3/21/2012: I’ve got some opinions about the faculty union. But they are not as strong as, say, my opinion that provost Jim Bean shouldn’t be making UO students pay for the jock box and his beamer. Or my opinion that JH administrators shouldn’t be hired in secret, kept on without review by the faculty, allowed to spend millions on nutty pet projects, and then given a “special assistant provost” job and a fat golden parachute when they finally hit their sell-by date. Or my opinion that George Pernsteiner shouldn’t ask taxpayers to cover his mortgage and maid service. So my main goal regarding the union is that this blog provide a neutral forum for faculty.
With that in mind, people should know that, in contrast to earlier statements from me and others, the state ERB *will* accept objections to the proposed union from faculty. Faculty objections do *not* have to be filtered through George Pernsteiner or Bob Berdahl.
Sandra Elliot of the ERB would, however, appreciate it if these faculty objections come in some organized form. She wrote today:
If there is a “group” that can agree on a specific objection or objections perhaps a brief statement of the objection and then signatures (dated of course). Then a copy to the petitioner [United Academics] so it will be considered “served.” It would be best if they were in writing and hand-delivered or US Mail. That said, individuals could do a letter to ERB and copy the petitioner, but if the volume of paper can be kept to a minimum it would be nice. You might also give a copy to Mr. Geller’s office so he will be aware of what objections are out there.
I know that many faculty are interested in writing or signing such a petition. (My advice is to ignore Randy Geller. Geller is the administration’s lawyer. He’s not a friend of faculty, pro-union or anti-union.)
With that in mind, I’m putting this post up as a place for faculty opposed to the union or to the union organizer’s definition of the bargaining unit to post comments about what they think should or should not be in such a petition. I would appreciate it if pro-union faculty would leave the comments on this particular post for those on the other side, if they want it. FWIW my union meta-FAQ is here.
My main concern with the bargaining unit is the division of faculty into two parts – those with supervisory authority (not included) and those without (included). What does this mean? All TTF have the authority to win grants and hire (and fire) postdoctoral scholars, graduate students and/or research assistants. Does that mean that all TTF are not part of the bargaining unit? This is completely unclear – how does one know whether or not they are part of the unit?
TTFs need to vote on a separate union for TTF that includes and represents them only. NTTFs and others should be allowed to form union if they wish. I therefore object to drawing circles around different groups of TTFs and therefore splintering our university.
I favor a union. But the interests of the tenured faculty (PI’s or not) and permanent NTTF’s are very different than those of temporary adjuncts and post-docs, and those who have primary careers outside UO but who teach one course or so a year. The outside union organizers pushed to include them all for ideological reasons, and out of a hope they would vote pro-union. Not in our best interest! So how’s this:
The undersigned request that the AAUP and AFL-CIO agree to form two separate bargaining units. One shall consist of teaching and research and library faculty with long term contracts at a greater than 0.4 FTE. The other shall consist of faculty with short-term contracts or contracts at 0.4 FTE or less per year.
This is a good and interesting idea. However, in the interests of finding as much common ground as possible I would suggest that we limit our objection to just that, an objection, and not proffer one of several possible solutions to our objection. If our objection is that we believe the bargaining unit to be improperly and capriciously defined to include disparate groups and exclude important parts of the TTF then let’s simply say that.
I agree with Anonymous 10:36. I could vote for what Anonymous 9:50 proposes, because it addressses some of my frustrations with the bargaining unit as the union organizers have defined it. But I share the same worries as Confused and Concerned, which this plan doesn’t address–even if it might solve many of them for practical purposes.
Strategically, our best bet it to keep it simple. And Anon 10:36 has already worded it perfectly: “We believe the bargaining unit to be improperly and capriciously defined to include disparate groups and exclude important parts of the TTF.”
Under that basic objection, itself in bold, one might simply provide as bullet points examples of the “inclusion of disparate groups” and “exclusion of important parts of the TTF”.
The first two comments above each stand as a bullet point. I have seen others, equally compelling elsewhere in recent days on this blog. People tend to see the impacticality of the unit based on their own position within the university (i.e., scientist or non-scientist, or depending on how their depts use and treat adjuncts and the like)–but that’s good! No need to flatten that all out into a single scheme. That’s the chief failure that of the union organizers, as it now seems to many. And it’ll be for the ERB or a judge to decide which of these bullet point details does have standing in law to call the proposed bargaining unit into question.
Yes, keep the petition simple — TTFs and NTTFs don’t belong together. The aim is to get the ERB to punt it to an administrative judge. *That’s* where the legal details will need to be ironed out surrounding the composition of the bargaining unit(s).
