4/24/2012: An email sent to faculty at 10 AM. I’m stunned. Who will be in the union? Just the people on the Excelsior list? Less the faculty that departments identified as supervisors? Obviously Berdahl made a deal, but what exactly was it, and why did he make it?
We’ve filed a public records request with UO for the actual agreement and the bargaining unit members. The ERB says they do not yet have them, but that the May 7-9 public meeting is now canceled.
The UO Matters union meta-faq is here. The union website is here, with this announcement:
United Academics is pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with the UO administration that will lead to certification of our union. This means that in a matter of days our faculty union, composed of tenure-related faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, adjunct instructors, and officers of research, will be officially certified by the State of Oregon Employment Relations Board. …
Berdahl announcement:
Dear colleagues,
The University of Oregon and United Academics of Oregon have reached an agreement regarding the appropriate make up of a faculty bargaining unit for our campus. While I initially urged two distinct units, one for tenured and tenure-related faculty and another unit of non-tenured faculty, that was not to be. In this process, it is ultimately up to the employees themselves and the Employment Relations Board (ERB) to determine the bargaining unit. The ERB will now need to confirm that a majority of the bargaining unit we have agreed upon have signed cards requesting union representation.
We have acknowledged from the beginning that our faculty has the right to organize. We did not oppose the organization effort nor did we support it. We simply recognized the rights of those who chose this route.
The organizers opted for the “card check” process rather than an election by the proposed bargaining unit members. That is their right. Within that process, we wanted to insure the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate. That is why we worked with the union leadership to make certain that the bargaining unit is defined early on. We now have certainty and we can move forward.
While the University of Oregon has a long history of working with collective bargaining units on our campus, a faculty union will present unique questions that must be addressed. This will be particularly true when we account for tenured and tenure-related faculty. For example, tenure-related issues typically involve peer review. The peer review process is an essential means by which universities have always assured the achievement of quality; it must remain central to how we evaluate faculty in the future, even with a union overlay.
Together we will make this work. We all need to stay focused on our mutual efforts to make certain that our students succeed; to secure institutional governance; and to provide faculty with the resources they need. These are my goals. I trust that the newly constituted faculty union shares these goals as well.
As we proceed, we must maintain a strong relationship with all those who contribute to the University’s mission of teaching, research and public service. Thank you for your continued dedication to the University of Oregon and all that this great institution stands for.
Best regards,
Bob Berdahl
Interim President
And some sensible words from a Dog, in the comments:
… The very worst thing that will happen because we have a union is that nothing will happen at the UO. While I admit a union campus is a barrier to hiring a certain kind of presidential profile – the OUS system is a far bigger barrier. PHDs need jobs, they will always apply for open faculty positions at the UO whether or not there is a Union. Our football program is not going to tank because there is a Union.
Both faculty and administrators that have been at the UO at least for the last 15 years knows that nothing really changes around here other than the horrid scale of the undegrad population now. Will the union correct that problem? I doubt it.
My simple prediction is there will be no DOOM and only slight GAIN in collective faculty morale because of the union. The chronic issues of polarization and lack of resources will remain. To the external world, I doubt there will be any perceivable UO change because there is a Union.
Complete capitulation? Has the ‘fat lady’ sung? The thinking behind this decision might be explained more fully, given its importance.
The thinking must be this:
1) despite the propaganda, the card check is and was carried out as a legal and democratic process
2) the distortion of facts on this web site, was just that, a distortion, and when the the administration faced with
a third party, a regulatory agency, namely the ERB, it saw the writing on the wall. It understood that the union organization was not oppositional,
but merely a group of faculty exercising their legal rights to bargain for the conditions of their employment in good faith.
3) so blow smoke however you want, scoff however you want, organized labor is LEGAL in the USA and
4) now its time to work together within a new structure that answers the neo-liberal organization of the University.
What specific distortion? Most of my readers are saying I’m pink on the union.
