Update: The union Organizing Committee currently has 32 members listed. 5 are from PoliSci, 4 from Romance Languages, 3 from Music. German and Scandinavian has 2, as do History, AEI, and PE and Rec. None of these people were elected by anyone. They are making lots of important decisions that will affect us all. It’s not right. They have now posted their rules for admitting new members here:
Criteria for New Organizing Committee Members
To be considered for the OC, an individual must:
- Have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to building United Academics
- Commit to regular attendance at meetings
- Agree to respect the confidentiality of individual faculty members regarding their union support
- Agree to respect the United Academics Organizing Committee group decisions regarding dissemination of information emerging from meetings
- Be willing to work to build the strength and success of our union as a whole and not just to represent his/her own department
Process for Joining Organizing Committee:
- Current Organizing Committee members can nominate any bargaining unit member who is actively working to build United Academics for a position on the OC.
- Members of the bargaining unit who are actively involved in building United Academics can nominate themselves by sending their name to [email protected].
- Those who meet the criteria will be interviewed by at least a subcommittee of the Organizing Committee and will also have the opportunity to ask questions.
- OC members will vote at the meeting following the nomination: a 2/3 majority of those in attendance is needed to confirm a new OC member. (OC members can be asked to leave the committee through the same process.) Nominees will not be present for voting.
- The results of the vote will be communicated to the nominee(s) via phone or email within 24 hours.
Obviously these rules are heavily biased towards keeping control of the union in the hands of those who originally organized the card check and share their beliefs. This is a bad thing. The card check is over. It’s time to open up our union. The economics department has elected representatives and asked the OC to seat them. We are still waiting for a response on how they will handle our request to be admitted to the OC.
6/6/2012:
Dear Organizing Committee
The Economics department bargaining unit members voted yesterday [Monday] 17 in favor, 0 opposed (2 abstentions and 3 did not vote) to elect Chris Ellis, Glen Waddell, and myself as department representatives to the Union Organizing Committee.
I would appreciate it if you would let us know the next steps we should take so that we can ensure that we are able to attend OC meetings, participate in email lists, and generally work to represent our department in the OC’s work and deliberations.
Yours
Bill Harbaugh
UO Prof of Economics
We told the union organizers about this process Friday. It’s not yet clear how they will handle it. (We elected three people because it’s summer and we want to be sure one person is always available.)
The union organizers worked long and hard on the card check. They won. Now we are all in the union together. It’s time to let go of the secrecy and open up the union to all the faculty, including those who did not sign a card. They need to be represented too if the union is going to legitimately speak for the faculty.
I think all departments should elect representatives, and insist that they be allowed to participate in union Organizing Committee meetings. And if they are refused entrance, it’s time to form a new, more inclusive Organizing Committee.
Here are the rules used by the economics department to elect our representatives to our faculty. Feel free to copy them and adapt as appropriate:
Organizing the Election of Economics Department Faculty Representatives to the United Academics Union Organizing Committee
In order to ensure that the department faculty is appropriately represented during the initial period of unionization, the UO Economics Department adopts the following voting procedures for democratically electing representatives to the United Academics Organizing Committee. These procedures do not limit the ability of faculty to participate as individuals in union committees, or to work with or against the union in any way.
Once the department representatives to the organizing committee have been elected they will contact the United Academics Union Organizing Committee and work with them to ensure that one or more representatives attend that committee’s meetings and represent the department faculty bargaining unit members in that committee’s deliberations. The elected department representatives will communicate with the department bargaining unit members frequently and transparently.
Majority approval of the process is required:1. All members of the bargaining unit with the majority of their UO FTE in the department can vote on the process and for representatives. Note that full and part-time faculty including TTF’s, NTTFs, and emeritus faculty are included in the bargaining unit. Faculty with supervisory responsibilities who have been officially notified that they are not in the bargaining unit cannot vote. Individual votes on the process, nominations, and election are confidential. The totals will be posted and emailed to the department.
2. If more than 50% of those voting agree on the process we will proceed. Otherwise we will discuss alternatives by email, meet if necessary, and then vote again, etc.
