4/4/2012 8:00 AM update: 483 for the secret ballot (need ~600), 363 for the no TTFs.
Best to sign by noon if you are going to sign.
4/3/2012 9:45 AM update: 459 for the secret ballot (need ~600), 352 for the no TTFs.
If you want to sign these petitions I’m told it would be best to do it today so they get to the ERB by 5PM tomorrow. I think the ERB is going to have to take the no TTF petition seriously, and in the end maybe we will actually learn from the ERB how many TTF signed. It seems clear the union organizers are not going to tell us the numerator or the denominator they used to make their “more than 50%” claim. I think their secrecy on this has hurt their cause.
The administration has been secretive as well. It’s two weeks since I asked to see the contracts and invoices for any law firms or consultants they’ve hired to advise them on unionization. Still no response from Randy Geller. What’s he hiding this time?
4/2/2012 7:30 AM update: 370 for the secret ballot (need ~600), 297 for the no TTFs.
3/31/2012 5:30 AM update: 317 for the secret ballot, 295 for the no TTFs.
3/30/2012: As of 5:30 AM, the petition for a secret ballot election has 162 signatures (including anons), here. The petition to exclude TTFs from the union has 294, here. The UO Matters union Meta-FAQ is here. The union website is here.
Let me make a plea to anyone who is involved with the union or who has any influence over those who are involved. Please, please accept (indeed encourage) a fair, neutral poll/vote of the TTF to determine their views on unionization. I am not at the extreme on either side of this issue, but I cannot imagine anyone wanting to move ahead with unionization of the TTF unless there were clear, unambiguous majority support for such a move. If a poll/vote is not taken, the union will be launched in an atmosphere of incredible divisiveness and mistrust. If it is taken and a majority of the TTF support unionization, I think most anti-union folks will accept the results. And if it goes the other way, I think most pro-union folks who accept that as well. Without a fair/neutral poll, the anti-union folks can only conclude that those in favor of a union are afraid of the results. And please don’t just retreat behind the card-check process. That process was adopted by the legislature to stack the deck in union organizers’ favor (because of the obstacles they often face — read the legal history), and there was nothing legally wrong with UAUO using the law to its advantage. But that does not tell us where the TTF as a body stand–particularly given that people were turning in cards that did not specify the composition of the bargaining unit that would eventually be proposed to the ERB.
I would really like to endorse this. Secret ballots are not perfect, but there is a reason that they are such a standard decision making process in democracies.
I would like a real vote open to all the TTF, and I would like it to be a secret ballot. I am one of the TTF principal investigators who is not certain he was included in the card check, but will be represented by a union to which I do not want to belong. I consider the recent election to be a farce and a sham. I will never accept the outcome. A real election with the TTF voting for a union, either the current setup or probably something different, I wouldn’t like, but I would accept. And probably change my disposition toward UO accordingly, but I would accept the legitimacy of the outcome.
I am informed by the university that the faculty leadership of United Academics is Michael Dreiling, David Luebke, Gina Psaki, Scott Pratt, and Peter Keyes. I suggest you and/or others email them directly and politely.
Thanks, Prof. Raymer. A giant mystery finally solved! One might ask, though: why did we need the university admin to provide this information? And if they wanted to our opinion, wouldn’t they have asked? I haven’t heard them asking. Indeed they’re response–to judge by the website, though it is still hard to tell who is responsible for what–to the petitions so far has been, let’s say, less than encouraging.
How can the union organizers credibly demand transparency from the administration when they cannot even provide the group size for TTF when they claim a majority of this group supports the union? How long before uomatters is making information requests to the union?
Redundant Dog
Makes the same remark as elsewhere. The ERB language mentions “research assistants”
as part of the bargaining unit. Let me say this again – “Research Assistants”; note –
I have not said Research Associates. Research Associates are easy to count. But
research assistants are not. Non TA graduate students that are not PHD candidates,
for instance, could be research assistants. Tmp workers are research assistants (I employ some, I am sure they were never approached about a union – they don’t even
work on campus!). Undergraduates work in my lab over summer as research assistants, etc, etc.