Here is a citation from you: “I think the TTF faculty are seriously divided on the union issue, and in the long run it is better to have a long drawn out expensive fight that clarifies all the issues and leads to a clear legally defensible outcome, whichever way it goes. I also think it’s a good idea for UO to hire outside firms for this, given Randy Geller’s lack of competence in this area.” While you are just stating an opinion, your sentiment, and yes the faculty is divided (to the tune of 60% for, 40% against), your post:
a) neglects to mention that there was a clear majority of TTF who voted for the union b) neglects to recognize that the unionization effort was always already legally defensible as the campaign was conducted under the regulations forced upon it by rather strict labor law, c)encourages the university to spend tax payer money in order to combat a legally viable process.
This is just one example, as for the other animals in the menagerie, the cats, the dogs, the ducks cooked or otherwise, this website has been a source for the denigration of a good faith effort. One may oppose unionization but defaming the integrity of those involved in the process is simply fox news politics. Calling you pink perhaps comes as the result of wearing glasses that are tinted.
To Anon 11:43AM
How about you defaming the integrity of those “other animals in the menagerie”? And you are calling it “good faith effort”?
As for the a-b-c points you are making, all of these have been repeatedly and thoroughly discussed in this blog. No negligence there.
So if points a,b, c are accepted, why would one want a legal fight about having a majority wanting to form a union do so under the law? And why would we want tax payer money to contravene the law that allows collective bargaining? As for my denigrating, you sound Newt Gingrich complaining about the media calling him on his stuff. There has been a lot of nastiness towards the organizers on this site.
I will believe the “majority” claim when – and only when – I see the numbers. Is it a “majority” out of 700, or out of 700-230? And “democracy” – don’t make me laugh. Hey – let’s have a “card check” election for Romney – or better yet Gingrich! – go around from house to house until at some date that is undetermined we get 50% of some undefined subset of people + 1. I’m sure the leadership of United Academics would universally hail that wonderful exercise in democracy, being the paragons of reasoning they are.
One interpretation is that he got a spanking for not appearing neutral enough and that he recognizes the battle is lost.
Interesting phrase: “Newly constituted faculty union.”. That sounds to me like he knows the card check will stand under the now agreed upon bargaining unit.
If true, we will now have a real measure of Berdahl’s leadership. Will he, as the letter suggests he wants, be able to reunite the faculty on the core goals of the institution? And, in doing so, present UO as a viable place for quality presidential candidates.
Berdahl’s leadership hasn’t been, and won’t be, the only thing tested. The union’s leadership was also tested–and we still don’t even know who constitutes that leadership. But if the anonymous comments above are any indication, “reuniting the faculty on the core goals of the institution” is not among the goals of the organizers, who have consistently treated those who have questions to lectures about democracy instead of answers on specifics. I know a lot of good people on both sides, pro- and anti-union, but the official voice of the union so far as it’s been heard since the cards have been filed has been pretty intolerant (“winner take all! ha, ha!”) and frankly dick-ish. If they’re going to keep this up, and then blame Berdahl’s lack of leadership, then the union will truly have caused more harm than any good it could possibly do.
I wasn’t questioning Berdahl’s leadership and don’t represent the “they” you refer to. I was merely making the observation that as this all goes down, Berdahl is the one in position to demonstrate the leadership to get us refocused on our core academic goals.
Given the deep emotions expressed on this board and the deep divide in faculty, that will be quite a leadership task. Just an observation, not a judgment.
The battle can not be won because at a public institution no one is allowed to fight that battle. But the devil is in the details, as we all know. It is very important how the POW camp will be run…
A few notes that might be worth mentioning:
1) If a union is constituted a petition by 30% of the members of the bargaining unit to the state ERB is sufficient to trigger a secret ballot vote on decertification of the union (details can be found here http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_115/115_025.html).
2) As the UAUO supporters rightly note, the union will be “us” and its actions will be decided by “us”. However, only those who join the union get to vote on issues such as union dues, contract acceptance, leadership, etc. The newly constituted union could, for example, vote to send $0 to the national organization, impose a fair-share dues of $0, etc if a majority of the members deemed that fit. As such, one potential strategy is for those who dissent to get in on the ground floor and control the direction of this union.
many of us are still in the first stage of grief. anger comes next. it will take a long time and require much transparency and wisdom on the part of union leaders. good luck, but I’m not nearly as optimistic.
