Union bargaining XIX: Gottfredson counters w/ half a Lariviere

4/25/2013 Prologue: 

  • Note to President Gottfredson: If you have any concern for what the faculty think of you, don’t let Sharon Rudnick speak for you again.
  • The union presented its raise proposal 5 weeks ago. The administration has been stalling on a response ever since. Tuesday, about 30 faculty showed up to hear what it was going to be. Rudnick and Moffitt dragged out the meeting as long as they could, then announced at 11:50 that there wasn’t enough time to present Gottfredson’s proposal. Pretty damn rude. 
  • Fact Check: Dear President Gottfredson: I am writing to request that you instruct your General Counsel, Randy Geller, to respond to the email below and provide a list of the members of the “UO Bargaining Team” that wrote the 2/28/13 open letter to me and posted it on the UO website at http://uo-ua.uoregon.edu/fact-check/

  • Rudnick: Your proposal cost $26 million dollars and that’s totally unrealistic! We don’t have the money any more! These problems developed over the many years of Dave Frohnmayer’s faulty leadership and they cannot be resolved in the 24 months of this contract! There is no $26 million dollars! (Which works out to 3% of UO budget. Admin’s are offering 1.5%).
Liveblog Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what people said, should have said, or should have wanted to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. For the Luebke’s view of things see Luebke’s blog.

Rudnick: Here’s the counter. We’ve put majority of money in pay, since benefits are already at or near peers.

Union proposal:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 9/16/2012
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit, 3% Equity
2015: 4.0% ATB, 4% Merit, 1% Equity
NTTF floors.
10% promotion raises.

Admin counter:
2013: 1.5% ATB, retro to 1/1/2013.
2014: 1.5% ATB, 2% Merit
2015: 1.5% ATB, 3.5% Merit
No money for floors, but a committee to set them?
No change in promotion raises.

Mauer: Why? Rudnick gets pissed, doesn’t want to hear criticism. “You can argue whatever you want. This is what it is. This is our best offer. You can make all the accusations you want.” And I’m not going to get you donuts! Enter Asst Prof, with the donuts. Yumm. Some thoughtful person brought a bottle of Kahlua too.

Mauer: Why one pool for merit? Rudnick: We don’t want to institutionalize inequities. I don’t really know how to say this or how strongly our side feels about this. Mauer: We have an open mind, do tell us more.

Bunch of stuff on process.

Back of the envelope, over the 2 years of the contract, Gottfredson’s proposal is about 50% of the union’s proposal, and about 50% of what Lariviere had planned to implement by this year. The administration has abandoned the effort to get UO salaries to our AAU peers, that started with the 2000 Senate white paper. Comparator salaries here.

: We have separate pools to ensure NTTF’s get equity. (Actually, you took the separate pools out, Tim.) Long back on forth on appropriate policies, guidelines to determine merit.

Admins are fine with pools, rules for dividing merit money, so long as it’s just about chump change.

Q about equity: Rudnick says “we will get to that”. We agree NTTF floors are important, likes joint committee on NTTF compensation to deal with floors, classification. No money for floors, idea is that the committee will spend 18 months working out the details and then put something in next contract.

Rudnick: Equity. No one disagrees on the importance of paying AAU equitable salaries, but we spent all the money, so we will deal with that in the next contract, maybe. Mauer: Explain how things will be better in 18 months? Rudnick: You’re right. It’s just a hope. Maybe we’ll have spent it all on other important things by then. Mauer: Of all the things to de-emphasize, why equity? Rudnick: We want to get the base up and reward merit. But we don’t want to get the base up to the peer level. Sure, this was priority #1 for Lariviere, but for Gottfredson it’s like, uh, #17.

Mauer: Why doesn’t the joint committee get to look at equity? Rudnick: no answer. Davidson: Committee could do floors in a few months and get money out to people making < $36K for full time work. You are not willing to prioritize that? Rudnick: “We were trying to respond to what we thought your priorities. I am going to show you exactly where all the dollars are, in dollars. If you want to allocate it differently, we don’t care.” (Wait, didn’t you just say your cared about merit?) Mauer calls her on it. Rudnick again: “If you want to allocate money differently we are completely open to that. I’ll say it one more time…”

Cecil: What about our 10% promotion raises? Why did you cross it out? Blandy: I think it was addressed in the promotion article. Cecil: What sort of raises do you think you were proposing there? Blandy: We don’t know.

