APSA LABOR
PROJECT
NEWSLETTER
Vol
2. No. 2
Summer
2008
www.apsanet.org/~new/laborproject.htm
The
Labor Project was launched at the 2004 APSA annual meeting. Our aim is to harness the efforts of a
working group of political scientists to encourage the study and research of
labor issues and to promote labor research to the public at large particularly
in relation to pressing policy issues.
We
would like to thank The Caucus for New Political Science, of which the Labor
Project is an affiliated group, for its continued support of this project and
for providing web space, resources, and members.
Please
note our business meeting will be Saturday, August 30, at
Nominations
are needed for 2 co-chairs, secretary, 2-3 members of the best paper committee.
Also
note that the convention center workers are in a labor dispute with
Aramark. They will be joining us to
deliver a petition to Aramark management on Saturday afternoon. Meet at 1 p.m. in the Marriot Brandeis or at
1:15 p.m. at the main entrance to the convention center. Call Maggie if you cannot find us
917-596-6366.
Table
of Contents:
—From the
Editor p1
—APSA 2008 p2
—Feature Article:
The GATS Asteroid: Academic Labor, Students and the Public Good
by Christine Kelly p3
—Strap this on:
APSA, through C-SPAN provides union-made bags from the
—Labor Project
By-Laws p9
—Put Your PS in
Action: The Employee Free Choice Act p10
—Convention
Center Workers: APSA Responds p10
—Behind the
Scenes p11
—Member Updates p11
—Jobs p12
From
the Editor:
By
Maggie Gray
After three years as co-chair I am
stepping down and would like to thank everyone involved with the Labor Project
for their support. My co-chair Peter Francia is also stepping down. I would like to personally thank Peter for
the work he did this past year, particularly in revamping our website. This means, of course, that we need two new
co-chairs. Please send us your
nominations or nominate yourself for the co-chair position. We will help with the transition and act as
advisors to the new co-chairs. Additionally, Peter has agreed to continue to
maintain the website.
We need several other nominations:
secretary and 2-3 member of the Best Paper Committee. Please be in touch with us if you are
interested or would like to nominate someone.
This
newsletter includes updates on our accomplishments and a call for political
scientists to put their expertise into action.
We also have our member updates section—please keep in touch, we want to
know what you are up to.
In
this issue, we are once again promoting your involvement to help pass the
Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), federal legislation that would overhaul the
process for union recognition and bargaining.
Please be sure to add your name to the sign-on letter to Congress either
electronically or by giving your name to me at the conference.
Finally, we would like to thank Christine Kelly for her contribution to this
year’s newsletter. Christine writes
about the possible free-marketization of higher education through the WTO’s
General Agreement on Trade in Services and the serious implications for
faculty, students, and labor. Christine
is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at
APSA
2008:
Our
business meeting will be Saturday,
September 1 at 12:15, in the Marriot Brandeis. There is space on the agenda for new
business; please let us know if you have any ideas (especially if you are
willing to implement them). This year we
are co-sponsoring two panels and are also involved in two working groups: 1) Labor and Politics and 2)
Immigration and
We
are pleased to highlight our co-sponsored panels and are very grateful to New
Political Science and Comparative Politics for co-sponsoring with us.
Labor
Relations and the Effects of Globalization on Inequality-Addressing
Institutions
Co-sponsored
by Comparative Politics
Date:
Thursday, Aug 28,
Chair:
Christopher
Candland,
Author(s):
Industrial
Relations and Welfare Expenditures in Less Developed Countries (LDCs): A Cross
National Analysis
Jose Aleman,
Limited
Convergence: The Evolution of Labor Regimes in North America Under
Globalization and Regionalization (
Scott B. Martin, The
Labor
Relations Lessons from the Automotive Industry
Andra Olivia Maciuceanu,
Facing
the Future: Organized Labor in an Integrated World
Gay Seidman,
Discussant(s):
Teri
L. Caraway,
Mark Anner,
Roundtable:
End of a Nightmare? The 2008 Elections & the Prospects for Progressive
Politics
Date:
Saturday, Aug 30, 2:00 PM Location: Location:
Hynes 203
Chair:
John Ehrenberg,
Participant(s):
Frances
Fox Piven, CUNY, Graduate Center, Fpiven@hotmail.com
Stephen Eric
Bronner, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, bronner@rci.rutgers.edu
Craig Steven
Wilder, Dartmouth College, craig.wilder@dartmouth.edu
Peter L. Francia,
East Carolina University, franciap@ecu.edu
A
comprehensive list of labor-related panels was emailed in an attachment to you
if we have your email. If you need a
copy, please email maggiegray3@gmail.com and put “labor panel
list request” in the subject line. Thank
you to Susan Orr for compiling this list.
