THE ISSUE:

The Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, along with the recent decisions by the Trump administration to erode protections for workers, present a threat to organized labor. Now, more than ever, is it important to invest in an organizing drive on campus that leads to more dues-paying members, but more importantly engaged members. Our strength and leverage as a union directly depends on the engagement of our workers.

THE PLAN:

Reinvest membership dues into the union. Conduct extensive departmental walkthroughs and socials to build a committed membership.

THE ISSUE:

Over the past few years we have heard from members that GEO has not felt like a democratic and member-led space. This has resulted in a lack of participation in union meetings, committees, and caucuses. Members have shared that new or unfamiliar policy and practice changes that have been implemented, without their consultation, have disillusioned them with GEO. Others have noted that union communications have been unclear, unpredictable, and inaccessible. A union must be member-led to be healthy and active. We cannot afford to alienate our members any longer.

THE PLAN:

Work collaboratively with membership to determine better ways to establish union practices and policies. Consult membership about any changes to union structures. Communicate what is happening in the union clearly and accessibly, hold open steering meetings where Stewards and members are actively participating, talk directly with members about ideas around the direction of the union, and bring more members into the center of organizing and direct communication with the university around our demands.

THE ISSUE:

The rights of students, particularly international students and student of color to assemble and express their beliefs, have come under direct assault in recent weeks and months. Regardless of a student’s political beliefs, no worker should be fearful for their physical health and safety as a result of their participation in demonstrations or their expressed positions. It is our responsibility to push back against these threats.
We keep us safe.

THE PLAN:

Demand that the university guarantees to make EVERY effort to protect its international students. Demand UMass does not comply with ICE.

THE ISSUE:

Cuts to the NIH and other grant-giving federal institutions have thrown our research, our status as students, and our jobs into a state of uncertainty. It is crucial that UMass does not use federal budget cuts as an excuse to cut our jobs and erode our bargaining unit. Further, we cannot allow UMass’s decision to rescind offers of admission to increase the workload on our workers next semester. Workers cannot be expected to work twice their normal hours to cover for low enrollment.

THE PLAN:

Demand that the university does not erode our bargaining unit or thrust additional responsibility onto current workers to compensate for rescinded offers.

THE ISSUE:

In the past year, GEO have been inconsistent at best at delivering important information to members in a convenient and digestible package. At the same time, our website remains critically under-used as a resource for our members to stay up-to-date on union business. Members should be able to identify the most important messages and events at a glance in short, concise email messages. Hyperlinks in those emails could easily send interested parties to the GEO website, where a more comprehensive description of events can be found.

THE PLAN:

Reform the GEO communications committee with an emphasis on convenience and clear, short messaging.

THE ISSUE:

The Western Massachusetts housing market is becoming increasingly more difficult to navigate with each passing year. UMass continues to over-enroll undergraduate students, who more often have the means to pay exorbitant rent prices due to familial financial support. Further, to address the crisis, the university has partnered with for-profit private land developers to construct “buildings “grad-exclusive housing” like Fieldstone, which currently charges $2,147 for a one-bedroom apartment. We must fight back against this for-profit exploitation of the human need for shelter and safety.

THE PLAN:

Demand that UMass partners with not-for-profit property developers to construct affordable grad-exclusive housing.

THE ISSUE:

Our recent collective bargaining agreement has made some progress towards realizing our workers’ collective need for dignity and an acceptable standard of living. However, these wins do not go all the way to alleviating our workers’ concerns over the exploding prices of rent and other necessities. The US Department of Energy has stated previously that they believe an acceptable yearly stipend for a graduate researcher is $45,000. We believe that, as graduate workers in one of the most expensive states in the country, this should be our goal.

THE PLAN:

Demand an annual (12mo) graduate stipend of $45,000 to match our peer institutions like Boston University, The University of Chicago, and Rutgers University. It’s time GEO became competitive with its peers once again.

THE ISSUE:

UMass has had 35 years to comply with ADA. However, several buildings on campus lack working, reliable elevators and/or climate control, and many have other accessibility concerns. What’s more, students often have difficulty attaining accommodations, and some fear retaliation for asking for reasonable assistance in the first place. UMass cannot call itself an equitable campus until these issues are addressed, all buildings are made navigable, and the Disability Services office is properly equipped to accommodate all students and workers.

THE PLAN:

Demand that UMass creates and shares a plan to address all of the accessibility concerns we raised in the contract. Gather information building-by-building to collectively bring specific, grievable problems to the administration. Provide informed solutions and pursue all legal and organizing methods to enforce ADA compliance.

THE ISSUE:

This year, GEO’s grievance procedure has been a drastic departure from previous years. In the past, when a student came to the union with a potential contract violation or mistreatment by an employer, membership would mobilize in solidarity to demand better treatment for their colleague. This year, grievances have become much more private and bureaucratic, which has impeded membership’s ability to learn about the struggles of their coworkers and fight for their rights as a collective.

THE PLAN:

Give grievances back to membership. Train stewards on grievance intake, proactive outreach, and organizing. Organize as a collective against inequitable practices by the university. Inform members of ongoing difficulties that graduate workers are facing to empower workers to fight for change. Never allow workers to be alone while defending themselves from the university’s unjust practices.