Retention: Blandy – we have been making retention issues but we haven’t made compression raises because we are bargaining. Mauer and Cecil: We have told you that you can make these raises. Are you going to keep claiming that you can’t because of the union? Green: Compression issues will get worse. Are you holding back money to deal with internal equity? Blandy: Once the contract is ratified, nothing prevents other raises. Rudnick looks at him, in horror. “Yes it does! Once you have a contract you don’t go giving people money willy-nilly” Green: So, what’s the admin’s plan to deal with internal equity now? Mauer: So, you are saying that your proposal the dean could match an outside offer, but not give raises to others in department. Cecil: Is there a retention raise policy? Blandy: No, but practice is you have to have a written outside offer. (Bullshit.) Green: So we could write in something saying for internal equity raises if someone in that department got an outside offer and then a raise. But then departments where no one gets an offer get nothing. Rudnick: right. Green: My read is that CAS is now way behind. Is that your read too? Gleason: My impression is that there’s variability within CAS. But he has no idea. Rudnick: HR only has one or two people, no one knows what’s going on. (Actually, they’ve got a $3.5 million budget.) Braun: Need to get away from the situation where people have to get an offer to address equity. We lose good colleagues, replacement searches are expensive,…

Rudnick: Retention raises are a band-aid.

Gleason: We are spending the money on other UO priorities, sorry. We’ll talk about a better mix of raises, but we’re not giving you any more money.

Mauer leans across the table towards Rudnick, lowers his voice to a barely audible, threatening whisper. “No?”

The room quiets. Mothers shush their children, and herd them out the door. The faculty inch their hands towards the baseball bats. Big Mark smiles, takes a last hit from his cigar, and closes the door. The lock clicks.

Mauer: “That’s all good. But we put a proposal on the table 5 weeks ago, with all the answers. You ignored it.”

Rudnick: No, that cost $26 million dollars and that’s totally unrealistic! We don’t have the money any more. These problems developed over the many years of Dave Frohnmayer’s faulty leadership and they cannot be resolved in the 24 months of this contract! Keeps shouting. There is no $26 million dollars!

Mauer: So, you spent it. That’s nice. Real nice. So, how about you put the rest of your economic proposals on the table. Now.

Rudnick: OK. She gives him a cold stare, and reaches slowly into her briefcase. There’s a glint of gunmetal, reflecting off her cold, polished fingernails.

Cecil sees it, and tries a distraction. “Wait! Before you go there, can you explain your costing again?”

Rudnick gets confused by all the numbers. She starts babbling again. The faculty ease back and start snickering at her. Hamilton grins, and passes his flask around.

Smooth work, Cecil. Looked like a 38 special. Not the sort of thing to fire off in the library, of all places.

Art 21: Fringe benefits. Adjuncts need access to UO email so students can contact them about letters, etc. Rudnick: That’s outweighed by worry former faculty would misuse UO resources. Cecil goes to town on her, hilarious. But lets get the rest of their crap on the table. Rudnick: No child care vouchers, Gottfredson spent that money on my fees:

Break, now they’re back.

Art 24, leaves: Rudnick: We won’t agree to the faculty leave bank. Too complicated and HR only has a $3.5M budget. Faculty must report if they use sick leave. (UO tried that 10 years back – had to send our office manager an email every month reporting if we’d used any sick leave. Lasted for about 6 months.)

I’m not worried about any of this, if I get pregnant and don’t have enough accumulated leave, Provost Bean will just give me a sabbatical.

Green goes to town on them over pregnancies and lack of support for women faculty, raising her voice. Blandy: You’re shouting at me. Green: Yes, I am.

Why does Blandy sit there whenever Rudnick shouts about how demeaning it is to be called “The Administration”, but it’s not OK for Green to shout about pregnancy support?

Rudnick: Can we move on? Cecil: What about pregnancy leaves for career NTTF’s? Rudnick: A lot of people looked at this, we’ll have to go back to them. Cecil has this down cold, gives her a list of inconsistencies. Rudnick sounds like she’s reading this for the first time, searching “… uh, lets see, um, … duh, … um, …., or something…” We took this out of the OARs, except where we didn’t….

