Update 6/3/2012: I’m sort of slow on this, but I’m wondering if the OC can even make the decision to open up their meetings. It looks to me like United Academics is currently a branch of the AAUP/AFT, with no legal standing of its own. Here’s the signature for the state ERB certification:
Ms Carroll is an AFT National Representative, not UO faculty. Other documents are signed by local attorney Michael Tedesco, presumably he was hired and is being paid by the AFT/AAUP, not United Academics.
So, are any UO faculty actually officers of United Academics? What sort of decisions have the national AFT and AAUP authorized them to make? What sort of decisions are they forbidden from making? Does anyone know?
I’ve updated the union meta-FAQ, here. Montana State’s by-laws have some interesting provisions. Dues are 0.8% and are voluntary. They have one union but “Separate officers represent tenure track faculty and non tenure track faculty and are elected by members.” and there are separate bargaining agreements. Only those with 0.5 or greater FTE can join.
5/31/2012: Here’s the latest email from the faculty union’s Central Organizing Committee. They still will not allow regular faculty at the meetings where the plans that will determine how *our* union affects us are being made. Instead they are working only with the national union representatives, who have very different objectives than many of us do.
Like, for example, the dues rate. The national reps want *us* to pay 1.5 to 2% of *our* salary. The PSU union committee played a little hardball with the AAUP and got it down to 0.75%. I say 0.5%, tops.
Meanwhile, they are trying to distract our attention with meetings and surveys about the CBA. No, first let’s get the rules of the game straight. The decisions being made now behind closed doors will determine if our union works for us or not. Insist they open up. The self-serving secrecy and condescending pap we get from Johnson Hall is enough to bear. We don’t need the same from what we are so often told is *our* union.
Thanks, I feel better, here’s the union email, enjoy:
What’s Happening This Week
- Deadline to volunteer for Bylaws and Constitution Committee
- Open meetings to generate ideas for bargaining
- Launch of bargaining survey
Preparations for our first contract negotiations are underway! Now is the time to get involved. In order to build a strong union and negotiate the best possible contract, we all need to be involved in the process. Here are ways to get involved right now:
1) Serve on the Bylaws and Constitution Committee. The Organizing Committee is looking for three additional volunteers to help research options and develop recommendations for our union’s formal structure. The committee expects to meet four times (once per month) between June and September with the goal of producing draft bylaws and a constitution for United Academics by the start of fall term – to then be reviewed and voted on by members. Work will begin in early June: contact the UA office by May 31 if you are interested in this work.
2) Set up or attend a meeting in your department or with any group of faculty. Get together with your colleagues to discuss what you’d like to see addressed at the bargaining table. Your participation ensures that your ideas will help shape our bargaining proposals. United Academics can provide help and support in setting up a meeting or let you know when your department has a meeting scheduled. If you aren’t able to make it to a department meeting, mark your calendar for one of these dates:
- Thursday, May 31 at 11:00am (Owyhee Room, EMU)
- Friday, June 1 at 1:30pm (Umpqua Room, EMU)
- Wednesday, June 6 at 4:00pm (Location TBD)
- Thursday, June 7 at 4:00pm (PLC 714)
- Tuesday, June 12 at 2:00pm (Location TBD)
- Wednesday, June 13 at 3:00pm (PLC 714)
3) Join an issue-research work group. Care about a particular issue, like health benefits? As preparation for bargaining, this summer faculty volunteers will be working in small groups to research numerous issues – salary, benefits, pensions, contracts, family policies, professional support, working conditions and more. If you’re interested in being part of the bargaining process, sign up soon: the first bargaining training session is Saturday, June 9!
4) Fill out the bargaining survey. All members of the United Academics bargaining unit will receive a survey via email this week. Take the time to identify your priorities and to provide thoughtful responses that explain why these issues are important to you.
Help make sure that by fall term our union can hit the ground running. Many hands make light work, as the saying goes. Contact United Academics at [email protected]or 541-636-4714 to volunteer and get more information.
You almost sound surprised.
Not suprised. They’re not bad people, they’ve just got incentives that are leading them away from the outcome that’s best for us. We need to apply some countervailing peer pressure.
