4/10/2012: From the United Academics Facebook page:
April 4, 2012, forty-four years to the day after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated while advocating for the right of public sector workers to organize, the UO administration and its legal counsel – and Frohnmayer’s private legal firm – essentially declared that we faculty do not have the right to organize. This is tragic.
The assassination of Martin Luther King was tragic, but unconnected to the unionization of UO faculty and to Dave Frohnmayer until the writing of these unfortunate two sentences.
True, but April 6, 2012 was 1,979 years to the day after Jesus of Nazareth was assassinated for much the same reason. Who was at fault then? That’s right: Dave Frohnmayer. Yea, verily, he is the Devil’s Advocate.
The pro-union folks started jumping the shark long ago – like when they imply through their materials that union formation would address the problem of students approaching their education as customers (in their “excellence” document). Or for another example, see comment 2 of:
http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/27801560-47/university-union-faculty-public-covered.html.csp
It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Has celebration turned to desperation for our poor comrades?
No, I think they are still celebrating. Even if the University successfully challenges the bargaining unit on TTF vs. NTTF grounds, one possibility is that the ERB says “OK – there are two unions then.” Don’t underestimate the ability of our comrades – or at least their outside advisors – to work the legal system for their ends.
I take the comment on the union Facebook page to be raising the question of why the U of O administration is spending its resources opposing the formation of a public union, of a kind that King struggled to endorse–and for which a majority of faculty have apparently expressed support. What is the principle the administration stands on, in doing this? That such a union is incompatible with “academic excellence”? First, isn’t this a decision for a majority of the faculty to make? Second, what right does an administration that put a fourth rate academic like Russ Tomlin in charge of these matters have to speak about “academic excellence”?
The “majority of faculty” argument doesn’t fly until it’s clear that a majority of all TTF support unionization.
Why?
That’s like saying the SEIU couldn’t have unionized classified staff unless a majority of Pipe and Steam Fitters were in favor.
No that’s not, kangaroo. TTF and NTTF are materially different – the former for example can supervise PhD’s while the latter cannot. The mis-application of labor laws which are designed for pipe and steam fitters to a group which is materially different from them (do pipe-fitters run competitive international searches to fill positions, flying in candidates from thousands of miles away?) and from each other is exactly the problem here. Thank you, in fact, for illustrating how off-base some of the pro-union “voices” are.
The administration is acting on behalf of the faculty who are opposed to this, so please stop spinning this as a “management vs. labor” dispute. It is an “administration and faculty opposed to union vs. faculty in support of union” dispute.
Publius,
Care to elaborate on your statement that Tomlin is a fourth-rate academic? Care to post your vita and his (pre-administration) next to each other so we can see? I suspect we wouldn’t see as much difference as you make it out to be.
Besides, Russ is out – one of the last changes The Hat (who _is_ indisputably a first-rate academic) set in motion before being shown the door. The short-sightedness of unionization is matched only by its poor timing.
Dog to help calibrate the scale
1. Yes RH is first-rate
2. The Dog and all dogs are sixth-rate
so now you have the high and low end
Maybe Tomlin should be upgraded to 2-3
TTF are the core of the UO faculty which is why it’s critical for a majority of TTF (all TTF) to support the union if it is to have any legitimacy. Pipe and Steam fitters are not a core constituency of the SEIU which is why kangaroo’s analogy is poor.
The jab at Tomlin is petty and unnecessary.
NTTF Research positions are often filled with international searches and candidates flown in from thousands of miles away.
The 1/4 of faculty who are TT don’t actually get to make this decision on behalf of the other 3/4.
That you want to take away their vote completely probably speaks to why there is motivation to form a union in the first place.
1. What is the relevance of the distance NTTF researchers come from?
2. TTF are the foundation of the faculty and have a bigger say in university matters. Why should a postdoc who doesn’t teach and will only be here temporarily have the same say as a tenured faculty member? That doesn’t make sense.
3. Who said anything about taking away NTTF’s votes? If NTTF want a union then go ahead and make one – but why do you need TTF to be a part of it?
1. Somebody keeps bringing up that TTF are different because they get hired from farther away, I’m just pointing out that plenty of NTTF do also. Hell, I know NTTF who have given up TTF jobs elsewhere to be NTTF here.
2. Having a bigger say in university matters doesn’t grant a bigger say in labor relations.
Outside of labor issues, why should a junior TTF have a greater say in university governance than an NTTF Researcher who directs a large organization?