Art 23: Retirement Benefits: 
Rudnick: Wait, this has a significant error, give it back! University will make all required contributions, actually we are agreeing to continue making the PERS pickup too, unless law prohibits it. I’ll send you it this afternoon. Cecil: But you wouldn’t make faculty whole if the state bars the pickup? Why not? Rudnick: We were told if that passes, which is not likely, we would not subvert the intention. Gleason: Our interest would be to spend that new money on faculty, but we don’t want it in the contract that we intend to ignore the legislature’s intent. Cecil: WOU etc have that contract language though.

Art 32: Sabbatical:
Rudnick: Comes from statute or OAR and I believe the current reality. (How did Bean, Martinez, and Frohnmayer get those sabbaticals again?) Cecil and Green are all over this. Rudnick and Blandy are confused. Green: It’s a university policy to promote sabbaticals. Rudnick: We don’t have the money to pay more! We spent it all on Bean’s sabbatical:

“The dollars aren’t there given the current priorities for spending dollars. You have to prioritize!” Davidson: Has any thought gone into thinking about how sabbatical improves UO visibility, new grants? Rudnick: No. UO gets its national visibility by subsidizing the Duck athletics brand. It wouldn’t be fiscally prudent to shift those dollars towards faculty research sabbaticals.

Art 22, Health Insurance:
Rudnick: This is not our proposal, it comes from OUS, it’s the proposal they are making to SEIU. Cecil: This is a massive increase in what faculty will have to pay. Rudnick: Yes. We are hoping this will go away.

Rudnick passes out Moffitt’s cost estimates. Cecil goes to town on the question of how much of the cost will from central, and how much from auxiliaries which, by state law, are supposed to be self-supporting. Then asks if there is reality to threats that raises for people in say PE, Music will lead to layoffs, asks if Admin will consider language that would protect people. Rudnick says yes. 

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Union bargaining XIX: Gottfredson counters w/ half a Lariviere

  1. Roy Rogers says:

    I wrote a little song for all you faculty members with any remaining self-respect or ambition.


    The entended remix:

  2. Anonymous says:

    Did they do away with salary increases for promotions?

  3. Anonymous says:

    The package is worse than the percent differences. They have also made them effective jan 1 instead of back to sept.

  4. Awesome0 says:

    Yeah about the tenure bumps? 8 percent or 10?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Hey. I smell booze in here. Quickly… somebody test somebody for something!!!!!

  6. Awesome0 says:

    If the union can’t force the admin to do what Lariviere, then they don’t deserve my 1.5 in annual dues.

  7. Awesome0 says:

    Basically their proposal is to keep doing what they already proposed to do last time. Pretty dang weak. Fine, I’ll say it. Increase tuition, as long as we get the money.

  8. Awesome0 says:

    Union bargaining committee members don’t let them draw you. The discussion of how to split of merit raises is a distraction. The real issue has how absolutely piss poor their counter-offer is. You are wasting time arguing over how to split up peanuts.

    • Anonymous says:

      They’ll get to that, have no fear.

    • Anonymous says:

      Agree. How sad it will be, fighting over very small bundles of cash.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Oddly, I think the best recourse is to force arbitration. Any arbitrator will laugh at how they spend the millions they take in through tuition and things completely unrelated to education on pet projects.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, I couldn’t agree more: forced arbitration is the way to go. The sooner we get the arbitration process started, the better.

  9. Awesome0 says:

    We won’t take on equity with AAU peers until we finish our “Producers”ish goal of getting the UO kicked out of the AAU, so our peer group can be institutions more like WOU, Cal-State Bakersfield.

    • The Truth says:

      UO is aiming to create a new peer organization called the AAS: “American Association of Sports Schools”.

    • Awesome0 says:

      We are lagging behind LSU and USC too….LSU was paying new assistant professors 13 percent more than me, and they have less money than us…

  10. UO Matters says:

    Boycott Gottfredson’s investiture?

    • Awesome0 says:

      Or we all show up wearing fedoras?

    • Anonymous says:

      Boycott. There’s no way I’m going to attend the investiture of a president who doesn’t give a damn about faculty.

    • Anonymous says:

      Boycott. It’s not about loyalty to a previous president, it’s about disappointment and disillusion in the current president.

    • Anonymous says:

      Boycott. He’s a dick. Won’t even meet with the faculty about his bargaining team bozos, but wants us to show up and listen to his speech?