Anon 12:03, you seem to be inviting others to join a campaign to decertify or undermine the union? That sounds really constructive… and a great way to spend your time. And Anon 11:45, “POWs”, really? How about opening to the possibility that this could be a good thing for faculty at this institution, boosting our capacity to shape the decisions and priorities that define our work and professional lives? Why not give it a try? Collective interests, when channeled through democratic processes have been known to shake-up power structures and unaccountable privilege, improving conditions for those otherwise impacted by those power structures.
That’s kind of cute, akin to child-like optimism.
Democracy is akin to child-like optimism?
No-it is not child-like optimism–Unions and revolutions are some of the only tools that have seriously shaken up power structures.
Fascists and greedy privileged people do not like/value democracy, the rest of us know it is not perfect, but it is the best system we have discovered for promoting our collective interests.
Believing the Senate alone had the power to improve our collective interests is child-like optimism. That path has been tried, and now we will legally bargain with the administration rather than beg.
Greedy and privileged, you bet. But fascists? Let’s not go there please.
Oh, please, spare us the talk of “democracy” and “fascists” both. Come one now: you’re showing the nuance of high school students. Doesn’t everybody on this blog hold a Ph.D.? Use it.
Yes, because I have PhD, and assumed others here did too, I was using the second definition of “fascist,” that is a person who has, “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”-(simply another word for those who prefer dictatorial control instead of democracy. There are many poor, underprivileged people who also like dictatorship for whatever reasons; then there are greedy privileged people who give lip-service to democracy, but scream when they lose an election that threatens their privilege).
Yes, greedy privileged people often are fascist (prefer dictatorship) to protect their privilege. Not all privileged people are greedy. I am certainly privileged (well-educated, the highest privilege), but I think not greedy. I think one should be ashamed of being greedy. I realize many economists (and others) tend to think greed is good, but that is self-serving nonsense.
There is little denying that this University has been governed dictatorially, not democratically by the faculty as a University should be, theoretically. If this University was governed by the faculty, then the faculty would not have so quickly and easily voted for a Union. The cards speak for themselves.
Anon@2:49. The logic in your essay is poor. I give it a C- (maybe a B- with grade inflation).
No, I’m sorry, using the second definition in the dictionary in no way qualifies as intelligent, nuanced (Ph.D.-worthy) usage of “fascist”. It changes not at all the facile assumption that those who disagree that the union is the answer to all UOs problems, even–and especially–those of governance, are abettors of autocracy or dictatorship, and thus enemies of democracy. Substituting name-calling for open debate and discussion is, at best, high schoolish–as I stated. And might even be classifed as, shock!, “undemocratic” in an of itself. Get off your high horse!
Unions have the right to negotiate pay, benefits and working conditions – that’s it. The fact that union supporters are still claiming otherwise makes it clear that this has been a huge waste of time at the beginning of an even larger waste of time.
And thank you for the honesty Anon 12:18. Wisdom (and I would add respect) is a worthy intention to set for everyone, union supporters and those who rallied against unionization.
Giraffe — Forget it! Whether this was shoved down our throats or not — with all the hanky panky about the makeup of the TTF — in my opinion, UO is finished. It’s not worth putting any effort into the institution. And if I were a big donor, I would take my money elsewhere. If UO wants to be Portland State, Western, Eastern, etc. I guess it is legally entitled but I don’t have to respect it or support it.
Yep, my sentiments exactly. I’ve resolved to not waste any more time on this ruin of an institution, and find my happiness in the world of my own research. A few more books may be my ticket out of here.
For what it’s worth, I’m told that most donors think the faculty live on their own little nutty planet, and union or no union, or fighting amongst them about the union, makes little difference to that impression.
Well said, Anon 1:23. I agree completely. This is a disgrace to the reputation of the university.
Has anyone considered the possibility that Berdahl wanted to fight but that Pernsteiner – who now controls Randy Geller and UO’s legal services – told him to drop it?