As we become more and more of a research university, I think tenure track status becomes less and less a predictor of how important one is to the university.
3. Saying that you can’t say faculty support something until the tenure-track subset supports it implies that NTTF either don’t get a vote, or their votes are simply worth less.
Honestly, it seems like TTF are part of the bargaining unit because TTF were involved in forming the union.
If I were forming a union, I wouldn’t have included TTF and I’d have picked this one: http://upte.org/
1. I think we’re in agreement then that how far away someone comes from to take a job at UO isn’t important.
2. We’re not becoming more and more a research university, we’re becoming less and less of one. Whatever the direction we’re going in, TTF straddle both the research and academic missions of the university whereas NTTF Researchers don’t. But the points stands – if we’re trying to form a FACULTY union, ORs should not be included at the expense of a large fraction of TTF.
3. It sounds like we are also in agreement that TTF shouldn’t be included in this union.
Answer my question: if a majority of faculty want a union, what is the principled basis on which the administration spends its resources opposing it? Perhaps a majority of faculty do not support it; I said it appears they do. If the claim is that academic excellence requires opposing the union, my question is: shouldn’t the faculty be the judge of academic excellence? Anonymous 3:14 would rather we rely on the kindness of administrators, who, as he/she himself acknowledges, get fired if they believe in excellence (The Hat). I was probably wrong to call Tomlin a fourth rate academic, given the high regard in which people like Anonymous 3:14 hold him. I should have said that he’s a fifth rate administrator.
Publius- Go to the union website and read the “faculty voices” section. You will see that much of the motivation for forming a union has little or nothing to do with promoting academic excellence. Thus, it is a fallacy to conclude that the vote (er, card check) on the union is a vote on academic excellence.
Dog to Publius
your rate scale is evolving.
Yes academics rate, as said before, from 1 to 6
but the dynamic range for administrators is different and subject
to different rules.
1. There is no such thing as a first rate administrator ..
2. All second rate administrators always think they are first
rate but in reality are third rate, as there are no second rate
administrators
3. Tomlin then would be 2 rates removed from the top. Fortunately,
rates for administrators go to 3 to 11 (since dogs can’t be administrators then the bottom of the scale is not clearly established by administrative.
This all means that Tomlin is a 9th rate administrator.
I hope that clears this up. There will be an exam on this,
eventually.
dogs
Frankly, I find the MLK statement quoted above to be one of the more concerning things I’ve seen out of the union. Whatever the exact percentages of support may be, the unionization initiative is decidedly not a simple matter of the administration opposing the faculty, and the union folks know this. They also know that the happenstance of Frohnmayer’s loose association with the firm that houses the leading labor lawyer in town is irrelevant. What does it say about the future of our campus if we are in a union that is willing to use this kind of propaganda to advance their interests? One can be a passionate supporter of unions in many contexts and still oppose unionization of the TTF at a research university such as ours. The difficulty in forming a coherent bargaining unit that includes the TTF is indicative of why the approach to collective bargaining that has been a positive force in many corporations/factories is not appropriate for a research university–a setting where unionization will likely harden boundaries between faculty and administration that should be porous, divide department faculty in departments and colleges (because of the variable, constantly shifting supervisory roles played by some but not all faculty), and undermine shared governance. These are not the types of issues at play in traditional factories and corporations, which is why there is no contradiction in supporting unionization in those contexts and opposing it at UO.
Well-said. I also find the union organizer’s focus on unrelated matters such as Frohnmayer disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the organizers have done very little in the way of explaining how unionization will help us solve problems.
Yes, and last I checked Frohnmayer is no longer UO President.
Very well-said Anon 5:24. Thank you!
I’m willing to invoke Godwin’s law and cut off comments on this thread as soon as someone can link Frohnmayer, MLK, Hitler, and Walter Reuther.
Here’s a case study, it gets more and more interesting as you read on. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/02/24/johnson
The assassination of Dr. King was tragic and the legacy he inspired set a lasting impression on April 4, making this a date to honor his life, his work, and the values carried forward in his name – including union organizing rights. That I see a promise in collective bargaining, not just for a single workplace, but also as Dr. King saw it as a movement that “bends toward justice” the larger society (“moral universe”) and that I am inspired by Dr. King’s message and identify with those values did in fact leave me dismayed, indeed, saddened when I observed the reaction of the administration to the petition by United Academics. It was tragic to me and probably many of our colleagues too. Will you think empathy please?