    • Anonymous says:

      Passive agressive boycott: “I’d love to listen to your speech, really, but I’ve got a paper to get out.”

    • Anonymous says:

      One better: “Can’t make it. I am busy taking my own raise in the form of less service and more sunshine.”

    • Anonymous says:

      I’d love to come, but Gottfredson needs to tell me where I should get the 3+ hours. Should I cut my teaching, research or service? Can I use sick time or vacation leave for his investiture?

    • Anonymous says:

      RE: more sunshine. That’s what got Inst. Neuro in trouble, for letting some poorly paid tech take their own raise with a little less work.

    • Anonymous says:

      Boycott. And I bet admins try a free iPad lottery for those who show.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Union: PLease give us the ability to strike.

    • Anonymous says:

      and don’t come to me with an increase that doesn’t cover the dues you are collecting.

    • Anonymous says:

      To strike you need a critical mass. The union isn’t strong enough yet. They need to build respect and trust through the negotiations. It’s a bit of a Catch-22. Having the strike option would give them more teeth in the negotiation.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Forced arbitration will suffice. I think an reasonable arbitrator will absolutely laugh at the incompetence of admin and how they are wasting funds.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes, reinstate the strike option asap.

    • Anonymous says:

      The union should do another card check… or at least a show of hands. I’m guessing that they are gathering support daily.

    • Aweosme0 says:

      Really, I had become a fan, but my support is waning because no one has called out the admin on how piss poor the counteroffer is. Everyone is instead worried about how split up a peanut. NTTF, TTF, if we really are united, we should be worried about the size of the pools, not how they are being split up.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Finally Mike calls her out. Rudnicks response, we spent the money already. Besides, we have an indoor track, a golf course and who knows what else to build.

    • Three-Toed Sloth says:

      Hm. An extra 26 mil to make UO almost competitive seems reasonable to me.

    • Anonymous says:

      To Awesome0 – it’s a process…be patient. The bargaining team isn’t going to let their insulting offer stand.

      To original Anonymous – striking is only off the table after the contract is signed.

  12. Fear. Uncertainty. Duplicity. The hallmarks of any great failing institution. We may not have mastered them yet, but we’re working on it. You heard it here first, but felt it long before me.

  13. Awesome0 says:

    “No one has said you can’t give out compression wages.”

    Does anyone have a birthday wish they could make? I think we have a lawyer you could use a day of truth telling.


  14. The Truth says:

    Why does UO have a General Counsel if they are also wasting student tuition dollars to employ a house law firm (presumably through a no-bid sweetheart contract arranged by Frohnmayer) to do the work the GC should be doing?

    • Anonymous says:

      You’ve obviously not interacted with Randy Geller. The real question si, why is he not out on his ass by now?

    • The Truth says:

      It was more of a rhetorical question meant to imply the one you asked directly. Believe me, I don’t actually think Geller has the ability to do even a fraction of the work his position should be doing.

    • Awesome0 says:

      The don’t have staff to pay for a person to address pay relative to comparators, but they do have staff to fact check a blog??

  15. Awesome0 says:

    If they worry is about recurring expenses, why can’t the do a retroactive COLA raise back to September 2012, or September 2010 for that matter. Shoot spent the entire reserve on a retroactive raise (basically a one time bonus). Then no recurring problem, but then we all get a 50,000 check.

    • UO Matters says:

      Because you’ll take the money and run.

    • Anonymous says:

      At least our graduate students get paid less. Until they get jobs, anyway.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Actually I probably wouldn’t. You could just put in something about paying it back. Or make at interest free housing subsidy type thing like several other major universities do. 50,000 bucks as an interest free loan to put towards buying a house (or refinancing) and then when you sell the house you have to pay it back. At UC boulder they offer 80,000 I believe. This allows the university to go the interest free loan as asset, and lets all of us reduce our monthly payments substantially (especially if takes out the mortage insurance) and also lets up take money that we would have saved up for a the down payment and use to do whatever else we want. Then the reserves don’t burn a hole in Johnson halls pockets either. Otherwise, pretty soon our UO police will need helipcopters with forward looking infared.

    • Anonymous says:

      Our administration falls to pieces at the notion of controlled parking lots. They’re not nearly grown up enough to manage this sort of act. Outside of athletics, they’re completely juvenile.