Or that pressure came from the governor (who’s a union-friendly democrat of the old stripe, and has quite recently shown himself no friend of “excellence” at UO)?
Or maybe higher up than that. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to imagine that Pernsteiner is not the type to come to an independent judgment on anything.
I bet it was the Gov.’s office
I bet so too – we’ve now been f’d over by the governor twice in one year. I’m switching parties.
Anon 1:23, sounds like you are deeply discouraged – maybe enraged too – leaving it hard for you to envision a satisfying future for UO? Wondering what present qualities of UO fulfill you presently that could not possibly remain intact with a faculty union involved too? And are you sure?
Berdahl did not fold.
He tried fighting, but his lawyers finally explained Oregon law to him which was actually very clear on this. While the Union organizing committee was unfairly accused repeatedly of “manipulation” of the bargaining unit ((because we had to exclude many PI’s (supervisors) and the law school (because they wanted out, and the law lets them get out because of a lack of common interests/dissimilar)), let it be noted that we were forced now (by the law) to also exclude a few more more P.I.s and Department Heads because that too is in the law and precedent (Dept. Heads was the only gray area–but really not winnable for the Union, though we tried). Our legal bargaining unit is still HUGE (over 1800 I think), including a very large majority of all tenure track faculty and ALL NTTFs and researchers–everyone who the labor relations board finds is not a direct supervisor.
Let it be noted, as we said many times, we were not inventing the law, this is the law. We were democratically abiding by the law. What was ludicrous on this website was how faculty, who should be able to research this basic law, kept insisting we were somehow breaking the law or being undemocratic (manipulating/lying). Berdahl’s lawyers told him he was going to lose, so he decided it was in the best interests of the University to follow the law, and respect the democratic will of the vast majority of the faculty.
This is a HUGE win for the Union, but it is also the law. Because we collected an overwhelming number of cards based on their employee lists in all categories of the bargaining unit–we have a huge, powerful Union. Now we must use it to improve the University of Oregon.
That you have a huge union doesn’t automatically mean you have a powerful union. That will emerge only from the way the union leadership–whoever they are or will be–plays the next several rounds. So far, I’m not optimistic that they can turn this “victory” into real leverage, and with the exception of those among the bargaining unit who are seriously disadvantaged and need the support of a union to win basic workplace concessions, or that they will win substantive improvement in governance or on any issue that affects most TTFs.
What does it mean to “democratically abide by the law”? Aren’t you a political science prof?
I want out. And I am not similar to anyone else in the Union. There is only one of me doing what I do. Let me OUT!!!!
How does the law school faculty exhibit a “lack of common interests” with the rest of the group the union has lumped together? We have asked this a zillion times, and I shouldn’t be raising it again–except the union organizers always tell us this. Oh, and “it’s the law”. Well, the law is wonderful sometimes, and other times there are laws on the books we’d all like to change. So “it’s the law” isn’t good enough as a rationale. And of course, last time I checked, the applicability of the law in specific circumstances is something that if often DEBATED in practice and in theory–that’s what hearings are for–and indeed the laws themselves are often widely questioned. This too is democracy, last I checked. (Gun control? Death penalty? Same-sex marriage?) I heard no one accuse the union organizers of “inventing the law”. Many of us questions both the applicability of the law, and to some extent question the law itself. That, I believe, is our democratic right–even if, at present, the present law and its interpretation both mean it’s an argument we lose. We have ever right to make the argument–without being called either “anti-democratic” or, sigh, “fascists.”
Jane – thanks for commenting here and the great editorial in the RG.
I don’t think you’re right about ALL NTTF, within medium to large sized research organizations there are a lot of NTTF in supervisory roles.
Dog says
yes, I posted on this once or twice before
Under Oregon Law faculty are anyone that teaches and therefore they are all
one. This law is only for Oregon. This means something very simple:
Its not legal for there to be TWO UNIONS of teaching faculty.
However, research only faculty/postdocs/NNTF are outside the teaching sphere
and therefore don’t necessarily fall into this Oregon Law based union.
