Unless they have some obscure exemption that nobody else knows about, I cannot imagine how the university's legal counsel signed off on this.
for-profit companies do not have to pay strikers wages and benefits while they are on strike. Unions have strike funds they use for that.* When workers go on strike, they want their absence to disrupt the profit making of the business, that is their leverage; but they sacrifice to do it.
Part of the claim in this current "unionize graduate students" drive is that they do work and get paid an income to support themselves, that's why they should be allowed to unionize. I mention that because the headline "students on strike" undercuts that claim, when the grad students want to avail themselves of labor law to make it a regular worker-employer dispute.
Another point, universities are non-profits and would be better able to say "pay them with what?" if they are not working (some courts decide issues on the basis of equity, where ability to pay is factored in. ianal)
(*Did you know that most picketers you see, like next to an inflatable rat outside a real estate development or construction project, are not "employees of the site on strike", but are instead union members who happen to be unemployed from elsewhere and get paid to stand there and do it because it's some income, and helps the union.)
I am really confused about what the university thinks they're going to get out of these actions.
That would be the grace period.
If you pay for it, its valid for a period of time, usually 6 mo
Do you maybe mean "what makes them think that this is legal?" I doubt they do. But they likely decided that value of sending a "don't fuck with us" message was higher than the cost of the likely mild consequences.
But legally, they're certainly in the clear - after Reagan forced air traffic controllers back to work it's been pretty clear that unions in America have essentially no guaranteed rights.
Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being.
It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work.
What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?
How many people apply for each position? For many areas (not CS) its a buyers market not a sellers one in terms of faculty labor.
Or to use a phrase that goes around these days: the cruelty is the point.
Its not that COBRA is expensive, but that all tax-subsidized employer insurance is prohibitively expensive and typically costs 15-25% of the median worker's after-tax earnings
Healthcare insurance subsidies by employers are the biggest piece in wage increases... that are hiding from most "wage growth" statistics
1. For young, single people, especially if they have the option of a high deductible plan, I wouldn't call it "insanely expensive" (now, family coverage I'd agree). In any case, what the sibling comment said is correct - it's just the full cost of the premiums since the employer isn't paying any.
2. Every time I went on COBRA I had a "grace period" of something like 4-8 weeks between when I left employment and when I had to make my first COBRA payment. Even if, for example, I got injured before I decided to officially sign up for COBRA, I still had the option of gaining coverage backdated to the date when I left my employer if it was before the end of the grace period.
> The wrinkle is that Temple's employees are public-sector employees, who are exempt from the NLRA --- but they're not necessarily exempt from equivalent Philadelphia law.
tptacek appears to be correct [1]. That said, there is a Pennsylvanian 1970 "Public Employe Relations Act" that could cover unfair practices including retaliation but I can't tell if it is still in force [2]. [3] appears to imply that it is still active.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34733764 [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [2] https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm... [3] https://www.dli.pa.gov/laws-regs/laws/Pages/default.aspx
Original comment: -------------------------------
> I'm honestly curious of which labor laws they are violating
Interfering with Employee Rights. [1]
Discriminating against Employees because of their union activities [2] specifically Grant a benefit to nonstrikers and/or replacements that is withheld from strikers, or impose a burden on strikers that is not placed on nonstrikers or replacements.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/in... [2] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/di...
In this case, withholding tuition remission for the entire semester simply for participating in a strike action for a small part of that semester would almost certainly count as unfair retaliation, since it goes well above and beyond withholding payroll for work missed during the strike.
I think tuition remission is part of their overall W2 compensation - as noncash compensation, similar to what would be for RSUs, Merch, etc and other fringe benefits employers provide.
Arguing otherwise would make it seem that an employer can only withhold a prorata portion of an RSU award during a strike period, but that on its face seem wrong. I think the law allows for all comp on its tracks during the strike, regardless of the period covered.
If its comp, its table stakes for doing a strike.
There's nothing preventing the university to re-establish the fringe benefits once the strike is over (but of course, the limitations on not being able to register matter now, not in 2 months).
That is not normally how a liberal democracy works. We don't punish requests for comments, we engage ...
=================================================
Dear Temple Student:
As a result of your participation in the TUGSA strike, your tuition remission has been removed for the Spring semester. You now owe the full balance listed in TUpay, which is due by Thursday, March 9.
If your balance is not paid in full by the due date, you will be assessed a $100 late payment fee and a financial hold will be placed on your student account. This hold will prevent future registration.
There is prob some room for a judge to side with students after protacted litigation, but the university is banking on them leaving and not earning the fringe benefit, (and therefore, willingly foregoing the fringe benefit making the university not liable) so it probably matters little.
Heavily implies that it's irreversible.
That's... not how tuition remissions work. The remission would have been issued before the semester starts (as tuition bills are generally do at the very beginning of the semester).
You're also putting a lot of faith in an entity that goes to considerable effort to monetarily punish people for striking [1] is going to be willing, out of the kindness of its heart, to go through that effort again to reward people for no longer striking. I do not think it wise to rely on that faith.
[1] This is basically retroactive actions in terms of finance, not to mention that this probably causes issues for grants that are supposed to be used for tuition remissions no longer being used for this.
What matters is comp. Temple can stop all comp until strike resolves.