  16. The Truth says:

    The Administration’s (suck a lemon, Rudnick) goal is to create a university where all the money is spent on sports teams and related facilities, and shiny new buildings for the administrators and boosters. The students will exist only so as to provide the sports teams with a dedicated fan base, and will take all their classes online. There will still be poorly maintained classroom buildings (Lillis excepted, since they need it to look nice to sell their Mercedes MBA program), but students will use the classrooms only in as much as a location to sit with their laptops and log in to their online courses.

  17. Fire the Lawyers Gottfredson says:

    All responsibility for the abandonment of the goal to move toward parity with our AAU peers is in the hands of this administration. United Academics is forcing the conversation, and with UOMatters, the steam is just starting to rise. Without United Academics, we all would have been handed the same or lesser proposal that went out to non-bargaining unit faculty 6 weeks ago. Time for all faculty to join in raising the temperature on this administration. The message was clear today, we do not matter, our voices and concerns are marginal when compared to whoever is pulling at Gottfredson’s ear, because he sure is shit is not meeting with a wide swath of faculty. Temperature is gonna rise Mr. G.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Forced arbitration all the way. Lets get the real dirt on their finances.

    • UO Matters says:

      I’m thinking Rudnick’s billable hours would take a serious financial hit from binding fact-finding or arbitration. So, good threat for the union to try on her.

    • Old Man says:

      This Old Man suggests a different take on Prexy’s unwillingness to negotiate personally with the Union. Prexy has indicated to the Senate that he takes the UO Constitution seriously. This Constitution requires that he negotiate with the Senate (and, if need be, with the full Assembly) on contentious issues relative to the University’s Academic Mission. This requirement, which is in full accord with the Law and with OSU policies, puts him in an awkward position when it comes to the Union. He apparently recognizes that it would be unwise to negotiate with the Union on matters in which the Senate has an interest. As I see it, he is wise to leave negotiations to the lawyers. If the union and the lawyers work out something that he feels transgresses on his Constitutional obligations, he can then veto it.
      The Union organizers knew, or should have known, that they would be dealing with lawyers, and they were certainly fully aware of the political attitudes and degree of competence of the General Counsel. They should not now be surprised that their good intentions are thwarted. Perhaps they will soon realize that they, and the entire University, would be better off if they came back to Shared Governance conducted within the framework of a mutually respected Constitution.

    • UO Matters says:

      So, Gottfredson has now signed off on the constitution? Or maybe he’s withdrawn his objections to making it legally binding by putting it in the faculty contract? Or maybe he’s told his bargaining team that they are not “the university”, but rather it’s the faculty and the students? Nope.

    • Anonymous says:

      Gottfredson has done nothing for me. Wouldn’t most be able to claim the same?

    • UO Matters says:

      I put him and Rudnick down on my 1040 as dependents.

    • Anonymous says:

      ^ nice.

    • Anonymous says:

      Old Man is trying to fit Gottfredson’s behaviors into Old Man’s preexisting notion that shared governance would be a more effective way to deal with the administration and get faculty competitive compensation.

      History and the administration’s signals at the bargaining table tell us that is a naive notion. At least the union has forced the administration to show their hand on many issues and share some information. Without that, the administration would do what they have always done (and what they are trying to do, but failing at doing at the bargaining table) – pat faculty on the head and say “trust us – we know what’s best”.

      Have no doubt, the administration, and thus Gottfredson, has signaled loud and clear what their priorities are. Hint – it isn’t taking care of faculty.

    • Old Man says:

      “History and the administration’s signals at the bargaining table tell us that is a naive notion.” Anonymous may be right – the Old Man may be naïve. On the other hand, he may have some perspectives of value. (1) On history: Functional shared governance was shredded by Dave Frohnmayer, with an able assist from John Moseley. And it was no accident. I remember well the occasion when I met them both on 13th, and John joyously announced to me their intent to refashion the UO in a corporate model. Rebuilding the trust that characterized UO governance prior to that Age of Darkness will take time and work. The opportunity to do it with the aid of a President who has, by his actions, demonstrated faith in the Constitution, could be squandered by the adoption of an “Us against Them” approach characteristic of unionization. (2) On the bargaining table: When the Old Man engaged in UO governance (as he approached retirement), he realized that JH had its share of sub-par characters. The union may be more up against these windmills than up against Prexy. In large part, they are a legacy from the Frohmayer-Moseley years. Some have been flushed out and the remainder may not last much longer. (3) The Old Man has sympathy with Anonymous – the young are impatient and are not to be blamed for that, but it looks to me as though the union negotiations may be breeding resentments rather than reaching solutions.