What are those incentives?
Typically a full or nearly full teaching release, and of course power and recognition. Probably not a beamer, but those jockeying for union pres have already opted out of the JH racket.
Also, could’t the same be said of JH – “They’re not bad people, they’ve just got incentives that are leading them away from the outcome that’s best for us.”? Why are you cutting the union folks so much slack?
Because they’re only going to get 1/4 the take that Bean gets, 1/8 of a Berdahl or Frohnmayer? But buy me some scotch and I’ll step up my game – I’m a professional.
Who are the frontrunners for union prez? Peter Keyes has been the name that I’ve heard the most. I wonder what his agenda will be:
“The Finns decided to reform their school system a while back, and decided that what they needed was to make it completely equitable. And guess what it turned into? The most excellent school system in the world.”
It’s this sort of immature comment that this blog really needs far less of. I’m not pro-union, and I’ve never met Prof. Keyes, but I’ve found his comments here to be well-written, intelligent, and informative, and I appreciate that he takes the time to write. Out-of-context quotes, and calling out non-administrative people by name while hiding under anonymity are both pathetic and unproductive.
Saying that calling out non-administrative people by name isn’t OK implies that it is OK to call out administrative people. What’s the difference?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the national people are telling them they can pay themselves more for their union serviceif the dues are higher. Talk about a conflict of interest.
Well, yes, but not as bad as Bean giving athletics $2 million to run the jock box, then getting free travel to the Rose Bowl.
The paranoid language of some of these posts is extraordinary. It is as if those accusing their colleagues in the OC of corruption, careerism and vainglory have been fed a steady diet of right-wing anti-union rhetoric their whole lives, or have passed too many late nights watching ‘On the Waterfront’ on AMC. The idea that these folks – your colleagues – have engaged in arduous work of union-building solely out of the desire to cash in reflects a diminished and fearful view of human motivation. You might disagree with the idea of having a union, but that is a question of politics, and of one’s vision of the university. Reducing a view that differs from yours to mere venality reveals an inability to tolerate legitimate difference. If you want to argue for greater transparency, you are better served by doing so without the infantile rage.
A post that attacks infantile rage with …. infantile rage. How effective.
To the victor go the spoils…
At this point the union organizers act more like administrators than my colleagues.
I do not know who “awesome0” is, and even if I did I would not wish to impugn his/her motivations for attributing bad faith to the union organizers. As one of the latter, I can assure him/her that if there is anything he/she would like to see included in the collective bargaining agreement — or, for that matter, if there are things he/she would prefer the CBA left well enough alone — United Academics is eager to have his/her feedback.
I think many decisions are best made at the departmental levels. So I hope the CBA does not engage in too much “one solution will fit all” regulation.
That is a big concern among United Academics organizers. I can only speak for myself, but it’s accurate to say that for my fellow organizers, the card check process was (yet another) education in the extraordinary diversity of this (and every) university. So we have a good idea of the difficulties that “one size fits all” regulation have the potential to generate. No one, however, can claim to understand every nook and cranny, which is why it is so important that everyone complete the pre-bargaining survey, including the field that asks members of the bargaining unit to identify things that work well as they are and should be left alone.
1. Let all of the committee’s be representive (meaning democratically chosen appointments from each department) of the university at large. Meaning right now, let others join the organzing commmittee which is barganing with the university already, despite the fact their union has given them no power to do so.
2. Make dues minimal (0.5 percent of salary), or totally optional.
3. Lets make this union of UO faculty and negotiate for our interests.
4. I do think the idea of letting people take shorter sabaticals at full pay, or allowing a sabatical to be taken as a course release or summer support seems like a cool idea.
5. I’ve heard we are giving up the right to strike? Why the heck are we going to put that out there as a non option, as unlikely as it may be, it seems like the type of threat one wouldn’t want to immediately discard if we are trying to negotiate with admins.
6. In essence, make the union alot like the U of Senate, which is inherently destroyed by the creation of the union in my view. If the union could take on the role of the senate but have more teeth, sounds cool to me.
7. Make all financial transactions of the union public record. Teaching load reductions, salaries, everything should be out in the open.