Bottom line: I do not believe that the sign cards are 50% +1 if “research assistants” are in the bargaining unit as I imagine there are several hundred (full and part time) of them, at any given time, on campus. By the letter of the
ERB statement, “research assistants” are in the bargaining unit, independent of
what United Academics says.
The ERB statement is open to contestation. That’s part of the process. The UO wanted to specify senior admins as part of the union, too. Not likely.
I personally know of Research Assistants who live in Portland and were visited by union organizers and asked to sign cards. I am also aware of several other Research Assistants who signed cards. So I don’t think it’s safe to think that because someone works off campus or is a Research Assistant they were not approached to sign a card.
Dog to anon above
are you sure they were assistants and not Associates?
There is an important distinction here.
Dog
I am sure they were Assistants even those who were approached at home in Portland. I am a Research Associate myself and I am positive they were all assistants. In fact my spouse who works below .5 FTE as a Research Assistant was approached to sign a card. I think if you were a warm body and were willing to sign they counted you.
dog says
okay thanks. I personally have about 1/2 a dozen research assistants and none
of them were approached. Perhaps this is because I am a PI. That serves to
even strengthen my claim that research assistants have been under counted in the
denominator
The UAUO strategy makes perfect sense if you believe, as they do, that the ERB-refereed process is the most substantively democratic one. (And who doesn’t trust a state board?!?) You define the bargaining unit, you collect the cards, then you ride out the objections and hope that you come out with 50%+1 when it all shakes out. But while you’re waiting, you don’t arm your opponents by giving them numbers. You win first, then you reconcile. Their only misstep so far has been to confess a desire for reconciliation now. But you can’t do that and in the same breath object to the objectors. It looks peevish, and maybe smacks of a “resistance is futile” mindset. They worked hard enough that I could understand those emotions. But we also need to go ahead and have out the argument — and stay civil — before we make up.
It also hurts the UAUO in my opinion that they dismiss secret ballots as a “decidedly lower democratic standard.” The “50% + 1” thing is great and all that, but not when one side runs the collection, keeps track of who votes which way, and tries to influence people individually. All legal of course, but precisely _not_ at a high democratic standard.
I also fail to understand their implication that it is wrong for people to ask for a secret ballot without at the same time revealing how they would vote in such a secret ballot. There seems to be a lack of understanding that “secret” is part of the attraction of a secret ballot.
I agree with Apr. 3, 12:41. UAUO may well have acted in accordance with Oregon law in the card-check process, but to argue that this somehow represents the highest standards of democracy is naive at best, disingenuous at worst. The card check process has been adopted in some states in order to make it easier for unions to organize where there are concerns that the deck is staked against them; it’s a process that is specifically and clearly designed to favor one side even if that means sacrificing some level of democracy. Here’s the kind of statement that would give me confidence in the integrity and transparency of UAUO: “Oregon law permits a card check process, and we took advantage of that option, as we have the right to do. There’s no question that the card check process was adopted to make it easier for unions to organize, meaning that it does not meet the same democratic standard as a secret ballot, but there’s nothing wrong with that. We’ve done it here and we want you to know that we have xx cards from TTFs (defined in the following manner), xx cards from NTTF (defined in the following manner), xx cards from ORs (defined in the following manner), and xx cards from others (emeriti, etc.). Our goal is to advance the interests of different segments of the University of Oregon community as much as possible. We realize that we are less likely to realize that goal if there are significant doubts about majority buy-in from components of the bargaining unit. Hence, we would be more than happy to see a secret ballot election from any of these component groups to confirm the majority support we believe we have from each group.” Has anyone heard anything of this sort? If not, what should we make of that silence? Many people have expressed concerns about transparency over the number of cards that were turned in, and I agree with those concerns, but am I wrong also to be concerned about the championing of the card-check process as a democratic highpoint when it’s quite clear that the process is designed to give union organizers a leg up? Why not just admit that fact so that those of us who have concerns will feel that UAUO has a real commitment to being forthright?