3. The department office manager has traditionally counted the votes on departmental matters when anonymity is called for, and has agreed to do so with votes on this process, and on representatives. Email the office manager by midnight Wed, May 30 with ‘yes on representation process’ or ‘no on representation process’ in the subject line of your email.
Nominations and Election for Representatives to the Organizing Committee:1. Nominations close 24 hours after the office manager announces a positive vote on the election process. Nominations are submitted by emailing the office manager with the subject heading ‘Nomination for Faculty Union Representative’. Only members of the bargaining unit can nominate, vote, or serve. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominators can nominate any number of nominees, and must first make sure the nominee(s) agree(s) to serve if elected.
2. Within 24 hours of the close of nominations the office manager will email the bargaining unit members with a call for votes by email. The deadline for voting is 24 hours after this email. The email will list the nominees and ask voters to vote for no more than three, or the number of nominees if that is less than three.
3. The three nominees with the highest number of votes are elected. Ties will be resolved with runoffs.
4. Elections will be conducted annually. If a representative is dropped from the bargaining unit, for example if they leave the department or if they become a supervisor, they also cannot serve as a representative. In this case 1/3 of those eligible to vote are sufficient to call for a new election, otherwise the remaining members serve until the next regular election.
I applaud this step, but I think an organizing committee with 3 people from each dept is a recipe for disaster (makes it way too big). The organizing committee needs to be like the senate exec, not the senate.
Yes, this could act better as an assembly that would then elect a smaller group. The important thing is for department’s to get people elected quickly.
Agreed.
What made you choose 3?
Just counting CAS departments, that’s 123 people.
We wanted to make sure someone would be available all summer. We’re not going to all go to every meeting!
I also worry that given the organizational structure of departments, this process would replace an OC that appears to contain a good (if not strictly representative) mix of TTF, NTTF Instructional & NTTF Research with primarily TTF.
I’m also not sure that research faculty would be fairly represented, because many research groups are connected to their departments primarily in an administrative sense, and not so much socially or professionally.
Process process process process process process process process process process process process process process process process process.
What makes the Econ Department think it can set the rules for United Academics?
Nothing. In fact, although they would love to set the rules, they are thoroughly convinced that they can’t. Over time, they are learning that there are significant barriers to even participating in setting the rules.
(BTW, I think the point you may have missed is that they want a voice in the process.)
If that’s the case, they should sign up for working groups. That’s where the contract language will be hammered out. That’s where the bargaining committee will take shape.
Do you understand how condescending this sounds?
This is not condescending.
Anti-union people are solely focused on writing a Constitution that disenfranchises the people they don’t want to be in a union with. Sorry. This has been said openly and repeatedly, and is not going to happen.
This union is going to be fully democratic and empower all the faculty to have a voice.
The Constitution committee is going to work from other Union Constitutions and the law, and not be drafted by anti-union economics professors.
People really, sincerely interested in participating in the union should want to help write the contract.
The contract IS the most important thing. It is not condescending to say “come help write the contract!” It is the central point of the union’s existence and efforts. Join a working group. Draft the contract.
We must write an excellent contract that is widely supported, helps all the people in the union, and makes this University a better place to work. Working on the contract openly with anyone and everyone involved is profound grass-roots democracy. Join us.
Allow me to point out that the second paragraph and the sentence that follows it are wholly contradictory. “It’s not going to happen” to allow “anti-union people”–identified how–to have a say in the union, even though they are included within the bargaining unit whether they supported it or now. That this is passed off as “democracy” is pathetic, and unbelievably hypocritical.
On a less “sharp-elbowed” note, it is all well and good to ask the rest of us to join working groups, but the constitution of those groups (how their issues will be defined, how many working groups there will be and what for) is presumably decided by the OC. So inviting us all to be good worker bees while the OC acts as queen is, in fact, indeed by definition, condescending.
As a TTF PI, I can’t help but notice phrases like “empower all the faculty to have a voice.” I’m sure it is merely a convenient shorthand for “all the faculty belonging to the union”, but the careless phrasing does start to make me feel like I am no longer part of the faculty in some eyes.
