I started this blog kinda late, so I'm retroactively covering what went down at last week's senate meeting.
In case you didn't hear, one of the most controversial pieces of paper the senate had in front of it (aside from that steaming heap of wordspout known as the proposed constitution; more on that later) was SB 1011 - 40 aka the thing that said we should stand with our TA's and their collective bargaining rights.
The budget bill is a hot issue right now and will be for some time. The students of UWM clearly want to stand with their instructors and brethren no matter what -- they are, after all, what makes this campus what it is. It therefore follows that the elected representatives of the students (i.e. senators) should make this clear to everyone else.
But where things get fuzzy is in how we should say just that.
Their are students that stand with the TA's and firmly agree that they should maintain their collective bargaining rights. There are some who say that bargaining rights en masse make our University more attractive to prospective employees and can be used as a bargaining chip to bring them to UWM. And of course there are those who do not agree with the first two and either support what Walker has proposed or simply don't give two thumbs about the situation and would like to take no concrete stance.
As senators, it is our job to represent all of our students to the best of our ability. And while the two former groups I just described are obviously in the majority, there are many students who fall into the other categories. Giving all sides representation is what is honestly very important here, no matter what the perceived effects of passing a neutered bill would be.
Which is why Senator Hastert, the logical thinker he is, suggested a very diplomatic and entirely inoffensive compromise that said students stand with their TA's while not mentioning collective bargaining.
But that's not what got passed.
Passionate arguments were given on both sides, and the original bill ended up passing. This disappointed me for the sole reason that it did not accurately represent the sentiments of students.
The day after the senate meeting, I was explaining the occurrences of the meeting to my better half at the route 15 bus stop when I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and was politely greeted by a <NAME REDACTED> grad student whole had overheard my conversation with Courtney. She explained that she was in fact one of the students that did not agree with collective bargaining and was royally pissed by the fact that several of her TA's had taken off to Madtown and some of her professors encouraged her to go protest. She couldn't believe her student representatives could pass such legislation fairly.
I personally do not want to make our University seem unappealing to TA's and I will stand with them. I just can't bring myself to support legislation with such a clear bias unrepresentative of the student body of UWM.
And that's my two bits :)
Brent,
ReplyDeleteNothing we do will have universal applause. You should know this as you have an article responding to someone who disagreed with subsidizing parking. That didn't stop you from voting for it. That logic for voting against the bill is flawed. If you don't support collect bargaining then just say so.
First of all, we didn't actually vote on the parking issue yet.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, this is an issue that doesn't directly involve UWM -- a rarity when standard liberal/conservative and republican/democrat politics crosses over into the student senate. The situation has to therefore be treated differently.
Finally, your definition of not having "universal applause" seems to imply that any minority, no matter how large, should be ignored. This is highly inappropriate position for a senator to take.
As was pointed out by senator Drake, people have many reasons for not actively protesting and, for that matter, counter-protesting. Just talking to students in the terrace whilst getting signatures, I learned that many don't care, don't want to take a position, or are not in support of collective bargaining. One side being loud does not mean that there is only one side.
One, you're right I hadn't realized that. But will some people disagreeing stop you for voting for something that you think is right?
ReplyDeleteTwo, no it doesn't "involve" UWM but does affect us. Tuition doesn't "involve" UWM but we take stances on it every year. It affects us because all of the teachers and TA's are state employees. A lot, especially the good ones, could easily get better jobs somewhere else more secure.
Third, I didn't in any remote way imply that any minority should be ignored. I'm simply saying that you can't legislate based on trying to make everyone happy. You yourself said "to the best of your ability" If you're going to appose something appose it because you disagree, not because you don't want to take a stance.
Finally, I didn't mention protesting at all. My point is that as a student representative I have to take the stances that I believe will be better for the students and the university. Lots of people don't care or know about parking or student org funding, etc. That doesn't mean I shouldn't take a stance on it.