The Depression hit bottom in 1931. More people were jobless there than in any other Nordic country. Unlike in the U.S., the Norwegian union movement kept the people thrown out of work as members, even though they couldn’t pay dues. This decision paid off in mass mobilizations. When the employers’ federation locked employees out of the factories to try to force a reduction of wages, the workers fought back with massive demonstrations.

via How Swedes and Norwegians Broke the Power of the ‘1 Percent’ | The Indypendent.

It requires – and fosters – a broader class consciousness than a union system built wholly around those who currently retain employment. There may be wrinkles, administratively, in a developing this concept within a craft union model – not least, figuring out what it means to retain these unemployed members as workers? What is asked of them, what do they get out of it, and where do they fit into a system that has been built around a contract model?

Of course, the trade unions, with members who often work by the job, and retain union benefits and seniority between spates of employment, may provide some guidance. What might, for instance, teacher unions learn from this approach?

Daniel Owusu-Koranteng, a former Ghanian miner and head of a miners’ rights lobby group, tells BBC Focus on Africa that African mining could learn valuable lessons from Chile’s experience. “It is a wake up call for all of us that we cannot take safety issues for granted,” he says. “They have survived because they had basic needs with them – some rations, probably some water. And this is a lesson to us.”

This strike, over waivers, which are a necessary element of making grad school accessible to those other than the wealthy (and, in Illinois, the well-connected), is clearly situated in a broader context of struggles over the future of public education, as recognized by Amy Goodman on today’sDemocracy Now!, where she was talking, in California, with some of those engaged in the struggle (with credit to Rich Potter of the GEO for making contact with Amy over this issue):

AMY GOODMAN: And Professor Roy, maybe you can comment on this and what is happening at the same time here at home with the state budgets, with our educational system. UC Berkeley is not the only one going through this. For example, the news from the University of Champaign-Urbana in Illinois: apparently, in this last week—let’s see if I can find the information—graduate teaching assistants at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign went on strike yesterday after the university refused to guarantee continuation of the teaching and grad assistant tuition waivers.

Strikes have many elements. There’s the ‘above the fold’ part, the most visible: the pickets, the rallies, and (in the case of the GEO) an amazing drum corps. There’s the bargaining: tedious, important in the formal process of getting an agreement that lets the strike come to an end. And then there’s so much background work. The people who planned and organized: both over the past months, and the many years of activism, work, and sacrifice that brought the union into being and made this week’s action possible, not only necessary. The people churning out press releases and materials, taking care of the administrative overhead and much more. Congratulations to my colleagues, my comrades, at the GEO, IFT/AFT 6300, for their success this week.

Graduate employees have been working without a contract since August, as the University offered regressive proposals in response to the union’s call for a living wage, protection for tuition waivers, and improved conditions for families. In recent meetings, as the threat of a strike has increased, the GEO has reached tentative agreements on a number of items, but the administration continues to refuse both a living wage and a guarantee that tuition waivers will continue to be a condition of employment. [The University tried to unilaterally remove waivers from those on 25% appointments earlier this year.]

Call Interim Provost Robert Easter and new BoT chair Christopher Kennedy this Wednesday, and urge them to reach a fair contract with the GEO. Then pass this message to colleagues and friends.

WHEN: Wednesday, November 11

WHERE TO CALL:
Interim Provost Easter: (217) 244-4545
Christopher Kennedy: (312) 527-7890 x7890

WHAT TO SAY:
It’s useful if you can put your message in your own words, but the following provides a basic template for you to use. (My text suggests leaving a message, but if you can talk directly with these men, even better.) Remember, what’s most important is that the message of support for the GEO position be communicated to administrators.

Hello, my name is __________. I’m a graduate of the University of Illinois, and I’d like to leave a message for [Provost Easter/Mr Kennedy.]

I want to urge him to reach a fair agreement with the Graduate Employees Organization, and ensure that graduate employees, who teach a quarter of classes at the University, receive a living wage.

Thank you.

OTHER POINTS YOU MAY WANT TO USE:
Graduate employees have voted for strike action, but there is still time to avoid that if the administration engages positively with the wage concerns of those employees.

The campus budget grew by 7% in FY09, but the percentage devoted to instruction grew by only 0.8%. I urge you to do everything in your power to ensure that the university lives up to its responsibilities as a land grant institution that serves the public good and is committed to high quality instruction and research.

The public higher education system has a responsibility to ensure accessibility to all. The GEO’s requests for  a living wage, secured tuition waivers, better health care, and better support for working parents, would increase access to graduate education and would also improve the quality of instruction and research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“Expand the range of professional options for graduate students” he says – but offers no suggestions as to how to go about this process, or what (other than ‘not teaching’) those roles might include. “Abolish tenure” he adds, suggesting that it will allow institutions to reward “productivity” – without any problematizing of that concept.

And if you’re going to abolish tenure in the hope of creating space for young faculty – first, you’re going to need to “expand the range of professional options” not only of grads, but of faculty deemed no longer relevant; second, you’re going to dissuade many sensible people from entering academia. After all, if you no longer even have the illusory promise of a tenure-track position, who’s going to rack up so much debt?

His approach to distance learning is pedagogically impaired. He casts it almost entirely as a cost-saving measure (teach courses at half the cost), and aimed at real-time instruction. Compared to this, Joe White’s ‘global campus’ at the U of I seems almost progressive.

His emphasis on an inter-disciplinary academia reflects what is an evolving consensus, though his proposal to abolish departments is novel. Think this through though: instead of having essentially permanent mini-institutions within the university, we would have a rush every seven years to push for *my* recasting to triumph, or for each mini-institution to continue. The bureaucratic and administrative overhead would be far higher than for mere re-accreditation. First, each unit would not just have to meet the standard set by an accreditation body, but have to defend itself against every other proposed recasting, which might threaten to steal personnel and resources from it.

Further, what happens if the top choices for ‘centers’ are not mutually compatible – if two proposals each require the same faculty members or labs? Cue a complicated mediation process. And note that it’s not as simple as splitting percentage appointments between units – there’s also labs, seminar spaces, etc. What happens to a grad student who’s thinking of entering grad school 5 years into a seven-year cycle, uncertain if their grad program will exist (and be supported) 2 yers into the future? Universities spend far too much time on realignments as it is. Doing so across the institution every seven years is just crazy.

[Note one: I should note that Taylor's article seems to jump between the arts and the academy as a whole at several points, without acknowledging the fact that situations may differ across the academy. He seems to be generalizing his own experience to the academy as a whole without providing sufficient justification. Not that some of his critiques don't carry over, but his approach is clearly skewed by his own situation.]

[Note two: at the U of I we already have units, institutes and programs that operate *across* department and disciplinary lines. This makes far more sense to me - and in some cases (as with the ICR, within which I study) over time an inter-program Institute will evolve into a more permanent entity.]

Finally, for now, the author opens by seeming to lament the exploitation of grad students – but none of his solutions address this problem, and indeed several will work to heighten the prospects for exploitation of both grads and other staff (including faculty). The author proposes ‘radical’ solutions to appear visionary and open-minded, but instead exposes his own lack of understanding of the actual issues at play.