2/6/2012: Scott Jaschik in Insidehighered.com:
The resolution pushing for disaffiliation set out a number of criticisms of the AAUP, saying that it had “not addressed the concerns of our professionals,” had “failed to coordinate government relations” efforts, had failed to always recognize UUP’s status in collective bargaining at SUNY, had been too slow to fix communications and elections problems, and had provided “no return” on UUP funds sent to the AAUP. According to the resolution, spending by the SUNY union on the AAUP was $190,000 this fiscal year, and more than $1.5 million since the affiliation agreement was made.
A year ago, the UUP Delegate Assembly rejected a proposal to drop the AAUP affiliation. That vote was 154 to 78.
One of the grievances noted in this year’s resolution was not present last year. The resolution says that “with the departure of Gary Rhoades as general secretary, UUP holds little or no hope that it can have a meaningful and integral relationship with AAUP.”
Rhoades’s contract was not renewed when it expired last year, and word of his impending departure leaked about two months after last year’s vote by the UUP. While AAUP leaders and Rhoades have both shied away from describing the reasons why his contract wasn’t renewed, many say that Rhoades was much more popular with campus leaders than with the staff of the AAUP headquarters.
SUNY in financial crisis, as UO is or will be. The union doesn’t help. If anything, it impedes solutions by creating (or exacerbating) an adversarial relationship.
A lot of people seem to be coming at the current unionization drive with strong ideas and feelings, both pro and anti, about unions in general. But so much will come down not to ideology but to the specifics of THIS union — run by the particular people and organizations that will run it, representing the particular people it will represent, in the particular and context of UO and Oregon. At a policy level I am all for collective bargaining rights. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right fix for every problem. And I am increasingly worried about signs that the particulars here at UO will add up to an ineffective, burdensome, and costly bureaucracy that will not advance our interests. Whatever you might think of unions in general or even in higher education, SUNY’s union has sent a very strong signal of no confidence in the current AAUP leadership that should give everybody pause.
I agree that there are strong and valid opinions about the union both pro and con. However, what a lot of the critics seem to miss is that each union organization is comprised of the faculty who establish it. The union organizing effort (including these debates) is not and a union will not be different than us. If the union drive succeeds, and I hope it does, it will be up to the faculty here at the University of Oregon to create an organization in our own image, and to run it from a creative and ethical standpoint. I am also getting tired of anonymous posts and prominent people who spread misinformation. So coming out into the open, I would like to state:
a) a card check is a democratic process where your decision not to sign is a no vote. There is plenty of information out there about this process and anyone who wants to read it can easily obtain. Call me for instance and I will bring the information sheet by your office. b) Unions do not lower base salaries nor do they set a ceiling. Unions codify salary structures. c) We who want a union are not against the administration but desire a check on its excesses. d) Excellence is a description of a result and something to strive for, collective bargaining is a process–to conflate the two is sloppy reasoning. e) A union will not be a panecea, but can certainly give us a stronger voice both here in Eugene and in Salem. There is a debate to be had, but please, let’s have honestly and openly and stop the ad hominem crap about excellence and secretive processes.
spelled my name wrong–the previous post was by Michael stern not Sten–I guess my spelling doesn’t speak well for my argument.
Sorry, Michael, but card check is about as democratic as any system where unlimited out of state money is allowed to dominate the campaign. (oh right! That’s the pay-to-play US electoral system isn’t it.)
The pro-union people have an eager and experienced group of professionals who have parachuted in to campus to wheedle & cajole us into crossing over to their side. That sort of staffing costs money, but (like ambulance chasing contingency lawyers) the AFT gets the big payoff only if they’re successful. The anti-union people, by contrast, have nobody working the streets for them, since that’s the kind of no-payoff the work that no one would take on contingency. Is that fair? Is that democratic? This is an “election” bought on contingency. Don’t try to pretend it’s otherwise.
