<p>All I had to see was the word ‘Union’ to know whatever this was would be a bad idea. Throw the word ‘Student’ in with it and it was sure to be a bunch of entitled-minded self-righteous angry people making more and more demands of others - (especially the awful, evil, ‘millionaires’ pegged to be tapped to pay for everything) as long as they themselves don’t have to pay for any of it.</p>
<p>And sure enough, that’s what it looks like it is.</p>
<p>Proud member of a good Union here.</p>
<p>Perhaps should I just go back to the chances board…</p>
<p>Millionaires and billionaires own a larger share of this country’s wealth than at any point in the 20th century, while inflation-adjusted income for the middle class is about the same as it was in the 1960s.</p>
<p>So please, tell us again how those poor rich people are being tapped to pay for everything. Condescending Wonka wants to know. Really, he does.</p>
<p>Taxpayer support of higher education institutions has plunged in recent years, meaning it’s the students themselves who are footing an ever-increasing percentage of the cost of public universities. Based on your anti-tax rhetoric, that’s what you want. If that’s the case, how do you justify criticizing a group of students who want a greater democratic voice in the management of the public university they’re paying for?</p>
<p>^^ Just look at the statistics - it’s readily apparent. They pay far more dollars than you do (if you’re not a millionaire) so why have animosity rather than gratitude?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. They make far more dollars than I do. In a sane world, that’s how taxation works. Many of them pay a smaller percentage of their income than the average middle-class worker - see Warren Buffett’s astute observation.</p>
<p>Millionaires don’t deserve “gratitude” for paying taxes. Those taxes support a societal system that supports and allows for their profit-making enterprises to exist.</p>
<p>UPS would be nothing without taxpayer-funded highways. Apple would be nothing without taxpayer-funded research into microprocessors. eBay would be nothing without taxpayer-funded research into networking. None of those companies would be anything without the skilled, educated, innovative and highly-productive American workforce that’s only been made possible by the democratization of higher education in America.</p>
<p>Well - now this thread has come down to standard political party party line speak (the idea that companies aren’t successful on their own due to roads, etc., as if the company or entrepreneurs had little to do with their success) so I guess that’s the end of this thread on CC.</p>
<p><a href=“the%20idea%20that%20companies%20aren’t%20successful%20on%20their%20own%20due%20to%20roads,%20etc.,%20as%20if%20the%20company%20or%20entrepreneurs%20had%20little%20to%20do%20with%20their%20success”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To be fair, both the companies that fail and succeed rely upon the things polarscribe talked about. It’s not like pets.com didn’t utilize the same infrastructure put in place by our government as Amazon. The point is it’s unlikely the entire market sector could have existed without some work done in front by the government. I’m sure in 100 years it’ll be forgotten how the governments were the ones trailblazing rocketry and manned space flight, and people will just believe it all started with SpaceX (even though they’ve received plenty of funding from NASA).</p>
<p>I’ve always thought one of the great things about our country is that there’s a safety net which allows people to take the great risks which allow new companies to exist. I imagine as an entrepreneur it’s nice to know if you horribly fail and go bankrupt (which our country is forgiving enough to allow!) you won’t necessarily be out on the street.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct. Forgot that Union Square is a tourist attraction. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting concept! Is it usual for customers to strike against a service provider? Isn’t voting with their feet and taking their business somewhere else the usual answer. That is the freedom given to the purchaser. </p>
<p>Unless it is in Seattle.</p>
<p>I agree with PIzzagirl in Post #9. Students are customers, not employees. They are free to purchase their education elsewhere. If they need to exert pressure thay can always boycott.</p>
<p>Unions serve a vital purpose in protecting the rights of workers. Seems misplaced in this situation.</p>
<p>Students in Chile have been organized and protesting for years, at this point. They have actually been joined by other groups-- including teachers’ unions and even medical unions-- and most of the country supports the students. The government often disperses the massive protests using water cannon and tear gas. They want increased funding of higher ed and a free university system instead of the one they have now, where they rely on loans to pay off their education. </p>
<p>Here’s a bit of a summary:
[The</a> Chilean Student Movement and the Crisis of Neoliberal Democracy](<a href=“The Chilean Student Movement and the Crisis of Neoliberal Democracy”>The Chilean Student Movement and the Crisis of Neoliberal Democracy)</p>
<p><a href=“Helmeted Volunteers Monitor Student Protests in Chile - The New York Times”>Helmeted Volunteers Monitor Student Protests in Chile - The New York Times;
<p>I’m so confused. Ok, so students–the customers in this situation–want to unionize against…whom exactly? The colleges? The professors? Sallie Mae? This makes no sense. They aren’t being paid to attend school; they’re paying to attend it. If they think they’re spending too much, can’t they just go to another school and pay less for their education there? And really, aren’t there just boatloads of kids who’d happily take their places? </p>
<p>Basically, I don’t get how students could be a union. That would be like everyone who uses my cable company becoming a union and striking…which makes no sense, because they could just get other customers and cancel our services. That’s a boycott, though, not a strike. </p>
<p>I must be really stupid, because the logic here makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^ Exactly.</p>
<p>I am a huge supporter of unions of WORKERS. I don’t quite get why students, who are to my mind CONSUMERS, would form a union? I completely understand why their teachers and administrative and support staff would.</p>
<p>victoriahead: I agree that it is confussing and makes no sense but I can tell you that in Qu</p>
<p>percussiondad, thanks. Our officers make the difference.</p>
<p>College students are customers who are purchasing a service, they are not employees.</p>
<p>Gloworm you are right in that the officers make a big difference. My situation is not normal in that I am a manager in the same union as the people I manage. I have the the union VP and shop steward both working for me. Since I am also first level grievance it make working conditions very tense to say the least. </p>
<p>I know the students are paying customers but in reality the college or University has entered into a minimum 3 month contract with these students. During that period don’t both parties have to live up to the terms of agreement. If they don’t then what is supposed to happen? I do not agree with a full student walk out but they do have rights under the law to receive what they have paid for. I do not agree with the students in Quebec because they were striking over proposed COA increase and believe me I would gladly pay even their new cost without question.
I know of one other student union that negotiated a contract with the city transit system to have a student bus passes included in the student fees and by doing so they got the passes at about 50% off the market value. A survey of the students was done and an overwhelming majority thought that was a great idea by the student union, the university had nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Aren’t students at public universities already getting MORE than what they paid for? Aren’t the state taxpayers subsidizing their education?</p>
<p>A student strike is a peculiar situation, to say the least. </p>
<p>Yes, there are characteristics of student strikes that are also characteristics of boycotts, and both a strike and a boycott have much in common. But I always thought of a student boycott as being mostly enforced by mass transfers out of a boycotted school and a call not to apply there… rather than by blockading classrooms and taking to the streets.</p>
<p>And, for the cases where not all academic units were on strike in a given college/university, each department could vote to go on strike or to stop it, independently from the other academic units. Berkeley is big and, in addition to turning ASUC into an university-wide union, SDU will have to unionize the various departments, whose unions would tackle department-specific issues. That way, should there be a strike (unlimited or not) at a department, other departments’ classes don’t have to be picketed, unless other departments are also on strike.</p>