The union website FAQ still states:
“Included in the unit and covered by the contract are all faculty (tenure-related and non-tenure-track), research assistants/associates, and post-doctoral scholars.”
I guess TTF PIs aren’t considered faculty by the union.
As a TTF PI myself, I’ll be watching from the sidelines. I’m particularly interested to see what happens when the first disagreement between NTTF and TTF arises. As TTF are virtually powerless in the union, they will be relying on the good graces of their NTTF comrades. Good luck!
Despite being sympathetic to the union, I’m bothered by this. Are those of us who are TTF PIs not part of “all the faculty?” Do our thoughts not count? Do the union organizers realize that a large number of passionate and talented faculty are excluded by their wording? As it is, we don’t even get sent the opinion survey.
This raises an interesting question regarding gathering input for future negotiations. Many faculty will roll in and out of the union based on “supervisory” status. So, those faculty may not be “in” the union today but could be in the future – where they will be affected by the CBA, constitution, etc. Shouldn’t their input still count?
The key decisions are going to be made by the OC and the Constitution and By-Laws Committees which seem to be closed to all who are not “true believers”. Those of us who didn’t sign a card aren’t allowed to have a voice until the faithful have determined the rules of the game. If the organizers won’t behave in a democratic and transparent way then let’s replace them with people who will.
The organizers told me the union would be run democratically. Now they are setting a bunch of criteria and giving each other veto power over who sets the rules?
Yes, BS smells the same regardless of the bull.
So if our department wants to elect six representatives to the OC because we can’t make all of the meetings, is that fine too? Maybe seven or eight, depending when and how many meetings? Can we do that for the OUS board too? And the UO senate? Or the US Senate? Why wait for bylaws and a constitution, let’s all make our own rules, that should work. We want control NOW!
The OC currently has 32 members listed. 5 are from PoliSci, 4 from Romance Languages, 3 from Music. German and Scandinavian has 2, as does History, AEI, and PE and Rec.
None of these people were elected by anyone. They are making lots of important decisions that will affect us all.
It’s not right.
What decisions? To form an inclusive bargaining agenda through workgroups composed of faculty from all over the bargaining unit? To organize dozens of department meetings to solicit volunteers? What is it, uomatters, that you imagine this temporary body doing that will somehow undermine economics if 3 econ faculty are not immediately “admitted” by the force of bullying with your own rules? You think that is democracy? Maybe they are just working efficaciously toward critical fall/winter term events, including elections? You want everything to stop so that a complicated process can be devised to hold elections over the summer so that another complicated process can be devised to hold another round of elections a few months later? Really? Do you realize how irrational this sounds?
Democracy is complicated, often inconvenient… and sometimes irrational. But I remember Democracy being touted as one of the fundamental motivations for unionization. Now it’s only important if it’s convenient. I recall a union organizer writing a register-guard article touting democratic principles. Now when it’s time for the rubber to hit the road, it looks like those ideals have gone by the wayside.
The Union is not fully in existence yet. Yes, it has been certified to exist, but it needs a Constitution and bylaws, and a membership, before it can really be run democratically. All of this will happen ASAP–which will be next fall, as soon as a membership drive can be fully undertaken.
At this point, some people have worked for years to build this union. About 1200 people in the bargaining unit (of 1800+) have handed in cards to the people on the organizing committee to make a union. The OC would be foolish and irresponsible to hand over the union-building work to a bunch of folks who are anti-union. That makes no sense at all.
The union organizing committee has already accepted new members from people who have worked to build the union, trying to increase its reach into under-represented areas.
All people in the bargaining unit, whether they signed a card or not, are welcome and encouraged to sign up for working groups (to help research and write the first contract). People can also organize Department meetings to have input into the organizing process, making suggestions for what they want to see in the contract. If people take part (and actually go to meetings, and organize) and thereby work as union-builders to create a successful union, then those people will be needed and wanted to serve on the bargaining caucus and/or bargaining team in the fall. The union seeks people from all Depts. and all job categories to serve on the bargaining caucus. The bargaining caucus is what will make the most important decisions in the fall, and members of the caucus will be people working to build the union and make it a success.