Thanks for the reply. Actually, the “pay to play American system “works like this: the electorate is shaped through gerrymandering and legal challenges to voting rights. A huge amount of money is sunk into advertising campaigns that do not inform or address the issues. These ads spread misinformation, and the identity of those who make these false statements is often obscured (the I approve this message but am not responsible for it mode). I find it rather interesting that most of the objections that I read and here are similar to those bits of information that appear on the “neutral” HR website. So there is no pretense here–we need to organize with an existing organization, and yes, I think the process is democratic–unions bring voices to the fore that would not have a say otherwise. In other words, I am not claiming an immaculate conception, but I know that the decision, the card check, is open to all. The electorate is not pruned.Everyone can have a say and they do not have to pay to either support or object to the effort.
And my position: we may or may not win this, yet , it opens new perspectives that addresses the future of our University. That is a good thing–it indicates that we have the chance to work together in a meaningful way. I accept that many of us who feel that the University has lost its focus disagree about the ways to channel our desire to make this a great ACADEMIC University. The union drive is part of that process and i am happy for everyone to participate in this discussion.
Dog says
My concern about the union is two fold.
1. The needs of NTTF and TTF members may be quite different. As a TTF (it was a clerical error) I do not like the prospect of being in a union where TTF are outnumbered by another constituency.
2. There are very few, if any, top flight institutions (and maybe none in the AAU tho I have not checked this) that are unionized. I believe that if a union forms we have virtually no chance of getting a new president with initiative.
A little history may be helpful for some here who want to use the anti-union memes that TTFs and NTTFs don’t have sufficient common ground, or unionization creates adversarial environs, or the more ridiculous notion that unions will cap salaries! Hmm, maybe if you only look at the tree and fail to observe the forest? Part-time faculty now outnumber permanent faculty hires because of political and economic processes that gut our public institutions – ahh, but it is efficient you say, and I reply, is it good? If efficiency is your standard for good and excellent, not balanced with a reflection on its moral and human consequence, then your morality devolves to a cold instrumentality (good administrator?). From 1991 to 2003 part-time faculty hires increased around 87% while permanent hires a mere 18% (Jack Schuster and Martin Finkelstein, The American Faculty (2006)). How can this trend be good for higher education, for the UO, for our graduates? You tell me how the administrative-efficiency jingoism is going to buck this trend without a powerful force of faculty to hold steady the values of excellence and security in higher education? You tell me how we will have that power in status quo institutions. Sorry, the moral argument is in favor of resting power from the sterile, and bloated, administrative ethos and advancing a vision of solidarity in diversity, one where we are not pit against one another in endless rivalries, performance evaluations, individuated into insecurity and powerless yelps against authority. I bet on the chance that we as a faculty can make a difference, together, and reject the social darwinisim of struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support through everyone clinging to their job under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress. A union is not just about today, it is about what we will do in the years and decades ahead to preserve what is honorable and good in higher education in the face of otherwise hostile and indifferent forces. Divisive memes without reflection, without a form of solidarity to counter it, are moral and social failures and only serve to reproduce the status quo. Sorry Dog, I don’t buy it.
dog replies
a) I wasn’t selling anything
b) NTTF have far more and pretty legitimate reasons to form a union. In fact, I would wholedoggedly support such a move. However, at least for me, the reasons for TTF to form a union are far less clear. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with the thought of merging the
two groups together.
c) I had to look up jingoism (extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy) –
since I once thought I had one – but I couldn’t have because apparently only countries can have a jingoism
There are not two groups – the “faculty” on this campus is defined as inclusive of TTF and NTTF with equal standing in terms of governance – they are already “merged” together. And, NTTF does not equal part-time faculty. There are career NTTF (part and full time who have expectations of continued employment) and adjunct NTTF (may be full or part time but short-term by definition). To imply (as Anonymous does) that all NTTF are “part-time” and somehow “less than” “permanent faculty” (I assume anonymous means TTF here), ignores all the incredible work of career NTTF on this campus who are full faculty members.
It may be true that TTF and NTTF have different issues but they are legally (as per a DOJ opinion) of the same employee class. I imagine it is also true that TTF from one department may have wildly different issues than TTF from another department. So, all this “TTF v. NTTF” talk is not only irrelevant it is unnecessarily divisive and a distraction from the real issues.
You may not like the working definition of “faculty” on this campus but it is a fact. If these discussions are going to go anywhere, we have to, at a minimum, get clear on the facts in the midst of all the rhetoric.