Working Group on Labor and
Politics
Description:
What
is happening with organized labor and politics? This group will attend panels
and discuss recent developments on issues related to organized labor, work and
politics. The group is open to those of all methodological persuasions and
subfields.
Coordinators: Peter
Francia (
Session: Saturday, Aug 30, 12:00 PM; Location: Marriot
Brandeis
Working Group on Immigration
and
Description: This working
group will discuss how, both historically and politically, public policy and
political (non)action affected the ways in which we think about
citizenship and non-citizenship, low-wage immigrant workers, nativism, and anti-immigrant
backlash. This working group will invite attention to scholarship overlapping
public policy, political behavior and opinion, and urban politics with issues
concerning race, ethnicity, and immigration.
Coordinators: Margaret
Gray (
Sessions: Thurs, Aug 28, 12:00 PM; Fri, Aug 29, 6:00
PM; Sat, 12:00 PM;
Location: Hynes 203
Feature
Article:
The GATS
Asteroid: Academic Labor, Students and the Public Good
A
Call for Research and Action
by
Christine Kelly
The
WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) threatens to transform
higher education from a protected, autonomous public service, into a
free-market commodity traded globally and adjudicated by WTO bureaucrats. Purveyors of market liberalization in higher
education are quick to point out that global market trade in higher education
is estimated at $2 trillion.[1]
While complaints, worries and objections have all been issued by critics
expressing concern that higher education —both public and private—will suffer
in its core mission under GATS, slim to no education campaigns on GATS have
occurred within or for key constituencies. Internationally, the primary source
of research on education for the WTO remains the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), whose entire mission is trade and whose research is
one-sidedly pro-GATS. On the other hand,
comparable organizational resources have neither coalesced nor been rallied on
behalf of critics and questioners of GATS.
Public
research remains decentralized, sporadic, piecemeal and disconnected from key
constituencies.
It
is time for faculty, staff and students to take the lead in developing a GATS
research and action agenda. With
academic autonomy, unionization and college-accessibility all threatened with
each new move toward privatization and marketization, a potent and meaningful
new alliance between education unions, academics and students could very well
arise from a focus on GATS.[2] The current though temporary lull in GATS
progress, in combination with a competitive political climate here in the
What Asteroid?
In
a March 2007 interview, Bill Parsons, associate director of government
relations at the American Council on Education (ACE) told the Chronicle of
Higher Education that GATS is, "the higher education equivalent of the
asteroid hurtling towards earth that people aren't really aware is out there,
or of the consequences once it hits."
The metaphor seems fitting— it's big, it's not in plain sight, it's
moving faster than we perceive, and while we are not precisely sure of where
and how it will hit, we have some idea.
In practical terms, worrisome scenarios of what GATS will mean for
day-to-day higher education operations in the
But
what exactly are we talking about? A
recent article by Andrew Ross titled "Global U" trenchantly outlines
some of the GATS-inspired university behaviors already underway, particularly
in the area of overseas-franchising of university operations. Ross describes
the rush by universities like his own NYU and other top "brand"
universities like Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Cornell, Texas A&M, and
Virginia Commonwealth Universities to set-up shops (virtual and real) in places
like China and the more market-easy Qatar where "all expenses [are] paid
for by the royal family's Qatar Foundation."[3] Indeed, the treaty, not having been passed
yet, has signaled ventures aiming to make-up for decreased public funding in
the higher education sector:
In the years since [GATS was
introduced], the volume and scope of overseas ventures has expanded to almost
every institution that has found itself in a revenue squeeze, whether from
reduced state and federal support or from skyrocketing expenses. As a result of
market-oriented reforms in higher education, every one of
The
varied scenarios for post- GATS free-trade in education more fully guarantee
the lowering of any regulatory and redistributive "barriers" that a
signing nation's higher education policies might pose to foreign traders or
that might benefit "home" students. Under such circumstances,
in-state tuition, race and gender sensitive admissions policies, accreditation
requirements or even
admissions
tests might all come under WTO fire.