If people in the economics Dept. want to get involved in setting up a successful union, then they could get involved through working groups and Dept. meetings, and next fall on the bargaining caucus (after working FOR the union). If they just want to come throw sand in the works, then they will have to do it at working group meetings, and Department meetings (and the Open meetings also being held). For now, anti-union people will have to wait until there is a membership and elections before they can join, and vote, and get elected to throw sand in the works officially.
Until then, they clearly do not represent the will of the majority of the people in the bargaining unit who do want a functioning union, so they will not be allowed to destroy the union before it is fully set up.
For now, the Organizing Committee, that collected 1200 cards, will be setting up the process to fully form the union.
The Constitution Committee has been formed and will be drafting ideas for the Constitution and by laws, to be debated and voted on by union members next fall after the union has MEMBERS.
The union will be run fully democratically, where all members will have a vote, and not, as was suggested by the Econ. Dept., run where some members just get a partial vote, 3/5ths or the like, which would be illegal anyhow.
It sounds like the organizers would like to “spend political capital” ensuring that our union runs the way they want it to. How arrogant and hypocritical.
It’s time to get the pitchforks out. Hubris has overtaken our union organizers
It sounds like union organizers want it to function as a union–not be overtaken by anti-union economists and administrators, i.e. the loud people on this website.
So, you’re equating the Econ dept to the slave holding racists of the post- revolutionary south, for raising the question of whether or not temporary 0.1 FTE instructors and permanent full-time faculty should get the same weight in union voting. But you don’t want to give *any* of them a vote in organizing committee decisions, unless you vet them first. Got it.
It is certainly too strong to equate the Econ Dept. with southern slave holders who wanted greater representation for the South even though slaves couldn’t vote because the parallel is not at all exact. Seems dead wrong, really.
In reality, northerners did not want slaves to count at all, while southerners did not want to give slaves any vote, but wanted them to count as 3/5ths of a person in terms of being represented. The southerners definitely had a good point actually. It wasn’t unreasonable of them to want some representation for slaves because slaves were people, even though those people couldn’t vote.
Property-owning white men made a similar argument at the founding of this country–that only property-owners should vote because only they would vote responsibly. People without property (and women) could not be trusted to vote responsibly.
None of these parallels are exact, so they should not be used precisely, but the similarities in sentiment about proportionate voting and voting responsibly are intriguing.
Then let TTF PIs that aren’t even in the union have a full vote.
From where does the OC draw its legitimacy? They are not the “United Academics” that won victory in a card check (“United Academics” is the AFT, etc at this point). They are a group of faculty who put effort into achieving that victory, but that victory was not an election. Their current goal (I surmise) is to propose a constitution and a set of bylaws under which the new union will be governed. In doing this I would like them to be non-secret and democratic. My question is, why should I care what they want if they care so little about what I want?
I propose that we future union members (a group which is, at this point, still ill-defined) create our own non-secret and democratic Organizing Committee with the goal of creating a union constitution and a set of bylaws. Let’s ensure that this is “our” union from the start.
Let’s assemble a constitutional convention, a crowdsourced constitution, or some other scheme so that everyone’s voice may be heard, those who supported the union and those who opposed it alike. If this union is to represent all of the faculty it must represent all, not just those who “have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to building United Academics”.
Are we going to seize control of our fate or are we going to grumble? To paraphrase Lisa Simpson, they have the organizing committee, but we have the power!
Hey, I like this. Those of us who are stuck in the bargaining unit regardless of the fact that we didn’t turn in a card, why should we have any less say that those who turned in a card, if it fact there is not yet any organization in existence to have a definitive hierarchy or rules. Then, when there is an actual membership, they can choose between two options in terms of both individual leaders and constitutions and bargaining points.
If the union organizers are themselves going to define the bargaining unit into two parties, Pro-Union and Anti-Union (without too clear a process for differentiating: dunking in water maybe?), then might as well organize that way.
