3/21/2012: Dan Dugger in math sends me a link to his webpage of arguments against the union, his full post is here. The union’s own page is here. Professor Dugger’s points include:
- The United Academics union has acted in a way that does not inspire confidence.
- The union claims to support faculty desire for greater “transparency” from the administration, but the union has itself not behaved in a transparent manner.
- The interests of tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty are too inconsistent for these units to belong to a common union.
- Unionization of college campuses is something this country has very little experience with; therefore, we should move very carefully and gives ourselves a way out if things don’t go well.
- Unions are built on the power of the collective. However, there is also power in individualism, and this should not be ignored or undermined.
- The full cost to the faculty of having a union has not been discussed.
- Unions bargain by using the weapon of strikes; but on a campus, strikes hurt more than the administration—they hurt the students.
- The way unions work runs in many ways opposite to the best interests of a research university.
Snow Bound Dog
suggests
1. This is a good summary statement and most
of these points have been raised in the various
blog postings/rantings.
2. Given bullet 4, bullet 8 does not necessarily follow. But bullet 8 (the last bullet) has not had adequate discussion. Of course, I don’t know what ‘best interests of a research university’ actually means.
I would never observe a picket line in a faculty union-sponsored strike. Never.
I encourage everybody to read the statement from Dan Dugger very carefully.
Moreover, I suggest that UO-matter to publish the statement full in his blog
to show a respect to the the research community at this University. There are
many of us who DO HAVE DIFFERENT opinion on the unionization, and we seriously
think that the unionization WILL damage dramatically this University.
The link to Dan’s full post is at the end of the first sentence above.
While I have been a supporter of the union, I plan to sign the petition to hold a special election. Dugger is right to be upset about the timing of the filing of the cards. I am, too.
Perhaps a fuller debate on the subject is in order.
Where do we get access to this petition to hold a special election?
Many people are emailing President Berdahl at [email protected] to urge the UO administration to file a challenge to the union certification. All urged to do this!
I hope Professor Dugger’s excellent statement will be emailed to all tenure-related faculty. Does anyone know how to do this? Tublitz-Hurwit?
Also — info about the petition to hold a special election. What is that about and where can we find it?
Chicken pecks –
To succeed, a petition for a special election would require 30% of the *proposed* bargaining unit — some 500-600 people — and not 30% of, say, TTFs (see OAR 115-025-0075 (1)). More realistic would be a combination of (a) lobbying the Admin to contest the bargaining unit and (b) a separate signed petition objecting to the bargaining unit, signed by as many or as few care to sign. See https://uomatters.com/2012/03/erb-gives-notice-asks-for-objections.html for the procedure.
I think all those TTF who are fearful of a union or are equivocating should realize there is good precedent for what a union can do here. United Academics at the University of Vermont has negotiated contracts and greatly increased NTTF conditions. When I taught courses at UVM before the unionization, I was paid less than a UO GTF I salary and had no benefits. From what I hear, over the past decade research at UVM is on an upward trajectory and it is increasing in rankings. I think it would hard to make the case that unionization hurt academics at UVM. I recently talked with a colleague at UVM who is fairly aware of union activities and he reported no issues with NTTF and TTF in the same unit. Contracts set minimum standards for compensation and make clear work loads. Then everyone goes about business as usual. I am not a union expert or organizer myself, but I don’t see any ticket to mediocrity in this. I see a fair amount of work ahead for those devoted to the cause, and I will be surprised if we all don’t benefit in some way. See this for an historical perspective at UVM (parallels are clear):
http://www.vermontcynic.com/2.11626/support-the-faculty-help-those-who-help-you-1.1612459#.T2q8elE2Hvw
and the current contract at UVM is here, though I have no idea how UO’s will differ but its content is worth browsing, and the salary articles begin on page 66:
http://www.unitedacademics.org/FINAL_FT_CBA_2012-14.pdf
Is UVM a research university? My guess would be no. Huge difference.
UVM brings in more external funding than UO ($146M vs $135M in 2010). Is UO a research university?
UVM has a medical school. That is what brings in most of the external funding.
For those who write things like “I will be surprised if we don’t benefit in some way” from the formation of a union:
What do you think about the fact that in the past several years, faculty and NTTF have gotten raises (not great ones considering what they make, but some) while the UO’s classified workers (who are unionized) have had their salary frozen and have been forced to take furloughs?
Does that include their engineering and medical schools? If so – huge difference. I looked up their counterpart to my department and it’s very small without much going on (i.e quite mediocre – research wise).
Question to Anon 11:36. You speak of benefits to NTTF, (which could great benefit as the university is a monopsony for them). Any benefits to TTF? You don’t mention any. Otherwise they are taxing me at 1-2 percent for your net gain, not mine.
Isn’t University of Vermont UVT?
Awesome0
I am TTF, but my department will be more successful if NTTF are treated better and if the average class quality improves with better staffing. I won’t resent paying dues because TTF will have plenty of power too, and I doubt the rate will be over 1%. There is clearly a lot of thought behind the choice of the bargaining unit. There is something to be said for streamlining the process. I was skeptical of the entire union effort until I talked to enough people on both sides of the lines, and especially with people at universities where it is working.
