3/13/2012: From the United Academics Faculty Union website:
We are VERY pleased to announce that on Tuesday March 13, United Academics filed union authorization cards – signed by a clear majority of UO tenure-track, non-tenure-track, and research faculty – with the state Employment Relations Board (ERB).
This is an important milestone and moves us one key step closer to forming our union and restoring a strong faculty voice in the future of the UO. Our union will be formally certified once the Board confirms that the signed cards do indeed represent a majority.
United Academics includes tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, and research faculty. In addition to the solid overall majority, the union authorization cards we presented to the state ERB included majorities in each of the classifications of faculty represented. (emphasis added).
I think this lays to rest a lot of concerns. There are still hoops to jump through but no one seems to think they are major.
So, the immediate questions that come to mind are how will elections for union representatives be set up, bylaws written, dues, etc. Anyone know?
In previous discussions on this site, union advocates have told us they did not know how many people are in the potential bargaining unit, and they couldn’t put together a TTF email list. So how do they know they have majorities?
Because they’re lying sacks of fecal matter? Just a guess.
I think we’re coming close to invoking Godwin’s Law on this thread. I give it about 2 more comments.
Yup, that fecal matter comment fooled me, until I googled fecal. Must be from a Santorum supporter. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
First comes certification; once the ERB has certified the union, we can proceed to the crafting of bylaws, etc.
To be clear–the Union organizers never said they did not know how many tenure track faculty members were in the bargaining unit. The list of tenure track faculty was provided by the University, and was fairly clearly accurate by our own assessment, is not mysterious, can be discovered by anyone, and the Union organizers collected plenty of actual physical signed cards from tenure track faculty that a CLEAR majority–an unassailable majority–signed and turned in.
RUMOR on this web site was that organizers were trying to get cards last weekend because they “fell far short” or something. That was a false rumor–what the organizers wanted was to get as many as they possibly could before their “early, self-imposed, ambitious deadline.” (They completed card check in under 70 days when they could have had 90 days–or more, legally, if needed–that is FAST). Best to have a very strong Union, and when that was accomplished, cards were filed. Beginning with a strong, unassailable Union is a huge advantage going forward.
The issue of knowing who was in the bargaining unit was an issue with part time employees, a significant number of whom do not work each and every term, so the list provided by the University was perhaps not a clear list–so another unassailable majority of those was collected, etc.
ALSO, no one said we did not have a TTF email list–we sent repeated e-mails to all faculty who did not specifically ask to not be contacted. Any faculty who was not contacted had requested to not be contacted–all others were contacted repeatedly. We really did try not to irritate those who did not want to discuss the Union. Union organizers were accused of both being “too secretive” and “too pushy”–in short, those who disagreed with forming a Union were going to condemn them no matter what they did.
In the end–the faculty voted with clear majorities across the board. Faculty at the University of Oregon WANT a Union. That is the reality. Now they will have one. Now they will have a POWERFUL collective voice. Join us.
Dog says
The issue was never about the number of TTF faculty – that is easily
obtainable.
The issue was about the percentage of the potential bargaining unit
that the TTF comprised and, to the best of my knowledge, that number
has still not been produced (and I would guess its around 35%).
Many people have wondered–how do we know the Union is not lying about collecting a majority of cards of TTs, since the names of signers are not public?
To explain: names of signers of course are NOT public record, because Union supporters often have been punished by employers historically (that would not happen in higher ed, would it? Still, some people perceive their employer might punish them, hence cards are kept confidential from employers. Employees who support the Union are not encouraged to answer any non-confidential opinion polls, etc.)
Nonetheless, the reality is the Union cannot claim clear majorities in different categories if it is not true because the employer could make certain challenges to the BU, and then the ERB would check.
Those challenges can most easily be stopped/headed off by actually having clear majorities in all classifications, hence the organizers know this and had this as THE goal. They met this goal BEFORE any legal deadlines–thus they filed early! They can safely claim they have clear majorities. They did not have to file before they had all of the cards they needed for a clearly strong union. They achieved their goal because the faculty voted YES!
The Union at the UO is STRONG already! Certification should be easy. The faculty has spoken more clearly than anyone anticipated. This is historic.
This is a terrific start, and the administration should welcome this positive development of a strong unified faculty voice that will advocate to strengthen the research and teaching missions here on campus, and actively lobby for higher education in Salem.
It is a new day. We have a NEW voice that cannot be easily ignored.
The Tublitz/Hurwit poll is another example of an unscientific, not-confidential poll that few Union supporters will or should choose to answer. Why would union supporters, many of whom think Tublitz/Hurwit are the voice of the administration, trust them to confidentially guard their views which would obviously go against the answers they are so clearly seeking? Union supporters are under-counted by all of these clearly anti-union polls for obvious reasons.
Union organizer optimism is understandable at this point. Nevertheless, how “strong” and “unified” the faculty voice that emerges from this process remains to be seen, as does the extent to which the union will “actively lobby for higher education in Salem”.
I know many colleagues who fervently believe that the union will lead us into the promised land; and have myself long been skeptical about such an outcome On the other hand I understand and share the frustration, frustration that is wide and deep, that the central administration has not only failed to provide effective leadership, but has also acted in such a way as to make unionization the only viable alternative. While I hope that there may be some improvements in working conditions, I suspect that we instead also see faculty seeking to advance their career in administration rather than in the conventional areas of teaching research and service.
some don’t believe prounion x others antiunion y, that’s why a truly fair system has secret ballot elections supervised by a 3d party, unless and until that happens the truth will escape us.
dead duck to anon 1227. You are likely right that pro union are under counted in some of the polls,but it is also likely true that pro union are over counted in a card check where a senior pro union ttf offers a card to either a junior TTF or an NTTF. some of our colleagues in those subordinate positions have said as much publicly. See anon 552 on why a real election might have helped clear the air and get us off to a better start. the union could have taken that route after gtting 30%, the threshold for a real election, you know, the kind where for example, dead duck doesn’t know how dog voted and vice versa, and a neutral animal counts the votes.
Dog to Dead Duck
neutral animals can’t count
When the administration bases a major policy on some controversial claim, UO Matters asks to see the evidence. When the admin claims it cannot provide the evidence and says take our word for it, UO Matters presses the issue and tries to get to the bottom of it.
But it appears in this case that the union says it cannot provide the evidence and UO Matters is prepared to take the union’s word for it. This is no knock against UO Matters, which works much harder than most of us in pushing for transparency from our administration and perhaps deserves a break once in a while. But in that spirit, I hope somebody figures out how to press the issue and get some transparent evidence to back up the union’s claim of majority of TTFs. Perhaps the union would be willing to allow a third party to audit its records? Otherwise its legitimacy will continue to be called into question going forward, which is not good for anybody.
i’m bemused by anon’s comments about the hurwit tublitz poll on 2 counts. first, even if one assumes as many as 3/4s of all the nonresponses would have been yes and only 25% would have been no, the count would fall short of a majority. in any event if the union were a uo adminidtrator claimi ng they ad majority support for something in the face of suc a poll, wouldn’t we express concern about the level of opposition, esp, in this case where the union refused the faculty a free and open supervised election? second, anyone who calls hurwit or tublitz the voice of the admin or pro admin has absolutely no credibility in my opinion. hurwit and tublitz have been fighting for faculty since before many current faculty were hired.