A secret ballot is democratic. A card check is not — the union will know who helped them and who didn’t. It’s basically a thuggish way to do things. If it’s legal, so much the worse for it.
A union will basically be the end for UO. The electorate — most of whom are not too impressed with public employee unions — is not going to impressed. It’s not going to extract more money from the state. Major private donors will wash their hands of UO. It will turn relations with the Administration into an adversarial one — forget about faculty governance, collegiality, etc.
Finally, it will put together three groups of people — postdocs, TT faculty, and NTT faculty — who have wildly different interests, who have not business being forced into a union together. We will be at each other’s throats in no time — especially those of us who have postdocs — we will be “negotiating” with the Administration about how grant money must be divided between two subsets of the union — a disaster, complete disaster.
I know quite a few TT faculty who have told me that they will basically wash their hands of UO if they are forced into a union.
Oh, and as Dog notes, hiring a new president would become, uh, problematic with a union — as if it isn’t going to be hard enough as it is.
Dog says
Oh wow, I hadn’t realized that grant contract postdocs are also eligible for these union.
That seems pretty strange and I agree with the above that its not a good idea.
On what evidence can we predict that forming a collective bargaining unit will cause alumni donations to dry up?
On what evidence can we predict that the UO would have any more difficulty recruiting a president than the University of Connecticut? The University of Delaware? The University of Florida? The University of Maine? SUNY Stony Brook, SUNY Albany, SUNY Buffalo? Rutgers?
These “predictions” strike me as silly and hysterical.
UO will always be able to find somebody to accept $400K/year to fill the office of president. It’s finding somebody of distinction that will be the problem. Of course, UO has so many other advantages over those other places to make the job appealing — like being on the low end of income, rather than the high end, as most of those places are.
Alumni donations? Wasn’t the claim about “major private donors”? Sure, alumni may continue to contribute the steady $4 million/year to academics that they have for years. Alumni donations to the Ducks may continue to soar, if the Ducks keep doing well.
What is the evidence about major private donors? Well, how many rich entrepreneur types are enamored of public unions, of faculty unions? But that’s not evidence — the evidence won’t be in until the experiment is tried.
But it might be worth a look at how those places you listed are doing with private donors.
You can find some info here:
http://chronicle.com/article/Sortable-Data-Money-Raised/126167/
The only one that is at all impressive is Florida, and they raised only half as much again as UO did — with double the student population, in a much more populous, richer state, probably with many more very wealthy people.
The other examples are actually pretty pathetic.
Very interesting data there, sobering. Those places are all laggards in fundraising, with the doubtful exception of Florida.
We can look forward to losing tens of millions per year in private donations.
And, I wonder what the really big donors — the backers of the “New Partnership” — would think of giving their money to a union shop?
As an SEIU “IT” worker whose colleagues are all NTTFs and whose wife is an NTTF it looks like the TTFs are already at their throats.
As somebody whose pay is somewhere close to most Associate Professors, I might not have any business being forced into a union with the janitorial staff. As a matter of happenstance, I am, and as a result I’ve received (slightly) better pay and more job security than my NTTF colleagues.
Dog says you don’t have to believe these numbers that I just derived
from IR data that is hard to get.
The following is the percentage of total faculty headcount that is NTTF for our Campus.
2007: 49.9%
2008: 51.1%
2009: 56.1%
2010: 56.7%
2011: 59.0%
I have done this for a bunch of other AAU institutions as well.
Indiana has a similar profile to our: 2008 31.5% –> 2011 48.2 %
but it is the only one
Rutgers has always been high but is not evolving higher: 2007 53.1% –> 2011 49.6%
Iowa ranges from 24-26%
Kansas ranges fomr 23 to 26%
North Carolina ranges from 11-14%
Washington is constant at 23%
So the UO, in round numbers, is currently 60% NTTF and 40% TTF and
I can guarantee that no other AAU institution is in this situation
except for Colorado which stands at 62% NTTF – Colorado is hard tho
because a lot of research scientists at UCAR, NCAR, JILA, NIST, are
counted as NTTFs due to adjunct/courtesy appointments.