This will give us another happy occasion to pick animals for mascots (since Donkeys and Elephants are taken).
The concept of a crowdsourced constitution is a great one. I am definitely in the “anti” camp, but have also volunteered for a working group since I would rather work with than against. I share the deep concerns that the “winners” are going to set policy for all, without inclusion and debate. That is their right, and it may be the way to get things done quickly. I understand this since having a long drawn out process is not in anyone’s interest. But, there does not seem to be enough thought about how to inform and get feedback through the process. It is like the organizers want to have a giant party and wheel in the fully baked cake. Perhaps we can use as a model the method that the much maligned Jim Bean used during the “Big Ideas” and “Academic Plan” processes? Put up a site with sections of the Constitution and By-Laws sketched out, and let us at it. The survey that may be coming out might be helpful to the OC and working groups, but showing the debate and letting it flourish is in everyone’s interest.
According to the linked website, elections will take place “no later than the end of Winter Term, 2013.” Seriously? No elected representation for a full year after the card check concluded?
What also worries me is the agenda prior to holding elections: “the drafting of bylaws and a constitution, the development of a bargaining/contract platform, and more.” Letting a closed, unelected committee spend a year drafting the bylaws, constitution, and CBA and then simply giving members have an up-or-down vote on the end product is *not* democratic. That work should be carried out by elected leaders and representatives.
The reason is that there has to be a membership first, and for that you need a membership drive. That will take up much of fall term.
The “drafting” of the constitution will happen this summer, by a committee of OC and non-OC members. This is just to produce a draft.
Then members of the union need to be signed up in the fall.
No one is “simply giving members an up-or-down vote on an end product.” The members will get to debate and have input, before adopting the Constitution and bylaws.
The collective bargaining agreement (the CBA) is being drafted by anyone and everyone willing to take part–NOW. The open working groups, the Dept. meetings–everyone! NOW. Throughout the summer. Join-up! The CBA will need to be fully supported by the members for it to “win” anything. It must be written by US–all of US. We have been asking people to get involved over and over. This is the real work. This is the most important work by the union.
The CBA–our first contract–will be written by all of us. Department meetings are being held NOW to brainstorm what we want in the contract. The survey was sent out and hundreds of people have sent in ideas for the contract. Working groups are being formed now to do research on issues, and possible contract language. Don’t trust anyone–join as many working groups as you want! Help write a great contract! We need researchers to research this, and this is where the rubber-meets-the-road. If you want to join the union–join a working group to do research for our CBA. All working groups are open, and anyone can sign up. HELP write the contract. Get others to join in.
This is democracy, because a union only works if large numbers of members support and want to “win” the contract. No one can do this secretly, or undemocratically–so rest easy–the contract is the “thing” and you can take part.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain – the contract is the “thing”
The OC didn’t run for office when they did the card check, but now they act as if the card check gave them power. If you really want to represent the people, turn the power over in representative way. This would be the best thing moving over, even if they are scared that we (all of us) can’t be trusted.
You (awesome0 and two previous anon posts) seem to want everything to stop so that a complicated process can be devised to hold elections over the summer so that another complicated process can be devised to hold another round of elections a few months later? Really? And who is going to organize the first complicated process for the first round of complicated elections, over the summer no less? Do you realize how irrational this sounds? You cannot have elections until you have members and you cannot have members until you have a drive to organize members. It makes no sense to do this in summer. Talk to some OC members, and if that does not solve your trust needs, then get involved on any one of the critical jobs needed to get this rolling; you will likely discover that the “all of us” you talk about is who is working on this already!
It’s always amazing to me that people are fine questioning those in power until they themselves get power. Then we are supposed to just trust them.
It is not an issue of trust–you need members before you can hold elections.
How fast could you get members signed up for the union which does not have a constitution or by-laws yet so members don’t even have a form to sign, or roughly know what they are signing up for? The Constitution Committee (Some OC members, plus Prof. Bill Harbaugh and other non-OC members) is meeting this summer and drafting a constitution so people can sign up for membership (roughly knowing what they will sign up for), and then the membership will have something they can debate, amend and then pass.