It doesn't matter if comp is cash, or noncash.
Just like RSUs, or Bonuses, or any fringe benefits promised, doesn't matter if lump sum or awarded monthly, or the timing, those benefits simply stop.
The law allows all comp to stop. The law is not saying you are supposed to prorate, etc.
You can take health care away from employees (absent a contract) in general, but you can't do it in retaliation for striking.
It appears that you are correct [1]. There is a Pennsylvanian 1970 "Public Employe Relations Act" Article XII that could cover unfair practices including retaliation but I can't tell if it is still in force [2]. [3] appears to imply that it is still active.
[1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/em... [2] https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/uconsCheck.cfm... [3] https://www.dli.pa.gov/laws-regs/laws/Pages/default.aspx
That's simply not true. Many companies in the past have cancelled health insurance for workers on strike. That's the whole reason there has been a push by some legislators to change the law in this area.
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-ca...
You're correct in the case of 90+% of grad students.
Students and Universities both could be accused of underreporting income or tax witholdings.
I suspect there are armies of education lawyers that vetted this, but in any other industry, this is simply a no-go zone. You report what you get and what you pay as comp, cash and noncash.
Tuition remissions in particular definitely do not show up on your W-2.
Now, to the question in this thread. If you choose to report tuition as income, you might be able to do that in certain cases, but it's probably because you have some strange reason for wanting to report a higher gross income. I can't even begin think of any reason why that might be. So, murky and likely to cause an audit? Maybe. But then the gov is complaining about getting extra $$$, unless your situation is really fucking weird.
Mind you, this is exactly why I find situations like this so reprehensible. Universities get tons of breaks in how they treat grad student labor. For universities to turn around around and fuck grad students like this, on top of the insulting wages, is beyond the pale.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/08/2...
Edit: A slight twist on this is that Temple University is a public university and and the NLRB in theory does not have jurisdiction over other parts of the government. PA law, however, offers similar protection. This is off to court for sure.
But also AIUI Temple took away the whole of the tuition remittance for the entire semester. Companies are allowed to stop paying wages for the time workers are on strike and not working, but taking away tens of thousands of dollars for the entire semester simply for participating in a strike action during a tiny piece of it is absolutely beyond the pale.
Edit: why disagree? What have I said that's factually incorrect? Please, educate us all and add to the discussion in the spirit of the forum.
Nothing precludes them from doing anything, and nothing precludes students from seeking legal remedies for those actions.
Look, I'm not sure. Temple might have a defensible claim for charging tuition; it's a really complicated situation and I wouldn't take advice from anyone who isn't an employment lawyer.
But the letter that Temple sent out is probably going to get Temple into some trouble for the reason identified by your parent comment.
It's certainly gotten them into reputational trouble. I don't think they'll get into legal trouble until there is an actual harm when either the fine is charged, or a registration is blocked. Courts don't generally rule on hypotheticals.
My employment contract as a graduate student was one page long. There was definitely an implicit consensus ad idem regarding tuition remissions for graduate students.
It was not spelled out what exactly entitled me to the remission. It DEFINITELY wasn't an explicit benefit given in consideration for my labor as an RA. In fact, that situation might even be uncredible for universities to claim given the tax structure at play here.
Temple's "and therefore you don't get benefits and therefore YOU owe US money!" reasoning might make sense to a Goldman mouth breather, but I somehow doubt that anyone else involved in this agreement going back 5+ decades has ever thought that this is how things are supposed to work. I am genuinely skeptical that the COO (or whatever)'s interpretation of the contract is spelled out in writing in the contracts, or that there was ever a meeting of the minds on this matter.
And it's pretty trivial to show damages here without a bill coming due. If I were a grad student I'd put $xxK in a money market account, document my investment plan (or three ;) ), and sue for the opportunity cost plus treble damages even if this all gets resolved.
It's not just internal budgeting, it also allows them to accurately charge faculty grants for that tuition. Faculty are given grants by various organizations, but they don't get that money up front, they have to identify a cost relevant to the grant that was paid, then the grantor reimburses. In the case of tuition, the grantors generally require some documentation that the charges are reasonable and allocable, so they are charged whatever tuition would be charged to a student with no TAship or Research Assistant position.
> taking away tens of thousands of dollars for the entire semester simply for participating in a strike action during a tiny piece of it is absolutely beyond the pale.
Temple is also pushing this way down the calendar. The tuition demanded does not have to be paid until March, and even if not paid then, it only blocks registration for the next semester (presumably Fall). They seem to be minimizing the impact to the degree possible. Hopefully the strike will be over long before then, and this will all be moot.
Beyond the pale morally or legally? The grandparent claim is that this is a slam dunk violation of labor law, but I’m not sure that’s true.
That said, I’m not a labor law expert. I’d like to hear from one without an ax to grind. Too often advocates conflate what the law currently is with where they think it should go. I’m often interested in both, but want to know which is which.
But as I said, you don't actually make a penny, so I wouldn't really call it "wages".
There is such a thing as noncash compensation. And that's part of total compensation.
If the govt has any inkling that you are taking payments in other than cash, they want to know (and tax) it too.
"Generally speaking, those who are part of a legal strike cannot lose their health insurance or other benefits. While they may not receive them during a strike, these benefits must generally be made available to workers after they return to their jobs."