In addition, Colorado’s profile is going down – in
2007 the NTTF ratio 71%.
Thank you Anon. If Dog and other anti-union voices still do not see the connection between TTF and NTTF interests, I am stunned. Eroding tenure posts and replacing with NTTF is NOT in the interests of either group. Hello!
And what is your point? If the point is that this is a negative trend, then point the finger at a system that has been driven to control costs at the expense of it’s academic mission. Point the finger at an administration that is choosing to put its money in other places than in TTF faculty (into more and more costly administration for one).
But you need to separate that argument from NTTF’s right to be recognized as full members of the faculty. This trend is not the fault of NTTF and it is not simply the case that “more NTTF is bad” nor is it necessarily the case that a union that combines NTTF and TTF will somehow benefit NTTF at the expense of TTF (in all the “evidence” you provide, I fail to see evidence of that claim. you cite Rutgers as decreasing in this trend…aren’t they union? I know they are having problems but that is irrelevant to this argument). A “healthy” balance is probably needed. But I don’t see the relevance of what you are pointing out here in the union/no union debate. And as a full faculty member NTTF, I resent the implication that I am any less important to the academic mission here or any less entitled to a voice in that mission.
Once again, there are NOT two groups. Only faculty.
Dog says
The difference, in my view, lies in the research component and the maintenance
of graduate students at a Research University. The academic mission is more than
just teaching, I think. I am not sure I made any claim. The UO is simply not
proportionately increasing its TTF faculty with the enrollment surge and ultimately
that will undermine our research standing. Any NTTF/TTF split that you are trying
to infer from my comments is strictly in the domain of our research mission.
Fair enough – that is an important point. Any reason those concerns could not be represented in a collective bargaining agreement? I’m not pushing the union agenda here, I just don’t see that it can be categorically stated that a union that includes TTF and NTTF in one unit is necessarily bad for TTF or the research mission. It may turn out that way in the end, but I don’t see the argument that it has to.
Dog says, yes they could represented in some CBA, especially in terms of the
teaching release point I commented on before. But if the CBA results in higher
teaching loads for TTF, thus reducing research time, that would be a problem.
I am neither anti-union or pro-union, I am simply pointing out that a) there
are numerically more NTTF than TTF to be represented by said union and b) there are legitimate differences between TTF and NTTF. As for me, the clerical mistake TTF,
while I teach 5-6 (most of my academic colleagues teach 2-3) classes per AY I spend probably 2/3 of my time chasing research grants and supervising graduate students as well as undergraduate research. I suspect that time profile is different than an NTTF. I am not sure how a union helps me better deal with
my 2/3 problem.
NTTF are the majority and supporting the research mission is not in their best interest. Need I say more?
I don’t know why a CBA would result in higher teaching loads. Remember, we, the faculty, if unionized will determine what our union is and how the CBA comes out.
Anon, to say the NTTF’s interests are not aligned with the research mission is short-sighted and just not true for this NTTF. I am well aware that being associated with a top-tier research institution is in my best interest as a teaching faculty and program director for too many reasons to list. So, actually, you would have to say more to make a compelling argument that TTF and NTTF don’t share more interests than not.
Once again, there are not two groups – only faculty.
“I don’t know why a CBA would result in higher teaching loads. Remember, we, the faculty, if unionized will determine what our union is and how the CBA comes out.”
Because “we the faculty” contain two “sub”groups (does calling TTF and NTTF subgroups satisfy your hangup with two “groups”?). The majority (NTTF) could improve their lot by shifting the teaching burden toward the TTF. I know this “we are united” bs is making some of you buy into this utopian ideal, but the fact is that at some point each of these two SUBgroups is going to want what’s best for their own. At that point we will just wonder if “animal farm” or “animal house” is our future?
Card check as a “democratic device”? That one is hard to swallow. What is wrong with a secret ballot? I would feel much more comfortable working with the union after a secret ballot than after a ‘card check’ election. While I would not say my local steward has been overly aggressive in pushing me to sign, I also recognize that I have been marked as an enemy. for a young latino TTfaculty member, this is not a good start up the tenure ladder.
Will the union negotiate a transfer plan to Oregon State? Maybe something like the Optional Retirement Plan of 15 years or so back?