Aside from the obvious losses to
Such constraints are particularly
debilitating to developing countries that will lose valuable domestic
regulatory protection from the predatory advances of service providers from
rich nations. Indeed, a new ministerial mandate at GATS allows 'demandeurs'
such as the
Research
into the details of what GATS will do to higher education systems globally is a
critical component in raising public campaigns aimed at defending academic
autonomy and salvaging the remaining democratizing functions of public higher
education systems. In the case of the
Background
In
1995, the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATTS)
produced GATS and gave birth to the WTO.
GATS negotiations on services were first announced in December of 2000
and were given detail in the Doha Round (
In
March of 2003, higher education was formally adopted as a sub-sector within the
12 service sectors for liberalization under GATS. For the first time, GATS
places services in industries like telecommunications, accounting, health,
tourism, construction, environment, law and education on the WTO chopping
block. GATS service negotiations differ
significantly from the other two focus areas of the Doha Round in which each
WTO member must accept all concessions being offered by all other WTO
members. Instead, GATS service
negotiations are conducted on a sector-by-sector basis with national trade
representatives able to opt-in to specific features of the agreement, while
exemption from others may be permitted.
The Most Favored Nation Status requirement does not apply except to
those provisions optioned.
As
reported by the American Council on education, WTO members, including the
Policy Actors
With
scant public education on GATS being promoted in the interim, it is perhaps not
surprising that higher education rank and file—faculty, staff and students—are
noticeably absent from the limited, professionalized dialogue. Indeed, a tiny handful of higher education
lobbying organizations, favoring and some opposing GATS, have been involved in
communications with the Unites States Trade Representative (USTR). The lack of serious research by or for
parties
directly
affected by the offers is a divide that Labor Project scholars and activists
can begin to bridge. Without an active
research and action agenda, the GATS negotiations will continue to be based on
a narrow set of policy interests divorced from those most directly affected.
The
USTR is the official representative and negotiator in all WTO matters. USTR's offers and revised-offers on higher
education under GATS cover post-secondary education including technical and
vocational education services. Additional offers in the areas of adult
education, educational testing and certification programs combine to form the
higher education framework. It is the
content of these offers that has sparked debate, particularly since 2002,
within higher education policy circles. And while organizations such as ACE
have been among the most vocal critics of GATS, D.C. education policy circles
have themselves been the subjects of serious scholarly criticism. Education
policy scholars now refer to the "collapse of the community" and a
"broken compact" in higher education circles. It has been argued that
professional education lobbyists have abandoned the once foundational notions
that public investment in higher education is a public good. Michael Parsons has observed that the near
thirty-year liberal consensus among education policy actors "…came to a
swift end" in the 1990's as neo-liberals and neo-conservatives enforced a
"…more primitive form of power…" resulting in a move "…away from
equity to privatization".[7] Indeed, we can think of this broader
breakdown as one of the reasons GATS higher education provisions remain a
mystery to the majority of those in higher education. Those remaining attached to the old
"compact" have been marginalized by the USTR. Pro-GATS associations like Center for Quality
Assurance in International Education (CQAIE) and its GATS-inspired entity:
National Committee for Trade in Education (NCTIE) has stepped into the vacuum
created by the breakdown of the old social compact in higher education. Both organizations lack a membership base and
yet they are the most influential voices with the USTR. A giddy supporter of
GATS, NCTIE in describing its origins states:
The organizing
meeting of NCITE took place in Washington, DC September 13 & 14, 1999 and
was attended by representatives of a broad spectrum of the U.S. education and
training services area, including: commercial/corporate education interests;
commercial testing interests; and full range of the higher education
institutional sector, including: community college consortia and regional
alliances of colleges and universities; adult education and distance education
institutions, liberal arts colleges and major public and private universities.
NCTIE,
however, cannot claim endorsement from any significant private or public
university association. And while the
majority of traditional higher education associations have made statements
questioning the impact of GATS on the integrity of the academic enterprise, the
will of these groups to effectively make "public good" claims on
behalf of higher education has never been weaker. The targeted efforts of a coalition of public-minded scholars and
activist organizations could be highly influential in just such a situation. By
providing research support and new activist strategies, such a coalition could
energize the efforts of those currently working on GATS in the area of higher
education.