Unfortunately, a Union of NTTF was defeated here, at the UO, because the bargaining was not broad enough–the legal finding then was any bargaining unit here at UO in Oregon needed to include both TTF and NTTF. This is going to be very tough to argue now they need to be separate.
This is complicated and divise. How has forming
a faculty union played out at other OUS
institutions in the past? Especially PSU with
many of its science and engineering faculty
involved in research, supervising post-docs, research assistants, lab techs, etc?
In two cases recently considered by the state ERB (Klamath Community College and Western Oregon University, both 2009), the board ruled that TTF and NTTF *do* represent a legally defensible “community of interest”. In both cases, objections raised by the administration were over-ruled by the ERB and the unions were approved. Therefore, our objections should focus on two key points: (1) the plan to include ORs requires exclusion of TTFs who supervise ORs, but the mobility of faculty in and out of “supervisory” status makes the composition of the proposed union absurd and unworkable; and (2) the biased, manipulative, and prejudicial nature of the card check process. It also would not hurt to mention that Duke Shepard, the governor’s advisor on labor policy, is an active political advisor for Oregon AFL-CIO: conflict of interest, he should not participate in the process.
Perhaps we can get ORs out–but this would then put PIs in–be careful what you ask for. Won’t stop the Union–just put PIs in.
fact-check: Duke Shepard is not an active political advisor for AFL-CIO.
fact check: “It also would not hurt to mention that Duke Shepard, the governor’s advisor on labor policy, is an active political advisor for Oregon AFL-CIO: conflict of interest, he should not participate in the process.”
Shepard is NOT an active political advisor for AFL-CIO. really–I am quite sure he is not.
The card check is a well established method in labor law. You will not get anywhere arguing it is “biased, manipulative, and prejudicial”. The winning argument is 1). Grad students and other temporary adjuncts have no place in a faculty union. Any definition of faculty which has to exclude PIs (who are generally the leaders of the faculty) just makes no sense. Same goes for any definition which excludes department heads, for that matter.
I agree. The central objection is simple and compelling, and should have a legal precedent. Note however, I don’t think grad students are included in the planned make-up of the union. The proposed inclusion of post-docs and research assistants, and exclusion of faculty supervisors and department heads, is ample basis for a very strong objection. Opposed faculty need to submit a petition.
No exclusion of dept. heads is proposed, I think. And the supervisor thing could go either way–so if we want to argue they should be in, then they might easily be put in. That won’t defeat the Union, it will just put the PI’s in most likely, so be careful for what you ask for.
Department heads are often the key decision makers in hiring NTTFs so I don’t see how they will be eligible to be in this proposed bargaining unit.
So too are Asst or Assoc Dept heads often, or whoever handles course scheduling. In fact, depending on department practice and policy, all TTF with voting rights in a department potentially are key decision makers in hiring NTTFs–whether literally voting to give a long-term contract to an adjunct, thus making him/her formally an NTTF; or voting on decisions about who can and should be eligible to teach certain course offerings, thus affecting the availability of short-term adjunct positions; or voting to determine the procedures by which adjunct faculty are evaluated and not hired again if found inadequate.
If I were NTTF, these are precisely the issues I’d want the union to negotiate into my contract–the kinds of constraints on exploitation that GTF currently have. But in most cases the folks on the other end of the bargaining table are not from Johnson Hall or the dean’s office, but the Dept Head and collective voting TTF in the dept–currently members of the same bargaining unit. How can that work? The idea that administrators or PIs are the only official “supervisors”, the only ones with a role to play in the hiring or firing of NTTF, adjuncts, post-docs and research assistants makes no sense to me.
This is the very reason that voting rights per se are so clearly spelled out: in my department at least, TTF have them, NTTF and adjuncts do not, and anyone with a part-time or joint appointment is either clearly stipulated as a voting or non-voting member of the dept. Indeed, if I were an NTTF, I might even want to negotiate for voting rights. How TTF would feel about that, and what difference that would make to department culture, I imagine would vary widely from dept to dept.
aon227 on the klammath cc case. my reading of that case is that 1)klamath cc apparently does not grant tenure, so there are apparently no true ttf, and 2) the erb accepted a negotiated settlement in which some went in union others out. but dead duck is certainly no lawyer! any lawyer volunteers from te law school?
I’m no legal expert and don’t know if this is relevant because it relied on a state law interpretation, but here is a piece on a union fight going on at Univ of Illinois at Chicago:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/03/23/appeals-court-rejects-faculty-union-u-illinois-chicago
The ERB would look at other federal and state decisions where there was a lack of case law on the issue in Oregon. In this case, as you said, it looks like the debate was over a narrow interpretation of the law in Illinois, and while interesting, is probably not legally relevant to the UO union.