Why should the NTTF support the privileges of a gold-plated cadillac tenure caste? One could easily imagine a situation in which the NTTF, resentful of the disparity in teaching loads and of the snooty superiority of the TTF, use their union majority to even things up. Anyone who says “there are not two groups-only faculty” is either a dreamer or a manipulator.
All the more reason for TTF to embrace their NTTF colleagues as full faculty partners.
But then why have any distinction at all? Basically, you’re saying that all staff should have tenure. Or else that tenure should be abolished. Perhaps there’s no difference.
No, I am saying that this matter is already decided. For purposes of faculty governance and use of the term “faculty”, according to both the Oregon DOJ and our own faculty governance documents, NTTF and TTF constitute the “faculty”.
That we have different contract agreements, pay, job duties, etc. is irrelevant. As has been pointed out, there are broad differences even between different TTF groups with regard to teaching loads, pay, etc. So, the argument that a union with TTF and NTTF won’t work because the differences are too broad doesn’t hold up. By that logic, you would have to have science TTF in a different union than humanities TTF.
Of course, the lines have to be drawn somewhere and I am merely pointing out that we have already decided that “faculty” on this campus includes TTF and NTTF. To draw a line through that continues the treatment in many circles of NTTF as second-class citizens. If that is the intention, then you need to go back to the DOJ and Faculty Senate and reverse the decision we have already made about who constitutes “faculty”.
I don’t see what tenure has to do with it at all.
We have an academic mission that includes teaching and research and requires TTF and NTTF to carry out that mission.
Including NTTF as faculty doesn’t mean we want to be shoved into a union with you. If you want to completely embitter the majority of the TTF here, you’re going to do a great job of it.
The idea that this has to do with the “academic mission” is just nonsense. Especially, trying to put the postdocs into a union with the people who raise the money to support them and pay them.
Wow. Where to begin….Oh, nevermind…just keep thinking we (NTTF) don’t matter. That’ll help.
It’s that kind of arrogance that keeps the public, the state, the feds breathing down your throat wanting more transparency and accountability for our outcomes. But everything will be fine as long as we don’t “embitter” the precious TTF. Geez. You aren’t “special” – you do one or two things really well. You are an expert in your field. We get it. You know what, lots of people have that profile.
Wow. There isn’t even a union and already the TTF are saying they don’t want to be “shoved” with the NTTF, and the NTTF calling the TTF “precious”. This bodes well.
Ah, so it’s arrogant not to want to be forced into your union?
Nobody is saying the NTTF don’t matter. By all means, if they want, they should form a union among themselves.
But don’t think that means the TTF faculty want to be forced into it with you. (What else is a group being forced into an organization it doesn’t want to belong to, but being “shoved”?)
The NTTF may think that “mattering” means they should have the right — moral and legal — to do that.
Now that is what I call arrogance!
Could somebody post a link or some citation that shows that post-docs would be part of the TTF and NTTF union? Anybody else mixed in with it? I think post-docs should be unionized, but what would be the rationale to have them part of a union with TTF and NTTF?
Seems to me that if the NTTF want to be considered fully equal, then each of them should be subjected to the rigors of a national/international search process at the minimum, and then perhaps also something equivalent to the tenure process. That would clear things up in a way that a union could not.
I was hired as part of a national search process. I went through a promotion process that is modeled after the promotion and tenure process but focused on my performance as an instructor and contributor to university matters in other ways.
Equal is an interesting word choice. How are NTTF not “equal”.
Dog remarks
Another difference between TTF and NTTF is the issue of sabbatical leave.
Probably most current NTTF is not entitled to this “perk” (and, at least for me,
necessary sanitary maintenance – not that dogs have much sanity, as has been pointed
out by others here). I wonder if this means, from the “we are all one faculty” point
of view if, after we are unionized (which I now believe is a foregone conclusion, based
mostly on random comments in this forum) that all “unionized” faculty will then be
eligible for sabbatical leave? (even my postdoc!)
To UOmatters:
1) Thanks again for providing a forum which I think is highly useful for discussion,
no matter how polarized/divisive it gets.