Among
the vocal critics of GATS in
Areas for
Consideration
GATS
supports the progressive liberalization of all service markets. Currently, government services and public
services are exempt as long as they are services "supplied neither on a
commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service
providers." While debate within
education policy-circles centered for a time on the question as to whether
public higher education would ever come under GATS, it is now widely assumed
that public sector higher education is in significant competition with
varieties of providers across an array of functions. Additionally, the
increasing presence of commercial enterprises within the de-funded public
higher education sector (in areas ranging from food service to research) leave
the growing mark of commercial activity on public higher education.
The
impact of market liberalization in higher education services can be understood
through the GATS matrix of delivery modes.
GATS identifies four delivery modes for services against which free
trade in higher education may be conceived. The four modes are 1) Cross Border
Supply; 2) Consumption Abroad; 3) Commercial Presence, and 4) Presence of
Natural Persons. In each of these instances
educational services offered in each category would be subject to
liberalization, with each country signing-on receiving reciprocal
treatment. In each of these cases, more
research is needed to elaborate the details within scenarios. In fact, little
serious study has occurred with regard to specific scenarios. The descriptions
and scenarios offered here are meant merely as suggestions for further research
and do not exhaust the myriad of ways higher education practices in each
category could be altered.[8]
In
the first case, Cross Border Supply
would cover an institution based in the U.S. hiring a provider in another
country—such as the hiring of a faculty member in another country who provides
distance learning to a U.S. institution.
Issues that have been raised in this Mode include objections by foreign
providers regarding "hard to meet" standards, the resulting
difficulties accreditation bodies might face, and objections to favorable
financial aid packages being offered to, for example, in-state students.
In
the second case, Consumption Abroad refers
to
Thirdly,
Commercial Presence covers the
treatment of foreign companies and affiliates that are based on one nation. For
example, the opening of "branch" campuses abroad would fit.
Centralized public university systems along with tax-subsidized systems could
be construed as monopolies or unfair barriers to foreign affiliates. Scenarios
as to remedy could vary.
Lastly,
Presence of Natural Persons refers to
persons traveling to another country to teach. Among the myriad of potential
bad-case scenarios, concerns have been raised regarding the potential for sharp
increases in the use and abuse of contingent faculty labor on a global scale,
thus further exacerbating a rising gulf between tenured, full time faculty and
a variety of non-tenured, contingent academic laborers.
There
is a serious need for research aiming to understand how, precisely, liberalization
might affect
… The AAUP
believes that including higher education in GATS may pose a threat to the
vitality of public and private nonprofit institutions while favoring the
commercial success of private companies proposing to offer higher education in
domestic and international markets. Careful and sensitive negotiations will be
required to ensure the survival of the motley conglomeration of accredited
public and private nonprofit colleges and universities that together have
nurtured and enriched this country for generations.[9] July 2003
In
the strongest statement of opposition, the American Federation of Teacher in a
2006 resolution called on the USTR to halt negotiations until certain
guarantees can be met including competent research:
…RESOLVED, that the
American Federation of Teachers call upon the
In
making arguments against the current USTR's position, groups like AAUP, AFT,
and the NEA also have written forcefully against GATS, but have not connected
to core constituencies with specific evidence. A 2004 Economic Policy Institute
"primer" commissioned by the NEA raises the specter of reduced tuition
rates being ruled "out-of-bounds" under GATS higher education
provisions as a barrier to Mode 1 (cross boarder supply). Picking up on this agenda, student
associations and activist organizations could greatly benefit from more
detailed accounts of how just such tuition benefits—including federal financial
aid—might be adversely affected. In their Overview, the NEA/EPI report suggests:
Many
traditional aspects of the
Academics,
unionists and student activist groups must surely see common ground in
combating GATS. But quality research and education campaigns need to take place. Consider making GATS a part of your upcoming
research agenda and find out how you can lend your skills to a public education
campaign on GATS.
HELPFUL
WEBSITES for GATS INFORMATION (In English):
1. WTO Homepage http://www.wto.org
2. The GATS
Service Agreements page http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/serv_e.htm
3. Public Citizen
Global Trade Watch page http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/gats/
Strap
this on: APSA, through C-SPAN provides union-made bags from the
The
labor conditions of the workers who make the annual APSA bags were raised as a
concern at last year’s business meeting.