Kangaroo: As far as I know, all NTTF I have heard of are still in our bargaining unit, but I am probably wrong, so happy to be corrected. This will finally all be sorted out by the ERB soon.
CAT- I’m sure you know, if you question the law itself, you need to work with legislators and change the law.
From our viewpoint, to form a union now, we had to work within the current law.
We were going to include the law school IF they democratically (i.e. a majority of law faculty) wanted in. We could only successfully make this argument for inclusion IF a majority of the faculty at a law school wanted to be in the Union. We did not manipulate them out. They overwhelmingly wanted out. We see ourselves as trying to respect their democratic will, and we would not prevail legally at the ERB to include them if we failed to have a majority of their cards. So I think the best answer to your question is that the ERB looks for the will of the majority first, if you don’t have that, they don’t give you a Union. Then they check and make sure there really are “common interests.”
By contrast, we filed to include as many PIs as we possibly could and all Department Heads. Legally, “common interests” are not an issue with these faculty members. Instead, legally, we must exclude people with clear supervisory status. No getting around that. However, as you suggest, the definition of supervisory status is in the realm of debate and practice. However, Oregon law is actually pretty clear on it. We filed to maximize faculty to be included, but the ERB will ultimately decide this question, and it is not a huge question (not that many faculty “at issue”).
The only real way Berdahl or anyone could have legally argued with our bargaining unit would be IF we only had minority support from TTF or NTTF or researchers. Since Oregon law clearly wants the broadest possible bargaining unit, once we had majority support from each of the “types,” we knew we legally should have won, so we invited Berdahl to go forward without objection. They objected likely to “test” our unit, but they don’t have a case because we have the cards. With enough cards, their arguments to break apart the bargaining unit fall away. In other words, if we failed to have majority tenure track support, they could have said “the tenure track does not support this, so they shouldn’t be in the unit,” but since they could not argue that, they had no good arguments/no legal leverage to break apart our bargaining unit. Thus both democratically (because of majorities in each category) and because legally all categories share common interests (according to the precedents in Oregon law), the legal puzzle in this case does not exist. In other words, a gray area would only emerge if we had a MAJORITY of faculty but not a majority of one category, for example, which would allow leverage to break apart the bargaining unit. We would have a case for a Union with 50% plus one of “an appropriate unit,” but it would be a weaker case. Instead, we actually got well over 50% in each category, so our case was very tight.
I hope this helps Cat. The Union does not get to “lump together” whomever it chooses. The law tells us who can be included, and we followed the law very tightly. Yes, there are gray areas if we only had a bare majority, but with plenty of cards in all categories the law prefers we “lump together,” then the gray areas disappear.
Finally, I recognize that we have a only a large Union so far. We have yet to show how powerful, although because we chose “card check” we have shown we have very widespread support from a large majority of all faculty, not just majority support from those who chose to vote in some election. We also continuously hear from our numerous supporters, who are very loudly supporting us, even though many feel far too intimidated and bullied by the loud anti-Union contingent to be public in their support.
Thank you, Prof. Cramer, for the first explanation that’s really been offered by union organizers (without sanctimony). I still have many misgivings, as enter the union only relunctantly, but appreciate (finally!) hearing some clear rationale for the various decisions made.
Thanks for your helpful responses Jane. Can you explain what you mean by a “majority of TTF” support the union? Is that a majority of the TTF excluding PIs and department heads, or a majority of ALL UO TTF?
Glad to help. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any other questions. I have tried my best to clarify here, but I also have many other obligations, so I cannot keep up with this blog.
The organizing committee of the Union is very large, but many people have preferred to work for the Union with their friends but not fully publicly because organizing a Union is often not viewed favorably by administrators and other powerful people, so it can possibly damage one’s career to “go public.”
Hence many people think the Union has been “secret” or “caught them by surprise,” but in reality, faculty had to work very hard to make this happen. We tried to e-mail anyone and everyone who wanted information, all the information they wanted. However, if you once told one of us you did not want information, then we took you off our e-mail list. Please contact our office if you want to be e-mailed regularly.