UAUO’s commitment is to forming a union and none of us should be so naive to think otherwise. That’s why they used card check, why they gerrymandered the bargaining unit, why the won’t tell us how many TTF signed cards, and why they whipped everyone into a frenzy by pointing out problems that the union won’t solve (e.g. look at the “union voices” from those on soft money wanting job security – good luck with that). As Chicken states above, the approach is to unionize by whatever means necessary (legal, of course) and to potentially “reconcile” afterwards (reconciliation may be unnecessary, depending on the agenda of union leadership). If one concludes that a union is the solution to our problems then I suppose this approach can be justified. If you conclude that unionization would be terrible for UO, however, you should be aware of where the other side is coming from.
You are right, Anon 3:01, to quibble with the rhetoric of democracy invoked to legitimize a one-sided “win”. But the whole ideology of the union organizers is solidarity among the downtrodden, which is the very rationale that backs the card check process in the law–as you note. That few, if any, TTF are actually downtrodden, however disaffected they may be, is beside the point for them. To judge by the petition-signing pattern, there are just great gobs of humanities TTF who feel themselves among the powerless and therefore deserve every safeguard they can get. (Please note that I’m referring exclusively to TTF here, not NTTF or others in the bargaining unit, who I believe would benefit from a union and whose situation warrants all such safeguards.)
Some people have suggested to me privately that their profesional union advisors probably told them there would be backlash and advised them just to lay low, ride it out, and press ahead after the ERB certification comes through. I don’t think that’s working for them right now, and I suspect it won’t work out the way they plan in the future. But what do I know? Cat is a solitary (anti-union) TTF, and the professional union guys have more experience and potentially–alas–have it right.
The count on these petitions is bogus. Look to see how many people signed more than once. Look to see how many administrators who can’t be part of the unit signed. Look to see how many emeritus faculty who are not currently teaching signed. I don’t think the ERB will be fooled by these tactics.
There has been a vote on unionization. The ERB will decide whether a majority is in favor of UAUO. No one should reveal numbers until after the ERB has made a decision.
Dog asks
which part of this entire process on either end has been NON-bogus?
Why shouldn’t UAUO reveal numbers until after the ERB decision has been made? If that’s important why did UAUO claim a TTF majority before ERB certification?
And why, pray tell, not reveal the numbers? Are you suggesting any of the petitioners are trying to “fool” the ERB?
“483 for the secret ballot”…I counted 14 emeritus signers, so it is actually at least only 469 potential signatures. If you are not drawing a salary from the University, that is, if you are not “employed”, obviously the Employment Relations Board will not consider the signature. Those who are retired and teach would count, of course. But, I’m pretty sure that none of these Emeritus folks actually teach any classes anymore.
Teaching classes is a requirement? Then how do ORs qualify?
They (ORs) draw a salary from the University. Emeritus faculty can teach for a time in semi-retirement. The remark only referred to emeritus faculty on that plan. Please read it again.
Don’t know if this number has been publicized before, but according to piece in NW LaborPress “A majority of the 1,912 faculty at the University of Oregon (UO) have signed cards requesting union representation by United Academics of the University of Oregon (UA-UO).” http://nwlaborpress.org/2012/04/uo-2/
Dog says
Yes, the 1912 number seems to be the right number for TTF + fixed NTTF + adjunct.
It is not the right number for the above + PostDocs + Research Assistants.
According to the UO 2011 mini profile on the IR web site for fall term there were
697 TTF
1287 NTTF
My count from the list provided by the university:
492 NTTF Research
842 NTTF Instruction
31 NTTF Retired
23 Visiting fac
493 TT Fac
55 TT Fac retired
3 Librarian
Are the NTTF Research the post-docs and research associates or some other group?
I was looking at the “Excelsior” list of people included in the bargaining unit (not sure if this is union’s or UO’s list). The Research NTTF are post-docs and research associates. And some other categories. One Research NTTF is a Guest Lecturer, and all I could find was that this person guest lectures a single class (that is, a single day) in the Ed School.
“An Excelsior list is a list filed by the employer within seven days after a union election has been directed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), stating the names and addresses of all eligible bargaining unit employees.”
From http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/excelsior-list/
1334 NTTF vs. 493 TTF. It seems that whether or not NTTF and TTF have common interests will be entirely irrelevant.