This is very helpful indeed. I’ll make sure your positions are conveyed to the Organizing Committee, along with everyone else’s. I know I speak for everyone in United Academics in encouraging “Awesome0” to fill out the pre-bargaining survey, which asks members of the Bargaining Unit to express their wishes for the CBA in greater detail than is possible in a forum such as this.
That said, a few clarifications are in order:
1. The Organizing Committee is not “bargaining with the university already.” A month ago, there was a negotiation that led to certification; but this negotiation and the agreement it produced merely established United Academics and defined the Bargaining Unit, nothing more. It did not initiate negotiations toward the collective bargaining agreement. That process will not begin until the fall term; before negotiations can begin, United Academics must ascertain what members of the bargaining unit want from their contract, which is why we have asked our colleagues to participate in departmental meetings, to fill out the pre-bargaining survey, to contact us directly, and so on. Until we know in detail what the faculty’s interests are, United Academics cannot begin to negotiate, and in fact have not
2. No union gives up the right to strike. “Awesome0” is quite right: United Academics would be crazy to throw out that option, “as unlikely as it may be,” and in fact it has not thrown it out. That said, strikes by faculty unions are very rare; fortunately, administrations usually settle long before things deteriorate to the point that a strike is called for. And as I reiterated to several members of the Zebra Fish lab earlier today, no strike authorized by United Academics would interfere with the research of UO faculty. We’re research faculty ourselves, for chrissakes.
3. United Academics and the University Senate have distinct but complimentary missions. The latter is concerned with educational policy, the former with terms of employment. Obviously, these two domains sometimes overlap; where they do, United Academics is eager to make sure that the collective bargaining agreement strengthens the Senate. The CBA can, for example, “entail” the Senate’s constitutions and bylaws, which would make them enforceable. United Academics can also incorporate policies that the Senate has been unable to implement because of obstruction by the university’s legal counsel – I’m thinking here of the Senate’s Academic Freedom policy, which the CBA can and (in my view) should incorporate in its terms. United Academics does not seek to “take on the role of the Senate” but to make the Senate more effective in what it already does.
Thank you for the explanations. I’m hoping you can clarify your answer to (2). In particular, how can you guarantee that, “no strike authorized by United Academics would interfere with the research of UO faculty.”? If postdocs and technicians decided to strike, that would certainly cripple research. What can you, as a tenured faculty member, do to prevent NTTF from deciding to strike – especially considering your minority status in the union? Thanks in advance for your answers.
David, thanks for the communication (I’m not Awesome0 but share some of the same concerns) but I am not at all reassured by your response to 1. Basically, you have said that you have not yet begun negotiating but everything you said afterwards suggests that the plan is to begin negotiating before the committee is democratically chosen. This is completely unsatisfactory–like it or not, it comes across as a powergrab. Why rush forward and start making decisions with long-run implications before being given any legitimate authority through a democratic process?
Happy to clarify. First, I “as a tenured faculty” member can no more guarantee that there will be no strike than I can guarantee that United Academics will get everything we want in the Collective Bargaining Agreement – or, for that matter, that next September’s precipitation will be above average.
That said, we need to keep two things in mind:
1) A strike is a measure of last resort, never taken lightly, or by a simple majority of members in the bargaining unit. It would be a rash and ill-advised union that proceeded to strike without a supermajority of its members in favor. This is why they are rare, and also why they enjoy overwhelming support when they do occur.
2) No strike is absolute. Basic functions of the university must be (and always are) sustained so that faculty, research associates, and postdocs can resume the research on which their careers and livelihoods depend, once whatever disagreements prompted the strike have been overcome. It’s just common sense.
