.

"Because the departments pay for our tuition, it costs them more to hire out-of-state people," Smith said.

The other proposal dealt with the "10 term rule," which is a University-wide policy restricting graduate students who have been employed here for more than 10 terms from applying for re-appointment.

"The University has argued that this is not an employment policy, but serves as an incentive to speed the educational process," GEO Bargaining Committee Chair Andrea Westlund said. "I don't think shortening the time to a degree is always beneficial, and this should be left up to departments."

Gamble said the University's team had not yet discussed the two proposals.

The University bargaining team also provided a counter-proposal to GEO's dental proposal, but health concerns have not yet been resolved.

"We are asking for very little from the University on this issue," GEO chief negotiator Eric Odier-Fink said. "I've got my hopes up."

Both sides said GEO's affirmative action proposals, presented last week, might prove more difficult to resolve, and Gamble said the University team is waiting to see the Joint Appointment Review Committee's report on these issues. The final version of the report is due out next week.

The University team did present a substantive response to one of the four GEO affirmative action proposals, which thanked GEO for its support of University admissions policies, but said these policies had no place in the negotiations.

"It is such a sensitive situation right now," Gamble said. "It is not time to put it into a labor contract."

With unresolved concerns piling up, GEO members expressed dissatisfaction with the process.

There will be a vote in the GEO steward's committee Nov. 18 to decide if the meetings should be opened to all GEO members.

GEO contract proposals:

n Create positions and polices to foster affirmative action in graduate employment

n Maintain affirmative action in admissions policies

n Change allegedly

discriminatory hiring practices

n Compensate international graduate employee trainees

11-12-98