Hopefully, now that we have a Union, people will feel secure enough to publicly work for the Union. We need all the help we can get.
We are trying to launch a Newsletter to keep people informed and answer questions. This should help too.
Prof. Cramer,
You followed Oregon law, but your card check process probably would not have flown in a number of other states. Washington, for example, requires a 70% threshold for a card check to go forward. I think that a card check process is far from being democratic in any standard sense – with paid organizers, repeated badgering (or should I say “visits”), and no opportunity for people to take back their cards. Would we want or regular elections to work in that It falls even farther below what our standards for process at a University should be.
That’s the process you followed, and yes you can say it is legal. But that’s very far from having a standing to say it is good.
Why won’t union organizers answer Anon@5:26’s question? What is the TTF majority that you speak of?
The quickest way to quiet a union organizer is to ask them about their TTF majority claim. One has to wonder…
Great question Anon@8:58. At this point, I’d settle for information on just the number of TTF cards that were signed. I can do the division myself now that the MOU is out.
Professor Cramer takes the time to write three long essays and an RG opinion piece extolling union majorities but can’t find it in her democratic heart to tell us what is meant by TTF majority support for the union? Your essays have convinced us of the importance of these majorities Prof Cramer – so please tell us more!
Why didn’t the people who are now so opposed to the union speak up when the union organizing was going on, and convince their colleagues not to support it? If they DID speak up, then their colleagues were not convinced; if they did NOT speak up, then why should they be taken seriously now? Numerous people reached out to me about why I should support the union. Not a single person made the same effort on the other side–and now I am told that the U of O is doomed. If I thought unionization would doom us I would have gotten off my ass and done something about it. Maybe the opponents of the union should reflect on whether they really understand the university they work at.
The UO was canvassed by paid union organizers (there were no funds supporting the opposition). The card check process was used, which favors unionization (e.g. the opposition can be taken by surprise – compared to a secret ballot). The organizers took advantage of a ripe political climate (thanks UOMatters). I don’t blame the organizers for any of these things – their goal was to get a “faculty” union at any cost. But the opposition was and is not organized to the same degree.
To clarify, Jim Bean made the decision to go for the raise, the Beamer, and the sabbatical. I just posted the docs and a little commentary.
So who did more to promote the political climate that lead to this – me, or Provost Bean?
The union effort was bankrolled by the AFL-CIO, an operation bigger and richer and more used to getting its way than even the Koch Brothers. Maybe the resistance should have brought in some pros from outside, but we’d never have been able to offer the payback that union dues represent.
Anon 4:48. Do you mean these Koch’s? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/144280/koch-university-takeover/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/05/11/208064/fsu-accepts-funds-from-charles-koch-in-return-for-control-over-its-academic-freedom/
Anon 2:32. Scientists by their very nature are not activists! Also, they are not payed to approach people with propaganda. Perhaps, those faculty members hoped that common sense, not ideology and self-interest would prevail on campus… Such idealists!
Ah, all of that has been discussed previously. It has become irrelevant now.
Anon 2:33 makes a good point and hence my appeal to any out there who rallied against the unionization effort to now consider this opportunity to shake things up at UO, temper your frustrations, and join our effort to make our union a robust source of faculty empowerment – for all the NTTF who have picked up more and more of the teaching while tenure lines shrunk relative to growth of the UO, for the weaknesses in our system of faculty governance, the inequities, compression, inversion, eroding benefits, etc…
If the unuion leaders, whoever they are, really want to shake things up in a functional constructive, yet aggressive way, why not exploit the fact that no one in central administration is as competent as the retiring Marianne Nicols, who knows everyone’s hand better than anyone else and honest, imagine that. Try to hire her as a part-time adviser/ consultant on how to make things work right and efficiently for everyone on campus, which if hsad been happening, we wouldn’t have been forced to unionize. Any real creativity and courage foresight among the union leaders to try to engage someone competent enough to shake things up without simultaneously destroying them? Our central administration was either too stupid or too inbred to find a place for her and make it attractive. she will say no of course and probably should for her sanity, but keep talking, especially if you want to persuade skeptics of the union.