Maggie Gray and Teri Caraway formed the Labor Project’s Bag Committee
and contacted APSA leadership with our concerns. We are pleased to announce that APSA
responded and successfully took our concerns to this year’s bag sponsor:
C-SPAN. We would like to thanks Rob Hauck and Lauren West in APSA’s D.C.
offices for helping to support this initiative. We also congratulate C-SPAN for
promoting union production.
The
bags were made in a small facility in
The
owner, Tommy Armor, who started the company in 1990, said he initiated the
contract a few years back out of solidarity concerns and to assure that
U.S.-made products would continue to be available.
Mr.
Armor reported that a friend of his has a factory in
The
facility has 4-5 employees. According to
the owner, the workers make, on average, $10.50 an hour or $35,000
annually. An employee confirmed that
they have paid vacations and holidays, as well as sick days and guaranteed
raises. They are also eligible for
hospitalization coverage. We spoke with
Clinton Bott, a silk screener for the company who had been there three
years. He told us there were no labor
problems and said he liked the job.
According
to Greg Villanova, treasurer of the International Chemical Workers Council of
the UFCW (the merger happened in 1996) and a regional director of the union,
there have been no labor disputes at American Made Bags. He also mentioned that the contract has a
successor clause so that the contract stands if the ownership changes.
A
lingering question, we have is whether we need to continue to petition for this
effort as our bag sponsors change.
Perhaps another can of worms to open is whether we really need the bags
at all.
Labor
Project By-Laws:
At
the 2007 meeting we decided we needed by-laws.
We are grateful to Bill Mello for putting them together and for the
comments of a few of our members for improving them. We attempted to approve the by-laws through
an e-vote, and received all yes votes.
However, we secured responses from less than 25% of those we emailed. As such, we have decided to hold another vote
at our annual membership meeting on Saturday, August 30. We will distribute copies of the by-laws at
that time. If you would like a copy in
advance, please email maggiegray3@gmail.com or FRANCIAP@ecu.edu.
Put
your PS in Action:
By
Gordon Lafer
As
you may be aware, next year’s Congressional sessions is likely to include an
attempt to significantly reform federal labor law for the first time in sixty
years. The Employee Free Choice Act—which passed the House last year but was filibustered
in the Senate following a veto threat from President Bush—is likely to be the
subject of extremely heated debate. The opponents of EFCA—who have already
launched a big-money advertising campaign in swing states—focus their criticism
on the notion that the current National Labor Relations Board election system
is the embodiment of American democratic ideals, and that by mandating that
unions be recognized whenever a majority of employees sign verifiable union
cards, even without the NLRB election process, EFCA is undermining workplace
democracy.
This is an unusual issue in that there is really a critical role for the voice
of academic political scientists in this debate. Many involved in this issue
believe that it would be very powerful if a statement were introduced, during
the course of next year's Congressional debate, signed by a large number of
political scientists, explaining why it is impossible to defend the current
system on democratic grounds.
As academics, we are mostly commentators on the political process rather than
actors in it. This is a rare opportunity in which we are called on to
play a critical role in a legislative debate. Because the arguments focus
on exactly those issues regarding which political scientists are viewed as
experts, our participation may have a very real impact on a debate whose
outcome will profoundly shape the country for decades to come.
Please join us in adding your name to the attached statement to Congress
insisting that any revision to federal labor law begin by acknowledging the
profoundly undemocratic aspects of the current system.
Those attending the APSA conference in
Convention
Center Workers: APSA Responds
Aramark food service workers at the
The APSA has already taken a stand in favor of the workers by not contracting food and beverages with Aramark—and the APSA president emailed news of the decision to the entire membership. Please note this was possible because the APSA council adopted a union-preference clause in the organization’s policies (which the Labor Project initiated). We applaud the council’s decision.
If you haven’t done so already, please sign the petition. Find Maggie Gray to sign a hard copy or go to http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/apsa-supports-aramark-workers
Behind
the Scenes:
Check
out our website! It is now frequently
updated by co-chair Peter Francia. Our
website is hosted on the Caucus for New Political Science website and Peter is
working with Bruce Wright to maintain our site.
