The following information was obtained from publically available forms LM-2 and LM-3 that GESO has filed with the US Dept. of Labor for calander years 1993 through 1998. Click on a figure for more detailed information where available. Or scroll to the bottom of this page for this further information, including general comments.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Number of GESO Members
at end of Reporting Period		 456? 605 550 400 378 849 800 750
annual membership dues $45 $45 $90 $90 $45 $45 $0 "n/a"
Receipts
Dues $20,526 $28,039 $32,731 $12,543 $19,759 $2902.50 $0 $0
Interest $0 $0 $0 $220 $394 $269.70 $142.64 $149
Other $2,343 $2,495 $33,623 $3,781 $90,746 !!! $105,962 !!! $121,478 !!! $94,639 !!!
Total $22,869 $30,534 $66,354 $16,544 $110,899 $109,134 $121,621 $94,788
Disbursements
Salary, Other
paid to "officers"		 $2,343 $11,841 $19,045 $0 $15,976 $8,929.78 $0 $0
Salary, Other
paid to "employees"		 $6,123 $6,165 $33,431 $718 $53,882 $101,868.19 $93,951 $69,874
Office and
administrative expenses		 $4,855 $5,906 $11,283 $8,954 $15,843 $7,509.52 $5,938 $6,098
Professional Fees, Medical Benefits,
Direct Taxes, Other		 $2,991 $3,548 $10,970 $1724 $7,251 $22,400.52 $16,584 $14,962
Total $16,342
[sic]		 $27,460 $71,963 $11,396 $92,952 $140,708.01 $116,474 $91,038




Percentage of GESO disbursements paid to various concerns
yearPaid to officers
and "employees"		 Office and
administrative expenses		Other
1993~51%~30%~18%
1994~65%~21%~13%
1995~72%~15%~15%
19960?~78%~15%
1997~74%~17%~7.8%
1998~78.7%~5.3%~15.9%
1999~81%~5%~14%
200076.8%6.7%16.4%



Number of GESO members at the end of the Reporting period (Dec 31 for each year):
1993: This figure is not given explicitly on the form. It is calculated using the "Dues Receipts" and the value of $45 dues, which were presumably mandatory.
1993-1997: Note steady decline in GESO interest.
1998: Note sharp increase in apparent GESO interest. Note also, that while "dues" are officially given as $45, they were optional (although not explained on the LM-2 form) in 1998 . Dividing the "Dues Receipts" by $45 gives only 64.5 member-equivalents out of 849 members who were evidently willing to help fund GESO.

 Annual Membership Dues
1995, 1996: Dues are given as $45 per semester in these years
1998: $45 Dues were voluntary. Only 7.6% of GESO members evidently exercised this option.

Receipts--other
1991: Although not officially listed on any form that we have, a $100,000 grant from locals 34 and 35 to GESO is reported in a 1995 YDN article. The article also describes that the locals, including local 217, have provided many more resources than just money.
1993: Unspecified. Note additional $14,047.38 reported cash on hand/on deposit at beginning of year
1994: Unspecified
1995: Unspecified
1996: Unspecified
1997: 1998: 1999: 2000: *   HERE I.U. stands for Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. This is the parent union to locals 34 and 35. A New York Times article on 27 September, 1998 p17 col.1 detailed a recent investigation of corruption in the leadership of the HERE International Union

Disbursements--Officers
"Salaries" will be listed only by title. Individuals' names are included on the LM-2 forms, but will not be listed here so as to maintain some sort of high ground. Figures for "Salary" are gross salary, i.e. prior to taxes and other deductions. "Other" includes "Allowances", "Disbursements for Official Business", and "Other Disbursements"
1993:
titleSalaryOther
Chair$2,210
Sec-Treas$272
Co-Chair:$59(unspecified)
1994:
titleSalaryOther
Chair$7,230
Sec-Treas$37
Co-Chair $4,574
1995:
titleSalaryOther
Chair$10,701
Sec-Treas$300
Co-Chair$8,044
1996:
Officers were not paid this year.
See overall analysis for a probable
explanation.
1997:
titleSalaryOther
Chair$500
Co-Chair$15,116$360
1998:
titleSalaryOther
Unspecified$15.92
Unspecified$6,465198.96
Unspecified$2,250
1999
Chair$0$0
Co-Chair$0$0
Sec-Treas$0$0
2000
Chair$0$0
Co-Chair$0$0
Sec-Treas$0$0


Disbursements--"Employees"
Note that while GESO calls them employees, in many cases the Yale Graduate School calls them graduate students. Again, individuals' names are included on the LM-2 forms, but will not be listed here so as to maintain some sort of high ground. The LM-2 (and LM-3) form requires only individuals earning $10,000 or greater to be listed individually. A single total is given for that money paid to an unspecified number of individuals in which each made less than $10,000.

1993:
titleSalaryOther
Unknown no.
of people: 		$6,165
1994:
titleSalaryOther
Unknown no.
of people: 		$6,165
1995:
titleSalaryOther
Unknown no.
of people: 		$33,431
1996:
titleSalaryOther
Unknown no.
of people: 		$718
1997:
titleSalaryOther
Organizer$12,000
Organizer$22,500$257
Unknown no.
of people: 		$19,125
1998:
titleSalaryOther
Organizer$12,262.50742.50
Organizer$11,500
Organizer$11,733.38$409.52
Organizer$19,875.03$109.01
Organizer$20,291.70$448.28
Unknown no.
of people: 		$23,811.36$684.91
1999:
titleSalaryOther
Organizer$10,630.38$0
Organizer$28,416.69$52.95
Organizer$11,292.80$0
Organizer$14,426.99$365.45
Unknown no.
of people: 		$28,766.12$0
2000:
titleSalaryOther
staff$10,620$0
staff$16,833$267
staff$11,712$0
Unknown no.
of people: 		$29,828$614


Other disbursements:
1997: 1998: 1999: 2000: In general
The forms from which these figures are taken are available only back to 1993. There appears to be some discrepancy between the number of members reported and the figure given for dues-generated revenue. Insofar as we are aware, dues were mandatory until 1997. The discrepency may be explained for some years by people leaving or graduating after paying dues, but before Dec 31, assuming GESO takes care to note who is no longer eligble by virtue of leaving or graduating. 1996 doesn't make sense -- if the 400 members reported as of Dec 31, 1996 all paid their $45 dues (for that semester, at least), the dues receipts should be $18,000 (or more).

One can see a steady decline in GESO membership from 1993 to 1997. It appears that their attempt to increase membership by making dues voluntary in 1998 was an effective trick--it's much easier for organizers to harass people until they're willing to sign than to obtain a signature AND $45. Only the equivalent of 64.5 people at $45 a head apparently opted to fund GESO in 1998 via annual membership dues. This is pretty telling. Perhaps as a consequence of making this fact public, in 1999 and 2000 GESO attempted to subvert our being able to make the same point by not collecting any dues at all. Yet, the point remains that students are not supporting the movement, the outside unions are. What sort of return do you suppose they expect for their $100,000 each year? Will it be enough that graduate students call their fellow hospitality industry workers ``brothers and sisters'' in the conventional parlance, or will it be time for graduate students to pony up?

One can see that 1996 was a lean year for GESO with regards to financial support. This coincidentally was the year in which the initial charge was made, in which GESO, with the assistance of HERE I.U. charged Yale with unfair labor practice during the 1995 grade strike. It is possible apparent funding was low, because the outside support was provided instead in the form of legal assistance. It is also possible that GESO's public image took a large enough hit because of the strike that its outside sources elected not to fund them in 1996.