Talk:Graduate Student Organizing Committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
[edit] March 30 edit
I removed this recent edit: "All are currently cut off from their jobs, and several, particularly those who are members of the bargaining unit enrolled in terminal MFA or MA programs, and thus not guaranteed another teaching position, may be (de facto) locked out of university employment permanently." This sentence is poorly written, and just doesn't make much sense. How are they "locked out of university employment permanently"? And isn't this all part of the calculus when you engage in a work action? --mtz206 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally, when you end a strike, you get to return to your job. For many of the strikers, there is no longer any job to return to. Thsi constitutes a "lockout" and is far from the normal "calculus" of most job actions.
- I'm not saying its normal to most job actions, but certainly a possible result of this job action. If you are in a "terminal degree program," the chance that the strike could continue for the duration of your tenure at the institution shouldn't be a surprise. Nor should the possibility that the institution would consider you in violation of your matriculation agreement, and not allow you to teach for X number of semesters as a repurcussion. Perhaps try to re-word your sentiment so it is a little more clear and fits better with the article? --mtz206 13:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current event
It appears the matter was resolved in February 2006. I've removed the "current event" tag from the article.--Marysunshine 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That is incorrect. please restore the tag.--Cerebella
[edit] Controversies
If Nerds for GSOC is linked to, an anti-GSOC source should also be linked. I added one.
The controversies that I mentioned were widespread issues within the law school. Unfortunately there is no source to cite, because everything was addressed via e-mails from PILC. I believe the following should be restored:
"Several summer employers refused to cross the GSOC picket lines at the NYU Law Spring 2006 Public Interest Law Center job fair, causing some students to miss appointments, or diminishing student access to summer employers.
Some speakers participating in PILC's 2005-2006 "Speakers in Public Interest Law Series" refused to cross the GSOC picket lines, and as a result some NYU Law students experienced difficulty in satsifying their PILC summer funding requirements for the summer of 2006." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpops (talk • contribs)
- The labor dispute & strike had widespread impact; this is just one example that some students in the Law School felt. Further, it is without reliable sources and written in somewhat of a weasily way ("causing some students"). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact remains that of the "widespread impact", this article ONLY mentions controvertial actions by the administration It's horribly onesided, and anyone reading this entrie would not be in a position to evaluate the situation. Instead, they would probably come away positive that GSOC is right and the administration is wrong, because the entry is more public relations than information. I just wanted to add something I have knowledge of to show that the issue is not onesided. If you really wanted to be fair, then there should be a mention of GSOC disrupting student studying during finals by marching and chanting outside of Bobst. That action had a very widespread negative impact on the students.Zpops 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Trust me, I am all for NPOV in this article. Its just that adding "something I have knowledge of" is original research, which is generally frowned upon. Further, any claim of GSOC actions having "widespread negative impact on the students" would have to be supported with reliable sources, such as a WSN article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- [1] That's the best support I can find. It's an editorial from WSN that mentions the speaker cancellations and the job fair disruption. Zpops 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding that. I've added mention of the impact on students, with citations to this and other articles, although I'm not sure it really belongs in the "Controversies" section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- [1] That's the best support I can find. It's an editorial from WSN that mentions the speaker cancellations and the job fair disruption. Zpops 23:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Trust me, I am all for NPOV in this article. Its just that adding "something I have knowledge of" is original research, which is generally frowned upon. Further, any claim of GSOC actions having "widespread negative impact on the students" would have to be supported with reliable sources, such as a WSN article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact remains that of the "widespread impact", this article ONLY mentions controvertial actions by the administration It's horribly onesided, and anyone reading this entrie would not be in a position to evaluate the situation. Instead, they would probably come away positive that GSOC is right and the administration is wrong, because the entry is more public relations than information. I just wanted to add something I have knowledge of to show that the issue is not onesided. If you really wanted to be fair, then there should be a mention of GSOC disrupting student studying during finals by marching and chanting outside of Bobst. That action had a very widespread negative impact on the students.Zpops 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A minor point, but that's asigned opinion piece, not reporting or even an editorial --Cerebella