    • Anonymous says:

      I respect the Old Man’s perspective. I’ll just say that if Prexy is not guiding these negotiations carefully and letting these clowns speak for him, that is a failure of leadership.

      If he is guiding them carefully, then his signals are clear and that is a failure of leadership.

      It’s hard to know when patience turns to foolishness. I’ve watched this nonsense for over a decade.

      I’d also add, I think the negotiations are merely giving voice to long held resentments – not breeding them where they did not already exist.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dog Says to old man and others

      As old man writes:

      “union negotiations may be breeding resentments rather than reaching solutions”

      No shit, Sherlock

      We are already a divided campus prone to mistrust (sometimes well deserved),
      polarization and alienation – the main unintended consequence of the union
      is and will be to, at least in the short term, amplify this. I posted thoughts
      like this pre-card signing (because I am such a fuckin’ clairvoyant) and
      none of those thoughts has evolved to a more positive view of unionization in a polarized academic environment.

      As pointed out by the math of UOmatters, its now been 364 days since the announcement of the card signing victory/landslide. Add that to 360 days and its been 724 days
      that I have gotten a raise, and I suspect it will be at least another 724 days
      when I get another one, well, cause I am a god damn dog, and really, nothing more these days.

      Individuals like Old Man are very important to consistently bring institutional memory to the forum. I concur that the Age of Darkness will have had a multi-decade fall out here at the UO.

    • Anonymous says:

      Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. You know… the kind of stuff UOM and some others provide. It’s not Gandalf’s “small acts of kindness and love,” but it is nonetheless far reaching and more effective than anything else I know of on campus at the moment. Please let more people join in, letting JH know how serious we are about preserving the University of Oregon despite their every act. They have largely come late in the game, and piss all over the campus that we know more thoroughly than they ever will. We know the faculty and staff, we know the students. They know nothing. Rise up. Sit down on the job. Strike!!!

    • UO Matters says:

      Comment of the week. Stop by the UO Matters dispensary for your pouch of Longbottom Leaf.

  18. Awesome0 says:

    Geller doesn’t like being yelled at. Maybe Rudnick has damaged his hearing (either sitting next to her/or she ripped him during the caucus for suggesting additional raises could be given out).

    • UO Matters says:

      That’s Blandy. Geller hasn’t shown up since the first session. He left shaking like a leaf.

    • Anas clypeata says:

      Watch out. Every time Blandy is terribly wrong about something, he gets a promotion.

      In unrelated news, I hear the UO is looking for a provost.

  19. The Truth says:

    A tabacco lawyer is determining the future of this state’s alleged flagship university.

    How wonderful.

  20. Anonymous says:

    PS: The Old Man certainly meant OUS, not OSU.

  21. Anonymous says:

    “Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay.”

    Silly … that “everyday” you speak of IS the great power. When perspectives change, the current does likewise.

    • Anonymous says:

      In the words of Dog… “No shit, Sherlock”

    • Anonymous says:

      In your “no shit” militancy, you don’t “get it”. And no, I won’t explain. Strike? Fool’s play.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yea, who needs the strike threat when the administration is giving us everything we ask for.

    • Anonymous says:

      My sons, when teenagers, used to threat “strike”. To what, I asked? Because I wouldn’t give in to the demands of the day? Uh … well, yeah.

      I suspect that UOM is being infiltrated by anti-union posters. What say you?

    • Awesome0 says:

      I think forced arbitration is good enough. The threat to have them open the books for real is more dangerous than any strike.

    • Anonymous says:

      This strike vote isn’t anti-union. We’re currently ignorable.
      Arbitration will just split the difference between administration and the union’s proposal.

    • Awesome0 says:

      Striking will be counter-productive in my view. We lose the public opinion battle if we don’t show up to teach while some professors get salaries (not many) which are over 200k. Its better to threaten to expose what the amdmins feel their true priorities are. I honestly think Blandy might likely the idea of raising salaries if extra money arrives. But Rudnick has revealed her job is to make sure no willy nilly raises are given out.

    • Anonymous says:

      And if no strike, what reason do they have to give raises?

  22. Anonymous says:

    Aww — isn’t that cute!