2) There needs to be a better way to manage the comments when they get this extensive.
I am sure your aware of this
There are disparities even within the TTF. Some science department faculty teach only 2 classes total, and may even co-teach the lecture course, the other being a seminar. And science faculty have higher salaries, and starting faculty expect close to a million $ in lab renovations, start-up funds, summer salary, etc. Will these expenses seem justified when overall budgets tighten further, and science departments raid humanities for funds to keep their side afloat?
Uh, UO Matters — the vote you have tallied in the upper right has lists 145 total votes. But it says 174 have voted so far.
Something seems slightly off. If this was my checkbook, I’d want to call my economist. I know you’re neither an economist or a mathematician, but could you get somebody who has taken Math 95 to take a look at this?
With all due thanks.
dog says
scroll over the other two options in the pool to
see the remaining 29 votes split between choice 2 and 4
the polling interface has display problems – not UO matters fault
AnonymousFeb 9, 2012 05:03 PM
You’ve taken this conversation off track and are missing the primary point. First of all, I don’t speak for NTTF – I have no idea what any other NTTF want or how they view this. These are my perceptions. Second, NTTF aren’t shoving anybody into anything. Last I checked, this effort was initiated by some TTF. So, you need to address those comments to all the supporters and drivers of this, not just NTTF. I’m not pro or anti union at this point.
The main and only relevant point for me is this simple fact – the legal and faculty governance definition of “faculty” on this campus is inclusive of NTTF and TTF. There are not two groups – only faculty. That is an indisputable fact that obviously upsets some TTF, but is nevertheless a fact. I don’t imagine NTTF could organize separately if they wanted to.
I absolutely believe this is about academic mission – if I didn’t I wouldn’t care what happened. Protecting our most important resource, faculty (NTTF and TTF), is critical to our academic mission. We obviously can’t return, at our scale, to the time when TTF did all the teaching and research. So it is in the best interests of “faculty” to protect that resource from administrative decisions that have seriously hindered teaching and research on this campus.
We can debate the merits of a union – will it help that problem or not? I don’t know the answer to that. But I, for one, am sick of debating whether NTTF or TTF belong in the same group. It has been settled. The arrogance seeping through in this conversation is the implication that TTF hold some higher, special status. Of course TTF are critical to our mission. So are NTTF. Without both, the whole thing falls apart. If you don’t like TTF and NTTF as full, equal members of “faculty”, you should bring that question in an open forum to the Faculty Senate.
I find the concern about a majority NTTF union somehow railroading a CBA that negatively impacts TTF a bit paranoid – that would so obviously not be in NTTF’s interests. But I am open to the idea that could happen – nothing much surprises me anymore. All the more reason for us to work together to strengthen our collective and overlapping interests should a union happen. If it doesn’t, I hope we all can still unite around those interests.
I am unclear on the inclusion of postdocs but that is a different issue.
Oh, right, this is for the benefit of the TTF faculty. And for the benefit of the University. And the students. That argument works so well for the K-12 teachers unions.
The nub of the issue is something you stateed. “TTF and NTTF as full, equal members of faculty”. I suppose this also includes postdocs — the professor who raises money to employ and supervise the postdoc is on the same level as the professor. Great. What a university we’ll have.
Need we anything more than this kind of exchange to understand the kind of divisiveness we are in for if a union is certified without a majority of EACH represented group supporting certification?
The union effort didn’t create the divisiveness, it merely uncovered the divisiveness that was already there. I think it’s a good think to get those cards on the table and know where people really stand. Union or not, the divisiveness is now out in the open to be dealt with.
The United Academics lists postdocs as part of the process.
“We Are United Academics
We’re faculty, tenured and non-tenured, postdoctoral scholars and research faculty. We are united to strengthen the quality of education and research at the University of Oregon.”
How does this work? In the sciences, a postdoc works in a professor’s lab and is paid by lab grants or their own fellowship. Can a union negotiate with the American Cancer Society over benefits? Can one union member (professor) and another union member (postdoc) have their relationship negotiated while both sitting on the same side of the bargaining table?
