Frequently Given Responses?

So I just submitted this letter-to-the-editor to the Minnesota Daily, our campus newspaper. It probably won't get published there, so I figured I'd at least give it some space here:

Title: Frequently Given Responses?

On Thursday afternoon, graduate student employees at the University received an email from Patti Dion, the Director of Employee Relations and Compensation, containing responses to “frequently asked questions” about the upcoming unionization vote [note: you can read them yourself here]. As someone who will be voting in the upcoming election regarding unionization, I agree that these are important questions, so I’d like to take issue with a few of the (frequently given?) responses.

First, in response to the question of why the UE “wants” to represent graduate employees, we are told that “unions have an interest in increasing membership.” This is true, but one could also argue that the University administration has an interest in decreasing pay and slashing benefits for graduate employees. Does this mean the administration “wants” to do so? I don’t know. If I wanted to know what the administration “wants” to do, I would ask them, not try to speak for them. Why not give the UE the same common courtesy?
 
Another frequently asked question is how graduate students would benefit from union representation. We’re told that “any promises or threats about the future made by union representatives are a violation of fair labor practices.” This is true. Isn’t it also a violation for the administration to make “promises or threats about the future”? Why is this not mentioned?

I assume these are just innocent mistakes, as I would like to believe the administration would not be using their privileged access to our email inboxes to distribute biased, unfair information about such a critical matter.