The administration declared neutrality for a long time and then reneged on that public statement. This was a violation of trust and integrity for me (and perhaps for others), a defiance of state precedent for faculty unionization (and public employee organizing), and a dismissal of our right, and the laws that protect that right, to pursue collective bargaining. Hiring a law firm with a former university president as a member to oppose the vote of well over half of all instructional and research faculty signifies to me a larger social tragedy of top-down, cronyism without account – something Dr. King challenged at multiple levels. Elements of this type of governance are engulfing America’s institutions and higher education, something uomatters has so dutifully uncovered. Unions, in my view, offer an important antidote to this administrative fiat in an otherwise limited institutional environment.
To be sure, my facebook post was not about a scapegoat or propaganda. No, it was not endorsed by anyone else associated with United Academics; it was about _MY_ expression of frustration in seeing the integrity of several administrators’ word compromised on a day that symbolizes values of justice, democracy, and empowerment for me and many others – not equivalent to 1968, but a tragedy for many. The parallels were not meant to win you over, and may not have been conveyed as clearly as I would like, but I get to express my disgust, dismay and frustration as an informed member of this community. The administration could have chosen a different path, submitted their objections on a different day, or qualified their position on the day they did submit their challenges. That they did not gives me the right to express the dishonor I see in their choice. That I see this blog commentary is now devolving to implications that I am equating Frohnmayer to Hitler is quite tragic too, unable to even hear good historical reasoning.
If you burned a cross on Easter would that be tragic for some people? Would it be connected to the crucifixion of Jesus? Yes, in some way, but not in a discrete fashion.
My understanding of the administration’s position is that they are neutral about unionization but opposed to this particular bargaining unit. This seems reasonable to me. What I don’t understand is the hysteria over the use of a lawyer from Frohnmayer’s firm – she’s the best labor attorney in town so this also seems reasonable to me. So the analogies to Dr. King’s fight and the indignation over a distant connection to Frohnmayer come off as distractions. This, coupled with the fact that the union organizers have been reluctant to tell me things that do matter to me leads to frustration.
For example, the organizers made the claim that a majority of TTF support the union. Is that a majority of all TTF, or a majority of the subset of TTF that fit the organizer’s bargaining unit definition? The answer to this question is important to me, yet we can’t seem to get a straight answer. I can understand the organizers wanting to keep quiet, but then be completely quiet – don’t make the claim and then leave us guessing. Can you answer this question Michael?
I agree with anon@8:35. Michael, if “trust and integrity” in the administration are so important to you, then tell us whether or not a majority of ALL the TTF signed cards. The union website still says, “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.” We now know this statement is FALSE. Where’s the integrity in that?
If trust and integrity are important to you EXPLAIN to us why ORs were included in the union when the organizers knew this would leave a significant portion of TTF out of the bargaining unit. Why were ORs included at the expense of TTF? To me, this is a fundamental component of the bargaining unit decision but the only explanation we’ve been given is that TTF who supervise ORs legally can’t be in the union. Then the obvious solution to forming a union of “all faculty” would be to not include ORs, right? Apparently not. No explanation has been given for this strange decision. Again, where’s the integrity?
Wouldn’t it be a little bizarre to include supervisors who cannot be in the union in a vote on whether a union should be formed?
…and just to be clear, because there seems to be so little understanding here of the “NTTF Research” side of things, there are no shortage of NTTF with supervisory roles who would also not be in the bargaining unit.
The union made the claim that a majority of TTF supported the union. Are you (kangaroo) saying that the statement really means that a majority of the TTF that qualify for the bargaining unit supported the union? And if so, do you know that for a fact, or are you speculating? As to whether or not it’s bizarre, it’s the union making the claim, not me. I’m simply asking for clarification as “a majority of TTF” has a very clear meaning and one that is very different from the other.
As to your second point, I don’t see how it really matters that some NTTF might have supervisory roles. The question is, should ORs be included in the bargaining unit at the expense of a significant fraction of TTF? If I were trying to make a faculty union, my answer would be “definitely not” but the organizers took a different approach and should explain their reasoning – if they intend to act with integrity.
kangaroo, I am a PI TTF. I can understand why I would not be part of a union that includes members I may supervise. I am left wondering if there is a mechanism to give me a voice in this process, though. A union will have significant impacts on my job, as well as those I supervise. I think a union is a good idea for post-docs and NTTF. I am not certain it is a good idea for TTF, and less certain still about a union that divides those with common goals (faculty).
Anon,
I’m totally speculating, I have no connection to organizers and I’m not even in the bargaining unit.