“We are united…” Typical Orwellian manipulative use of language. Founded on lies & manipulations, who knows what fruit this thing will bear.
all those questions would be magically answered if you were in the same dream state as so many of our very important,dear to our hearts (really), but naively misled colleagues let’s ask our faculty senate to hold a secret ballot poll of all eligible faculty, and then report results by college, cas division, and appointment type. If there is a widespread consensus, then great, we can get on with trying to make it work for all. If not, then we can try to work harder on traditional faculty governance with a new AAUP chapter board full of nonideologically driven faculty. The current chapter officers started this drive without even polling campus AAUP members. How’s that for a good start? If there’s a consensus in a secret ballot poll, i’ll support the results. If there is no secret ballot or no consensus, then I’ll go kicking and screaming, and union leaders vwill have to stumble over my dead body. I don’t think I will be the only one.
“the implication that TTF hold some higher, special status.”
Are you arguing that tenure is not a “higher, special status”?
Duh
Yep.
Is it earned? Yes. Is it a vital piece of our academic mission? Yes. Does it serve a purpose with regard to integrity in research? Yes. Higher and Special? No.
Many people in many fields work hard and go through grueling processes to become respected experts in their fields. Just because they don’t go through this very specialized process doesn’t make them “lower” and “less special”.
The question itself says so much.
Srsly???
special: “adj. belonging specifically to a particular person or place:”
tenure is a special status
higher “adj. very favorable”
tenure is a higher, special status.
Who uses higher to mean “very favorable”? I think you know the semantic definition of higher intended above is: adj. “superior”. That’s where the rub is. Does that change your position?
This little exchange, rife with insecurities, highlights the petty little games we’re going to be playing if this union does end up happening.
An obvious difference between NTTF and TTF is that an NTTF member can be let go once their contract runs out (in that sense tenure IS superior as a status – which is different than saying TTF are superior to NTTF). Undoubtedly the union will minimize this difference as it will make it much more difficult to fire NTTFs. TTF receive this benefit through a rigorous process that NTTF don’t go through. Individual readers can decide if they think this is good for the university.
So the claim here is that because NTTF don’t go through the same rigorous process as TTF, the process that produces that superior status, they are not deserving of protection that “would make it much more difficult to fire NTTFs”.
The claim implies that NTTF are not subject to a rigorous process when hired or evaluated – at least one not as rigorous as TTF. Maybe, at least on the front end. In my unit, NTTF are evaluated far more frequently than tenured faculty and their continued employment is contingent on those evaluations. With yearly or 2-year contracts, NTTF are constantly unclear of their status. At least in my unit, it’s a pretty rigorous process, but on different criteria than TTF.
Is it good for the university to have 50%+ of their faculty unsure of their continued employment from year to year? Is it good for the university to have those faculty with a substantial proportion of the face time with students devalued by their “colleagues” and underpaid?
Here, I fixed that for you:
An obvious difference between NTTF and [seiu food service workers] is that an NTTF member can be let go once their contract runs out (in that sense [seiu food service work] IS superior as a status – which is different than saying [seiu food service workers] are superior to NTTF).
“The claim implies that NTTF are not subject to a rigorous process when hired or evaluated – at least one not as rigorous as TTF.”
In my experience TTF hiring is MUCH more selective than NTTF hiring. Furthermore, NTTF evaluations don’t approach anything near the tenure process.
“Is it good for the university to have those faculty with a substantial proportion of the face time with students devalued by their “colleagues” and underpaid?”
A faculty union cannot answer that question because it serves its members, not the students.
So the adjunctification of the TTF proceeds!
From: http://academicaffairs.uoregon.edu/nttf-policies-practices-0. Anyone here disagree with these statements?
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
The University of Oregon employs a significant number of faculty in non-tenure-related appointments, primarily, but not exclusively, devoted to instruction. The University affirms the importance to its mission of these appointments and so embraces the following working principles to guide its employment and support of NTTF:
• The University includes and respects NTTF as integral contributors to the instructional and research missions of the institution.
• All NTTF, whether involved in instruction or research are considered to be members of the University of Oregon faculty and should be afforded professional and social standing in the University community commensurate with faculty status and the duties and responsibilities of their employment.
• The University at all levels of leadership is committed to providing positive working conditions for NTTF.