Thanks again David. I appreciate your comments. However, I am very confused by your language. On the one hand you say:
“And as I reiterated to several members of the Zebra Fish lab earlier today, no strike authorized by United Academics would interfere with the research of UO faculty. We’re research faculty ourselves, for chrissakes. “
which certainly sounds like a guarantee to me – your language is very absolute. However, your latest comment states:
“First, I “as a tenured faculty” member can no more guarantee that there will be no strike than I can guarantee that United Academics will get everything we want in the Collective Bargaining Agreement – or, for that matter, that next September’s precipitation will be above average. “
This statement is much different than your first, even including an offhand remark that I assume is meant to emphasize that you can’t really predict anything that is going to happen with the union. How do I reconcile these two comments? I have to conclude that in fact a strike authorized by United Academics VERY MUCH COULD INTERFERE WITH RESEARCH AT UO, your reassurances notwithstanding. If true, this is troubling not only because of the potential effect on research, but because a member of the union’s organizing committee is making misleading statements that are meant to downplay the downsides of unionization. Not surprising perhaps – but certainly disappointing. But maybe I’m missing something?
I see what you mean, Anonymous. In the back of my head, I was responding to some nightmarish concerns I’ve heard many times, that in the event of a strike there would be no one to feed the Zebra fish, i.e. that a strike would cause not merely disrupt labs but shut them down for good, and so on. Sure, a strike might disrupt research in the sense that it might cause labs to slow down operations for a while. But as I said, no strike is absolute, and depending on the circumstances there are ways to mitigate its effects on labs, library operations (on which I, for one, depend), and so on. Again, all these are reasons why strikes are considered only as a last resort and undertaken with overwhelming support for it.
It is interesting to think of the effects of a strike, although I agree it seems very unlikely. Partly because the membership of the union is so diverse. For career NTTF and TTF, it makes sense to sacrifice a short time of being unproductive for long-term gains. But for post-docs that must show productivity and build a research program in 3 or so years in order to be competitive, the cost is far more than any benefit if it slows them down compared to their peers nationwide. As you indicate, perhaps there are ways to allow the most vulnerable to continue. On the other hand, if library operations are allowed to continue so faculty research can continue so that the undergraduate students bear the brunt of a strike while the sacrifice of faculty is mitigated, that would be a tough political call.
I, for one, very much hope that a no-strike clause will be part of the CBA. The CBA for the University of Vermont’s faculty union has such a clause, and for good reason. The constituency that is most hurt by a strike at a university is the students, not the administration. Indeed, a strike can work to the administration’s advantage. I know that many who supported unionization of the faculty did so because they believe the university has essentially become a corporation, so that tactics appropriate to corporate structures are needed at the university. Even if they are right (a point contested by many who opposed unionization) it seems almost incontestable that those who are most harmed by a strike are very different in a traditional corporation (management) and a university (the students). Under the circumstances, whether I join the union will likely be determined by whether a “no strike” clause is included in the CBA — and I know a number of other faculty members who feel the same way.
Dear Anonymous: please be sure you include that in your pre-bargaining survey. This is just the sort of feedback we urgently need.
I agree with a no strike clause, however your last sentence is backwards I think. If you want to influence the CBA then you should be a union member.
I’m guessing the Vermont contract also included binding arbitration terms that render strikes unnecessary. I doubt, in other words, that Vermont surrendered the right to strike unilaterally. Time will tell how much the UO administration is willing to concede in order to make a no-strike clause a realistic option for United Academics.
It worries me that the Central Organizing Committee is asking for input to the CBA right now. Whatever you think of David Luebke, Peter Keyes or other members of the COC (and I have no reason to doubt their good faith), they have not stood for election before the full membership of the union. It seems to be that the current COC’s charge should be to put in place a transitional organizing structure, establish a democratic process for selecting leadership of the union, and then dissolve once that is in place. The process of negotiating the first CBA should be led by democratically elected leaders, not self-appointed ones.
First off, there is no such thing as the “Central Organizing Committee.” UO Matters dreamt up that moniker. There is, however, an “Organizing Committee,” composed of your colleagues who have volunteered their time and effort over the past few years to make the unionization campaign a success.
All things being equal, it would have been preferable to arrange matters in just the sequence Marmot prefers. That possibility, however, evaporated when the administration agreed to certification. Had there been a drawn out legal fight, as we all anticipated there would be, United Academics would have had a year in which to build the institution, hold a membership drive, and gather feedback from our colleagues about their wishes and priorities for the collective bargaining agreement.