You try organizing this process–good luck.
As we know, this site is full of people who will criticize the union no matter what it does. Blah, blah, blah.
You, t-rex, seem to imply I want things to drag out. I would prefer they don’t. But I prefer transparency and involvement over efficiency. The most efficient (well fastest) process would be to have one person dictate everything, would it not. But doesn’t seem fair or good to most of us. On the other polar end, we can take years in committee.
I think what the organizing committee seems to encourage involvement, as long as it is within their parameters. I did speak to someone on the OC. They suggested the best way I can help is to find some buttons and make t-shirts. Sorry, but he was very paternalistic. It seems when we ask the union what they are doing, they canned response is look at this awesome list of stuff we can get for you, please give us more suggestions. Sorry, but I would like a more direct role in decision making rather than being a button activist.
I am on the by-laws committee. I was appointed to it by the unelected organizing committee, who made their decision about who was in and who was out in secret. I was told that there was opposition to appointing me because some people “did not think I could be trusted.” I know of at least one other person who was told he could not be a member, presumably because the organizing committee decided the opposite. In secret.
I can be trusted – to do everything I can to ensure the bylaws committee meetings and process are public and transparent.
“It is not an issue of trust–you need members before you can hold elections.”
This is a bogus argument. We already have members of the bargaining unit which could be polled to elect OC members. I’m not saying that’s the right thing to do, but it’s wrong to state that it’s not possible to have an election at this point.
I’m sure that if Wisconsin’s public-employee unions had been more democratically and transparently organized, then Governor Walker would have been quailed into handing over the keys to the state house in Madison — just after giving them as much time as they required to design a process to formulate, debate, vote on, and present their legitimate demands.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
“Agree to respect the United Academics Organizing Committee group decisions regarding dissemination of information emerging from meetings”
Sorry UOMatters!
Bill – I don’t understand why you haven’t publicized your call — by yourself, Chris Ellis and other economists — to mandate that part-time faculty be denied a full vote in the union. At the economics department meeting I attended, this was by far the central proposal, voiced repeatedly and ardently by yourself, Chris and others — that part-time faculty should be restricted to a pro-rated vote based on their FTE. It turns out that this proposal would be a violation of federal law, so it’s not a live issue as a policy question. But the fact that this was the central — indeed, almost the only — priority that you and others in your department repeatedly voiced, it seems like a critical piece of information for people who may be interested in understanding your concerns and agenda in terms of union issues. I don’t understand why this hasn’t been disclosed and publicized to the broader readership of the website.
Gordon Lafer
I did raise this question, after you said the by-laws committee would be a side-show, as an example of something substantive the by-laws committee might debate. It relates to legitimate questions about shared interests. In fact other schools – organized by the AFT and the AAUP – have rules that people must have 0.5 or greater FTE to participate *at all*.
But I thought my department was very clear that our major issue was the fact that the unelected, closed Organizing Committee should not be making important decisions in secret.
Your refusal during your meeting with economics to give explicit procedures for how people could join the OC was – speaking for myself – the main impetus for devising our own democratic procedure.
Your contradictory claims that a) the OC was not doing anything important and b) the OC’s important work might be sabotaged by faculty not totally committed to the cause really didn’t help you either.
Now that the OC has finally explained the rules, I am very happy we have a democratic alternative. I think you and the other OC members should either embrace it, or reform your own rules to encourage broad participation.
Think what you are saying here Gordon. You are attacking me for raising a question about votes in proportion to FTE. Meanwhile you are defending a system that gives *no* bargaining unit members representation unless they survive a vetting and potential veto by a few insiders.
I must have missed this meeting as it sounds nothing like the one I attended. If this were true the Economics Department would appear in a very bad light. Surely that is not what was intended?
You’re being an ass, Gordon. We have many issues, and continue to have issues, with the organization of interests into a cbu. Don’t belittle our fundamental difference by continuing down this route you’ve now begun. We were pleased to have you join us, but were quite unimpressed with what we learned. Given the importance of these issues, I expect you and others on the oc to deal with them with integrity.
