7/26/2013: From Colleen Flaherty in IHE:
When adjuncts push to unionize, they typically want better pay, better benefits (or any benefits if they don’t have them) and job security. With unionization drives spreading, a key question is: Does collective bargaining yield meaningful gains?
The results of numerous initial contracts suggest the answer is “Yes.” Negotiations on first contracts can take six months or more, but gains in those contracts frequently include significant pay increases and other, non-financial benefits.
“[Unionization] does empirically make a difference,” said Adrianna Kezar, professor education at the University of Southern California and director of the Delphi Project to examine and develop the role of adjunct faculty. …
Nope, do the math. The administration will settle for a 14.5% raise package. Proportionally that’s 0.145. And union dues will be 1.25% of pay. And 0.145 minus 1.25 is a 1.105% *decrease* in take home pay.
Suckers.
dog says
while I am sure the above is intentional
but if 14.5% = .145 then 1.25% = .0125
“Not Jim Bean” my ass.
It’s worse than Jim says. The 14.5% will be a one time increase, while the 1.25% dues have to be paid every year. Compounding annually, this means that within 9 years faculty will be paying every dime of their salary to the union.
I hope no one at the UO gave this dumbass, who has the math skills of a 7-year old, a degree or a job.
Deep breaths. I’m sure these are all jokes. A legacy of Bean’s ineptness with percentages is a steady stream of these.
No, I’ve checked several times with my slide rule. You need to start by taking the log of the percentage changes, then use arcsines, of course.
Do the math? Looks like you’re both doing some funny sort of algebraic/linguistic alchemy.
fortunately, this peer reviewed study in the premier academic journal in labor relations has already ‘done the math’ for a national sample of all faculty. not a simple answer, so guessing and self-justifying answers, one way or the other may be more satisfying. btw,hedrick and henson are 1980s UO doc grads.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1645&context=ilrreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Disthere%2520really%2520a%2520faculty%2520union%2520salary%2520premium%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CDsQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1645%2526context%253Dilrreview%26ei%3DgQDzUZyGELC8jAK_l4HoDg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGvhqPiNA17a7Nn2RjDFJRQ3lVzWQ%26bvm%3Dbv.49784469%2Cd.cGE#search=%22isthere%20really%20faculty%20union%20salary%20premium%22
So help me out on this. What’s their estimate of the effect of unionization on adjunct wages and benefits?
To ‘help me out’ it really is not a smple answer–other than significantly positive, but small, (2-3 %) on average. why so small? from the paper:It is not clear that unions are able to enhance university revenue through increases in either tuition or for public institutions, state support.
One could argue might be a bit larger here if we think admin bloat has been larger here than the average?just laying out arguments…
The paper also makes the obvious point that nonpecuniary benefits (job security, grievance procedures,etc.) may be more important than pecuniary benefits