I’m delighted, of course, that we got to certification so quickly. However, this victory also means that we have to accomplish all of these things concurrently — prepare for negotiations, build up the institution, hold a membership drive, all at once, more or less. We cannot hold elections now because United Academics does not have a membership; once we have a membership, the members will vote on everything: officers, bylaws, the CBA, and so on.
When the time comes I, for one, will be delighted to yield to someone else. It’s a ton of work, and you have do it knowing that certain loud voices around campus are braying that you’re only in it for the money or because your ego needs constant stroking. In the meantime, I’m grateful to Marmot for assuming that I act in good faith.
But meanwhile the union organizers need to open up their meetings, whatever name they are occurring under.
I appreciate your explanation, David, but I don’t understand it. You say that because certification happened so quickly you “have to accomplish all of these things concurrently.” Why do you “have to?” What bad thing would happen if you proceeded in a logical and deliberate order, focusing now on membership and establishing a democratic process, and reserving decisions about negotiations and other substantive issues for the future elected leadership?
I also sense, if not an outright contradiction, then at least a hard-to-reconcile tension in your reply. On the one hand, “we have to accomplish all of these things concurrently.” On the other hand, “once we have a membership, the members will vote on everything.” Which is it?
Perhaps if UAUO made public its timeline of all of the things that need to be done, in what order, and by whom (the current committee vs. future elected leaders), that would clear this up.
I’m sorry, David, but you guys are saying that the reason you’re not better organized is because the administration caved in too soon? This, after the ASUO organizers blasted the Admin’s opposition to unionization as a “violation of human rights”?! This is a classic damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t situation. Shouldn’t you have prepared for both eventualities? And will there come a day when snafus aren’t always someone else’s, invariably “the Administration’s” fault? If you’re going to represent the rest of us, you’ll have to assume some responsibility for outcomes, both positive and negative.
The above is a troll email, which I encourage the union organizers to ignore.
Speaking for myself, I didn’t expect the organizers to prepare for this. But I wish they were dealing more transparently with the situation that we now have.
Really? What makes my email a “troll email” pray tell? As opposed to all the others on this site. Will UO Matters now offer his own commentary on each entry. Wow! And I don’t get to comment on the union that supposedly represents me. How come, UOMatters?
Cat, I was pretty confused by UOMatters as well. Your comment seemed par for the course in this discussion, with no personal attacks as far as I could tell.
I hope my questions aren’t getting lumped in as a “troll.” Nor are they merely rhetorical. I meant them sincerely. I really don’t understand the reasoning behind David Luebke’s explanation — e.g., why the quick certification means that the union “has to” proceed as it is proceeding — and if he’s willing to continue responding I’d like to hear it.
(As an aside I’m also confused by UOMatters’s labeling of Cat’s comment. I read it as a rather sharp-elbowed reply but not a trolling one.)
Ditto to Marmot.
It is “organizing committee.” OC.
I think we shouldn’t have to pay more for union dues than we do for parking.
Unions dues must be less than the change in my salary attributable to unionization, or the union doesn’t make sense. Therefore,
dues should be negative.
For TTFs, union dues will almost certainly be more than salary gains for the foreseeable future; indeed the word on the street is that moneys that were going to be used for TTF salary increases are now being held back because of the recognition that they will be needed for other constituencies. From the word go, the best argument in favor of unionization has been the help it may provide to NTTFs, and I have respect for people who supported unionization on those grounds. Whether the help for NTTFs will be enough to counterbalance the fiscal downsides for TTFs and the hardening of hierarchies that will likely accompany unionization is an open question. But it seems highly unlikely, at least in the short term, that large enough salary increases (beyond increases that would have happened without unionization) will be coming to the TTF to offset union dues, even if those dues are kept to 1% of salary.
“We’re research faculty ourselves, for chrissakes.” Really? The last I checked, the bargaining union was defined so that TTF are vastly outnumbered.
The bargaining unit was also defined so that many (most?) of the natural science faculty are not part of it. Nearly all of the PIs of the zebrafish labs that were mention earlier are not part of the bargaining unit, for example.
When is this survey supposed to be out? I had heard this week, but have yet to see any emails about it.