I’d like to remind everyone to avoid unnecessary personal attacks and language, and to respect the full diversity of views on the union. The one cuss-word policy is a privilege, not a right. Don’t make me take it away.
I’m new to this union stuff but why is it such a big deal to propose that someone’s vote is proportional to their FTE? If I was 0.25 FTE I certainly wouldn’t expect to have the say that a full-time person has. And it sounds like some agreements require 0.5 FTE to have any vote at all. So the problem seems to be with fractional votes. Please explain why this is so offensive.
This was not the central issue. It was that was brought in the way UOmatters described (UOMatters is an economist?…news to me), but to say it is the only concern implies you heard what you chose to hear.
That would be the same thing as me saying the only you said at the union meeting is that a union is way “to help NTTF get better benefits, as you have friends from grad school who are now NTTF’s grad school who didn’t up in a TTF position like [your] solely out of bad luck.” Surely this wasn’t all you said, but it was something you said.
The fact that you only filtered out almost all of our substantive discussion to one minor discussion which you have misinterpreted, highlights the main concern, and the need for adequate representation of diverse views in the organizing of this very diverse union.
“Other schools have rules about people must have a .5 or greater” comes from the administrations at those schools–not the unions!
Unions are strongest when they are largest. Unions work to write contracts that are in the COLLECTIVE GOOD. Unions have no power to empower a few. Unions work through mobilizing the many. We need ALL faculty here to join together and work together on a contract that we all can support.
This can happen–we do have joint interests, and there is money around here to lift all boats, and not just secret car payments for the few, etc. as UO matters has repeatedly helped point out.
Please look at Mancur Olson’s “The Logic of Collective Action,” especially part III, “The Labor Union and Economic Freedom.” Study how unions actually do work, in the collective good, and you will rest easier about all of this, especially any secret incentives for union organizers or too much power to the little people.
Really and truly. Take a look. It is a short, good read. pp. 66-97, large font, will help a lot. The Union will work for both Econ profs and .1 FTE instructors. We hope to secure benefits, pensions, better working conditions, etc. for PI’s too–all faculty will enjoy gains made by the Union.
Wow. I love Mancur Olson. But the message I got from “The Decline of Nations” and the effect of specialized interest groups such as the union on the collective good is quite different. Large unions like in northern europe spurred growth, in comparison to the rent-seeking that he argues is pervasive with small specialized unions.
I hate to be picky but the interpretation of what Olson writes is incorrect. His argument is that to avoid the free rider problem small groups work much better because other (he calls them no-economic but that’s a misnomer ) mechanisms can be used to punish those who deviate from the socially desirable action and reward those who behave appropriately. The logical conclusion to Olson’s argument would be that NTTFs and TT’s should be in separate bargaining units. Fortunately economics, particularly game theory, has moved on quite a long way since 1965 and we now understand much better when and how the collective action problem can be solved. But this may all be moot as the basic premise of the last post is also probably incorrect, the collective action problem requires there be a public good to be supplied. As the debate over the union has revealed not everyone seems to think there is a simple public good here. Writing collective good in capital letters does not make it so.
Disgraceful misrepresentation of the truth from Gordon Lafer. And the union powergrab committee, errrr organizing committee, wonders why they have trust issues with “outsiders”…
Do you understand how condescending this sounds?
I’m cool with whatever ego-stroking is necessary so that all faculty have a labor situation with respect to job security and raises that starts to rise up somewhere close to what food service workers enjoy.
I can understand why the union organizers would want to first include people that “Have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to building United Academics”, but it is worthwhile to consider that for many union members, carrying out organizing activities was far riskier than for others. Or for an adjunct juggling teaching at two schools, organizing was not something they could commit to. So these rules, while understandable as a way to smooth the transition from organizing to bargaining, structurally reduce the voice of those who, perhaps, need a voice the most. So I hope there can be some consideration of the costs of these ‘filters’ for having a voice, and that the most vulnerable can be encouraged to participate directly.
Amen. And I agree, Lafer’s true strategy is revealed.