I wouldn’t prioritize supervisory TTF over non-supervisory ORs if I were interested in improving the labor conditions (contracts, raises) for faculty at UO – non-supervisory ORs are clearly in more need of collective bargaining. Look at where the equity raises went.
I think it’s also pretty reasonable to feel like there was a bit of a bait and switch with respect to recognizing who was in the bargaining unit. I hope they can win back some trust there.
ddg,
Don’t you feel like the classified & OAs in your dept share your goals? in my mixed environment the difference has mostly been who was around on veterans day and who got it off (back when that was a thing) – being in a union or not didn’t really affect that we worked together with common goals.
Unfortunately, now the big difference is that the classified are getting raises and the TTF PI at the top got a raise, but the NTTF are not – and control over that seems to be at the state level, not the university.
For all of it’s problems in formation, I’m hugely supportive of a faculty union specifically because there seems to be no other mechanism by which NTTF Research staff will get systematic raises….and I don’t want my co-workers to leave.
I support a union for NTTF Researchers, but not the crazy bargaining unit as proposed. The most pressing problem for NTTFs has been the statewide salary freeze, which was supposed to prevent even TTFs from getting a raise and RL got fired for. The longer range problem is people paid on grants (a lot of NTTF Researchers) – funding is getting tighter and grants are getting smaller. I don’t know how a union is going to provide systematic raises and job security in that environment but I wish them the best.
anon 2:49, post-docs paid on grants have budgeted amounts that depends on the funding source. There are usually raises built in, which can’t be given because of the salary freeze. Allowing post-docs to be given budgeted raises would be a huge benefit. But some fellowships provide high salaries and others mediocre salaries. It would be tough to mandate salary equity based on seniority, for example, because those additional funds might not be available.
Job security is almost impossible. We currently can only give contracts for a length of time that money is available. If the Union will provide money for salaries past the guaranteed time of money being available, that would be great. But I’m sure that is impossible.
kangaroo, I’m a little confused by your response. We both state we are supportive of NTTF in unions. But you say a faculty union is the only way to help the NTTF. So you think an NTTF union would not? And by faculty union, you mean a union that doesn’t include me? And yes, I think many parts of this University share common goals, so I would have no problem working with unionized faculty. But I would still be excluded from giving my direct input to an organization that would control many parts of my professional life, so I see that as a problem.
Dog to Roo
You have hit upon one of the big “problems” in y mview
“Don’t you feel like the classified & OAs in your dept share your goals? “
In my department, which is composed of various discipline subgroups, there
is no sense, in my view of a shared goal (tho all my colleagues would
dispute this) We pit ourselves against one another (with out even realizing it) and thus have hard time assembling
a shared vision in practice (we have one on paper of course) …
I have been at many institutions, and all have the same generic set of
issues but at the UO I have consistently found that polarization comes
first as an almost natural reaction and if shared vision ever evolves from polarization, its a most painful process.
To me, this is why the UO is so heavily siloed. We think this is normal – some silos are, but ours are fortified with nuclear toxic slime…
I think the entire union issue is bearing this out.
Even in an NTTF-only union, you would still have the problem of people who otherwise fit the definition of the bargaining unit being excluded because they have a supervisory role.
Isn’t the “crazy” bargaining unit is everyone with a faculty ID card who doesn’t supervise other people with a faculty ID card?
Which would be totally straightforward if there were a more clear understanding of what “supervise” means.
I don’t think the bargaining unit is “everyone with a faculty ID card who doesn’t supervise other people with a faculty ID card?,” since I fall into this category and I’m not on the ERB list of people in the bargaining unit. (I’m TTF and supervise graduate students and undergrads, but no postdocs, staff, secirity personnel, accountants, mahouts, or anyone else I can think of!)
I appreciate your answers, but I think this discussion is going in circles. We still lack a statement from the union organizers (who are quickly losing the sympathy I had for their cause) of (1) what qualifies or disqualifies someone from being in the bargaining unit, (2) why these criteria were chosen, and (3) why it’s ok that faculty like me are excluded from a group that claims to speak+ for “all faculty voices,” especially if this is done in order to include people like postdocs who *don’t teach.* (In case anyone mis-interprets the last point: postdocs are great, and it’s reasonable for them have a union of their own; this is a separate issue.)
+ item 2 at http://uauoregon.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/75/files/2012/02/Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf
Walter Reuther was in Germany the night Hitler had the Reichstag burnt. And at the Lincoln memorial when King gave his I Have A Dream speech. But Frohnmayer? Not seeing a link, sorry.