We
are still collecting syllabi on labor themes; please email them to FRANCIAP@ecu.edu if
you have them. Our current collection
includes:
David Cignarelli,
"Labor
Politics, Policy and Law"
Sergei Denis,
"le
socialisme" Mouvements ouvriers : syndicats et partis
Bill Grover, St Michael's College,
"The
Politics of Labor"
Dean Hubbard,
"Whose
Law is it Anyway? Labor, the Law and Social Movements."
Christine Kelly,
Politics and
Labor Movements
Graduate Seminar: Labor, Labor Markets, and The Welfare State
Gordon Lafer,
" Labor
& Economic Policy" ;
"The Politics of Work"
Manny Ness,
"Politics
of Labor and Migration"
Member
Updates:
Mark
Anner,
Assistant Professor of Labor Studies and Political Science at Penn State
University, examined the limitations of Latin American labor law reform in his
article, "Meeting the Challenges of Industrial Restructuring: Labor Law
Reform and Enforcement in Latin America," published in Latin American
Politics and Society, 50(2), 2008. He is now working with Teri Caraway of
the
Rick
Kearney
(
Teri
Caraway (
Laurence Davis (Lecturer in
Politics in the Department of Sociology of the National University of Ireland,
Maynooth) has a forthcoming edited volume and book chapter, "Everyone an artist:
art, labour, anarchy, and utopia", in Laurence Davis and Ruth Kinna
(eds.), Anarchism and Utopianism.
Frances Fox
Piven (
Jobs:
From
APSA ejobs:
The
Department of Political Science at
The Joseph S.
Murphy Institute for Worker Education and Labor Studies, City University of New
York,
is seeking to fill three (3) faculty positions: 2 tenure track at Assistant or
Associate Professor level, and 1 Distinguished Lecturer.
Brooklyn
College of the City University of New York-Tenure-Track Assistant Professor seeks
candidates who use quantitative methods in their own research; who can teach
statistics, advanced statistics, and other methods courses; and who can develop
advanced undergraduate and graduate courses in quantitative research design and
analysis on topics of interest to the candidate and/or students. Candidates’
subfield may be in American politics, public policy, comparative politics, or
international relations. We are especially interested in candidates conducting
quantitative research in any of the following areas: race and ethnicity, labor
and political economy, gender and sexuality, immigration, human rights, health
policy and/or urban politics.
Sarah Lawrence
College
invites applications for a tenure-track position in American Politics beginning
in the fall of 2009. We seek candidates whose research and teaching interests
focus on the roles played by wealth, ethnicity, gender and race in American
politics. We welcome applicants who specialize in political geography, urban
politics, the welfare state and social policy, labor, the media, or rates and
forms of political participation
APSA
LABOR PROJECT
|
Leadership Co-Chairs Maggie
Gray, Peter
Francia, |
Advisory
Committee Mark
Anner, David
Cingranelli, SUNY Mike
Goldfield, Maggie
Gray, Christine
Kelly, Gordon
Lafer, Margaret
Levi, University Washington Melissa
Mason, Manny
Ness, Adolph
Reed, |
[1] Roberta
Malee Bassett, The WTO & the
University: Globalization, GATS and American Higher Education (
[2] For an discussion of the prospects for student protest on higher education issues see C. Kelly, "If Not Now When: How Student Protest Can Help Save U.S. Higher Education" in Logos: a journal of modern society and culture (forthcoming, Fall 2008)
[3] Andrew
Ross, "Global U" in Inside
Higher Education,
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] See the American Council on Education's
"
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=21278#II
[7] See Michael D. Parsons, "Lobbying in
Higher Education: Theory and Practice" in Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Context and New Rationale,
Eds. St John and Parsons (
[8] Scenarios such as these can be found in greater detail in the NEA/EPI report "Higher Education and International Trade Agreements" 2004. http://www2.nea.org/he/global/intltrade.pdf
[9] See Ruth Flowers, "Government Relations: Education as Commodity" July 2003. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2003/JA/Col/GR.htm
[10] See AFT Resolution "Opposition to the Expansion of
GATS",
http://www.aft.org/about/resolutions/2006/gats.htm
[11] See NEA/EPI "Higher Education and International Trade Agreements" 2004 http://www2.nea.org/he/global/intltrade.pdf
[12] Bureau of
Labor Statistics, National Compensation
Survey, Dec 2006-Jan 2008. Table 13