Dog offers a summary
this is comment is the trigger:
“Maybe the opponents of the union should reflect on whether they really understand the university they work at.”
Let’s generate the usual Dog List.
1. This Dog does not understand the university I work it.
2. What does it mean to make the University better? The following is a sub-list of choices:
a) my salary becomes more “fair” and equitable?
b) our admin becomes more transparent and friendly?
c) my colleagues suddenly embrace me?
d) the polarization across various campus departments and units and ranks will dissolve?
e) I get a better office?
f) I get better research space?
g) my teaching load lightens?
all of the above is me centered. What about:
a) classroom and teaching facilities will improve
b) we will get better students
c) our graduate programs will grow
d) we form better outreach linkages to our environment
e) units will cooperate better so as to produce more interdisciplinary courses and curriculum
f) we will become more innovative in replacing class seat time with experiential leaning
g) a serious structure will evolve to better incorporate undergraduate research
h) we will stop competing against each other in the zero sum game metric
for this very old and very tired dog
any improvement on the items in the second list would be refreshing and very welcome
improvements in items on the first list, do not much interest this dog.
Finally, as to the complete bull (er dogshit) philosophy of the UO being doomed because of the Union. Are you friggin’ kiddin me? The very worst thing that will happen because we have a union is that nothing will happen at the UO. While I admit a union campus is a barrier to hiring a certain kind of presidential profile – the OUS system is a far bigger barrier. PHDs need jobs,
they will always apply for open faculty positions at the UO whether or not there is a Union. Our football program is not going to tank because there is a Union.
Both faculty and administrators that have been at the UO at least for the last 15 years knows that nothing really changes around here other than the horrid scale of the undegrad population now. Will the union correct that problem? I doubt it.
My simple prediction is there will be no DOOM and only slight GAIN in collective faculty morale because of the union. The chronic issues of polarization and lack of resources will remain. To the external world, I doubt there will be any
perceivable UO change because there is a Union.
Much ado about Nothing some dude once said – never sure what that meant – now
I have a better clue
Dog, that all sounds suspiciously like perspective – shame on you.
Dog and many others just doesn’t get it. It’s not that there will be immediate “doom” but rather slow erosion. Sure, Ph.D.’s need jobs — they’ll always be able to fill any tenure-track slot and in fact most non-TTF slots. So what? They could also hire me to take over for Chip Kelly, along with about 5000 wannabe big-time college coaches in high school and small college programs.
But no, you’re right, our football program won’t tank. Great news! But I have bad news for a lot of people — the union ain’t going to gain control over the athletic program, contrary to a lot of hopes.
What happens to state funding? Prediction: it will be as munificent as always, i.e., they don’t give jack shit if there’s a union or not. Want higher salaries for the adjuncts? Take it out of the lazy hides of the full professors.
What happens to private donors? Prediction: they take a fast, long walk outta here. I’m amazed few people talk about this. I even mean the Big Kahoona. That $800 million private endowment? The rumored second billion or so? I have absolutely no inside knowledge, but something tells me giving away the family fortune to a bunch of union types is not on his agenda.
Again, not immediate doom, just a continuing decades-long slide when recently, things were looking better. Yup, looking better — compare faculty salaries/compensation to a dozen years ago. New governance plans, hope for big donor support. You want the salaries to keep improving? Better figure out where to get the dough, because I think there’s going to be less of it around. You think it can be squeezed out of “administration”? Well, we’re really talking diversity programs, sustainability, book purchases. Startup money? Student aid?
Prediction: Over 20-30 years, OSU consolidates its position as “the research university,” consolidates state support as the “Oregon campus” that helps build industry. UO slides. Eventually, trajectories cross. Think Ohio University and Ohio State.
Sad.
Sad Dog says
well thanks for clarifying that DOOM = slow erosion.