I don’t disagree with them – only the second bullet point has anything meaningful to say and it just says that NTTF are part of the faculty (nttF, after all).
However, the statements don’t address, in any way, the concerns of having NTTF and TTF in the same union. The argument that I keep hearing seems to be that both groups are called “faculty” but so what? That completely avoids the relevant issues, which have been pointed out numerous times already.
Imagine representatives from NTTF and TTF (and we will need representatives from each GROUP) getting together to devise formulas for teaching load. OMG! This is only one of many nightmare scenarios that are apparently in our future.
I suggest you read a working collective bargaining agreement. Teaching loads do not get decided in the CBA, much of the current flexibility and department/program specific decisions will continue to take place as they currently do, simply with new terms around the general employment contracts of everyone covered in the CBA. I am really astounded at how little so many people on this comment track seem to know about basic rights as employees (oh, I forgot, we are faculty, not employees), that a collective bargaining agreement is the result of acting on those rights among a group of employees who constitute a community of interests (remember the U.S. Constitution) with their employer. TTF and NTTFs have numerous overlapping shared interests, period. Those interests will no doubt be the basis for a CBA and negotiations with our employer.
Dog says
well yes, in a former life I did “wear the union label” and things were clear. An
argument to me about the dangers of a faculty union is exactly our ignorance (as you have pointed out) and likely set of false expectations. On the other hand, as a faculty member I have never really had a sense of who or what my employer is so
the concept of a union in this context greatly eludes me.
Yes, a little information injected into the idealistic and paranoid rants of both sides might help. Here is Portland State’s CBA: http://www.psuaaup.net/resources.html
Not saying it’s good/bad/anything like we might have, but it is at least a working example of what might be done. Might we have a moratorium on overreactions and at least get some clarity on what we are talking about?
How about a CBA from a university similar to UO? I don’t think PSU has to deal with the same issues being “debated” here. Is there a CBA from a combined NTTF/TTF union at a “major” research university?
Dog says
one of the Universities that has been most similar to us for the past 20
years as a State Research University is the University of Delaware – I believe
they do have a CBA but know no details beyond that, and I could even be
wrong about them having a CBA. They are similar in scale to us until our
recent enrollment splurge
There are a lot of TTF that do not want to be included in a union. If a union is forced on us it will be a pure abuse of power. The democratic people that support the union should feel uneasy about forcing their colleagues into something they don’t want. Or maybe there is nothing democratic about this process.
Maybe we need an organized campaign among TTF to stop from being forced into a union. If the NTTF want to have a union, fine with me. But being forced to belong to it is definitely not. An organized campaign — sorry, I don’t want to run this — needed.
Dog responds
I asked a specific question in this forum about 2 weeks ago and was never
supplied an answer. For review that question was this
1) What is the numerical size of the body that could be unionized as one?
2) What is the percentage of TTF participation in that union?
I still don’t know the exact answers but I can estimate to within 10% which leads
to following union-approve math.
If ZERO TTF faculty vote for this union, the union can still get formed (50% +1 rule)
if 75% of the NTTF faculty vote for it.
It would really help to get an answer to question 1 …
I agree clarification on that point would be nice. Given that this forum probably represents the extremes of opinions on many topics, it is hard to draw any conclusions from the uninformed rants. It may be that TTF aren’t being “forced” into anything, at least by NTTF only. It may be that a majority of TTF support the union. Or not…no one really knows. We do know that the union effort was started and is being supported as a result of collaboration between TTF and NTTF. So, it is probably not the case that 0% of TTF support the union and 100% of NTTF support the union. But we don’t know the precise numbers.
The sky may be falling…or not.
It’s probably a reasonable assumption that if the union passes, it could be supported by a majority of NTTF and not a majority of TTF.
There are probably lots of other interesting lines to split on, will it have more support from research NTTF or teaching NTTF? Will it have more support in the sciences or humanities?
I wonder if the percentage of employees at .49 is higher on the classified side or with NTTF?
Personally, I think there’s a “reap what you sow” quality to a union showing up as a result of practice of hiring pairs of .49 NTTF rather than single 1.0 NTTFs who get a reasonable wage and benefits.