As far as I'm aware, all reputable American colleges will do the following for graduate students who are teaching assistants: 1) waive tuition 2) pay for the majority of a health insurance plan 3) issue a modest living stipend that's enough to live on, albeit not very comfortably. I know this is the case for Purdue.
Just assuming that the university (out of its goodwill?) will do any of those things is kind of ludicrous. At my university, we had to fight tooth and nail (we had a union) to get the university to improve our health insurance and full waive our tuition (They did a tricky thing where they would waive all people with 50% TA-ships, and then they gave everyone a 49% one. Universities are not noble, altruistic actors. Far far from it)
1 - Less grad students.
2 - More undergrads doing the work of grad students.
3 - More adjuncts doing the work of grad students.
4 - Grad students being asked to do more.
The irony is this is happening at the great home of Price Theory!
Grad students are major drivers of funding and research for universities. Cutting them will reduce that funding further and make them look worse nationally as an institution.
Perhaps undergraduates SHOULD be welcome to do more of the work? I see no problem with offering cheap workstudies to help grad students and professors getting the little things done while they research and learn.
Adjunct professors might be a good thing-many tenured professors disdain teaching and it shows.
Grad students won't be asked to do more than they agree to because they have a union.
About 10 years ago the stipends were around 25-35k/year. Plenty to live off of in Richmond or Charlottesville.
I have a masters in Computer Science from UW-Madison and I had nothing to do with the PhD track. I just wanted more learning and the CS department was happy to provide it. There was no stigma associated with a masters degree there and it's definitely helped me in my career.
When I worked retail in high school and college, one of my employers was a union shop. It was nice in that there was less abusive and capricious scheduling behavior. I moved up to a level where I saw store P&L and the economics looked to be about the same — but it was more equitable and predictable for the employees.
Before striking, there's working to rule. The experiment can continue, but the extra hours spent grading papers or doing additional tutorials are not worked.
The entertainment industry unions are among the most longstanding and effective and there are no greater spreads in economic value than there are between a novice actor or screenwriter and a global movie star.
I think grad students unionizing is a fantastic idea. They are in every way the critical grease that keeps the capitalistic university system running. They should be able to protect themselves and have a stronger impact in how the universities are run.
The only concern I have is the huge turnover. Unions are most effective and most rationale when the members are committed for life. The longest any of these students could be there is 15 years (5 masters, 10 PhD). This would be very extreme. Most are looking to be out in 2-6 years.
Are there any other examples of unions for occupations that have mandatory turnover or term limits?