I am pretty sure that the UO was certainly not on the slow erosion course
before the Union. Way to go Union …
While prophecies about doom and unionization are celebrated to buttress your anti-union mindset, I see little honesty about the already eroding conditions at the UO – how can a university remain AAU when student faculty ratios climb, when parity in salaries remains flat, when retention is often too little, too late… I also fail to see how your prophecies can be sustained when you compare universities that advanced to AAU status AFTER unionization. Did donors dry up at Florida, Rutgers, the two main SUNY campuses? I am sorry, if your prophetic vision materializes, the faculty and their union will have fought to prevent it, not cause it. Bellow on with your fear and loathing, not everyone despises “union-types” like Duck of Doom and the “Big Kahoona”.
You bring up honesty? I said
“things were looking better. Yup, looking better — compare faculty salaries/compensation to a dozen years ago.”
and you said
“parity in salaries remains flat”
Now I don’t know exactly what the latter means or refers to, but I would maintain that my statement is true — things were looking up at least in this aspect for TTF.
I didn’t mention AAU at all! But here’s a suggestion: Bob Berdahl is the one to talk to about what it takes to remain in AAU. And what he thinks about whether unionization helps or hurts.
Rutgers and the SUNY campuses are academic underperformers, given their importance and the size and wealth of their states. They are definitely underperformers on private fundraising — compare them to UO! Florida less so — but it is a multiple in size of UO. I see no reason to doubt that unionization will hurt fundraising.
Again, how will unionization help UO get more money? From the legislature? Hah! Private donors? Squeeze it out of “administration?” See above.
You may not like any of what I say, you can call it “bellowing” but that does not make it any more or less true.
The first political battle any union has to fight is the one to convince its own members they have to belong, under legal compulsion if necessary. To me, UAUO stepped away from that battle the moment they let the law school out. Unlike supervisory PIs, the legal case for the lawyers’ mandatory exclusion is by no means clear cut. This was a battle worth fighting, if only to lose in the end — to prove the UAUO’s bona fides. If you can’t stand up to a couple dozen mild-mannered colleagues on Agate Street, who *can* you stand up to? To me, this capitulation suggests that for all the talk of an antifascist popular front against the neoliberal corporate usurpation of democratic rights and hallowed medieval traditions of faculty governance, we will either end up with a weak union or simply outsource the hard negotiating decisions to national labor organization lawyers.
Just FYI: an article titled Why unions hurt higher education
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-03-03-column03_ST_N.htm
One of several inflammatory quotes: Moreover, the anti-corporate tone on many campuses and the left-leaning political views of college professors make them naturally more receptive to the union message.
Of course, Our Union will be entirely different!
Another zinger: “American higher education was a meritocracy, and that unionist impulses were the result, at least in part, of professors who could not compete with their elite peers”. Take a look at exhibit B of the MOU for evidence.
I think it’s safe to say that our fearless union organizers are very much further to the left than implied by “left-leaning”.
As to exhibit B, do those of us who rotate department headship have to cycle in and out of mediocrity?
Apparently so. At least when you’re not department head you’ll get to attend union meetings and have a beer with your comrades. You might also get a cool T-shirt. And don’t forget the union dues…
Does anyone here see the irony in using USA Today as a source to argue that unions move us toward mediocrity? That’s some lazy “scholarship” at best.
In my department, the head gets a one course teaching reduction and one month of summer salary. Now that we have a union, the head will also get a 1% increase in annual salary. So the union has already changed the incentives within UO!
No No No. Now your department can reduce your head’s stipend by what you save in union dues…
1%? Isn’t it 1-2%? And you know what that means. Glad I got my “you’re out of the union” email.
Can anyone explain to me how the union will affect TTF PIs? Will some or all of the bargaining agreement apply to us, such as any provisions regarding salary or workload?
duckduckgoose.
I think provisions will be largely the same. But can somebody please do a research on a comparable university with a union! How is it done in the real world (not in our imagination)? (Does it warrant a separate post, UO Matters?) In any case, those who will be setting the rules here hopefully will study existing examples…
I am also curious what the provisions might be. But my question was more technical… I am not part of the Union, or even the bargaining unit. But the activity of the Union will affect me directly, right? If salary floors are put into the bargaining agreement, will my salary be subject to that floor?