Virginia Tech is VT. Vermont is UVM. I think the university has it right and the state initials have it wrong.
You know, as TTF, you can do something about the treatment of NTTF *without* forming a union. Go to your head, and explain you would like to give them a more favorable teaching load and/or better salary. He or she can then respond with the trade-offs which will then be made, since budgets are limited, and you can have a rational discussion. None of this involves unionization. Did you try that?
What anon 2:33 proposes is more of the ad hoc “solutions” that make UO so chaotic and lacking any basic human resources plan – and probably why so many NTTF and TTF signed union cards. The approach of a little fix here, with a new problem there, seems to work for some who have benefitted from this approach, but the overall quality of employment at UO has not markedly improved in my 17 years. In fact, benefits have eroded, the number of NTTFS has grown, salary remains stagnant, etc. Most faculty apparently get this. I do not mind pooling a small amount of resources in dues (about 1%) to assure a basic human resources plan, a seat at PEBB, a lawyer, i.e., a broader fix gets put into place with a contract.
As for the union organizing efforts, I recall numerous times being invited to participate, attend information sessions, public panels, two senate forums, and more over 2 years. I think our colleagues did a great job in reaching out, even though some faculty did not want to hear.
“Ad hoc” solutions are exactly what have made the UO so GREAT (remember – we are much better than what we should be) in spite of the limited resources we’ve had. That’s what so many that are whipped up in all of this seem to forget. I fear that the union will severely limit our flexibility to come up with these ad hoc, chaotic solutions that have served us so well in the past.
I am Anon 2:33. I will be Frog from here on. If there is a problem, fix it to the best of your abilities. My main problem with the unionization effort is they haven’t been clear about (1) what are the problems they wish to fix, and (2) what specifically it is they will be able to do to fix it. I hear murmerings about salary. Will they increase our salaries? How? We had a round of salary increases last year. Do they want to prevent the abuses of public monies by those in JH? How? Show me an example where these things were accomplished by a union at a similar research university. “Ad hoc” solutions are at least solutions. It’s similar to why I don’t like idiologies – I prefer to deal in empirical evidence, not some grand theory of everything which I then try to pigeonhole the facts. And, finally, it really irks me when I here the commentor above say that he or she wishes NTTF were treated better — it is exactly us TTF who are in a position to change the material facts of the employment of NTTF. In my department, as far as I can tell, the conditions are set by the Head. If it bothers the commentator, why didn’t he or she try to do something about it? If you see something wrong, do something about it, don’t just wring your hands waiting for some authority to intervene.
Oh if only it were that simple – “If you see something wrong, do something about it”.
The facts are that we face dwindling stable funding, administrative bloat and increased enrollment. What is one response to that? Cheap labor in NTTF’s. It’s happening all over (http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/stratedgy/adjunct-nation). I imagine many NTTF’s start here full of promise and happy to be part of the University, only to be beaten down over time. Deans and admins (good and bad) face increasing pressure to fill seats and reduce spending. And NTTf’s have no bargaining power or well-defined processes to follow – as has been stated, it’s ad hoc, up to the individual and very dependent on the unit.
This isn’t an argument for or against a union that includes TTF and NTTF but to say “if you see something wrong, do something about it” ignores the complexity and competing pressures involved.
Actually, sometimes it’s better to go for the simple, ad hoc solution. I agree with Frog, no joke. We have several NTTFs in our department, and their workloads were getting heavier and compensation was not increasing to match the workload. ONE TTF found out this was happening, presented it at a faculty meeting, and everyone agreed it should stop, so the Chair’s unilateral actions were subverted. This can happen in every department. What does it mean? It might mean TTF need to take on an extra course here and there, or stop getting so many course releases. SHARE the burden. DO something. Yeah, it’s unpleasant. But we need to put our money where our mouths are. How many courses do you teach a year? 4? Less? Many UO adjuncts teach 9, and at a two-thirds or less of an asst prof. salary teaching same courses. And the myth that NTTFs don’t have research profiles so they can teach more is no longer in touch with reality. And yes, there’s something you *YOU* can do about it in an ad hoc way. Learn more about the NTTFs in your department. The young ones, at least, are still trying to get tenure-track jobs so they’re trying to do research on top of that heavy load. Find out how much they teach and how much they make. Find out if they teach in other places, too. Some of them are driving up to Salem or Corvallis three times a week to make ends meet because they can’t make it work only at UO. Often, they’re loaded just below benefits-eligible FTE. It needs to stop. Just posting a link to show it’s a national trend and sighing about complexities is not going to make things change, since it just justifies the continuation of these practices.
– Tired of TTF Throwing Up Their Hands and Forming Committees/Unions So They Can Talk About Complexity Some More
I agree that departments can improve salaries and working conditions for NTTFs. This seems desirable in that individual departments are in the best position to judge the tradeoffs involved in higher levels of compensation. Individual departments are also more likely to have a deeper understanding of the labor market for adjuncts in their particular field. Last year, our department reviewed salaries for adjuncts and increased their compensation by 35%.
In our department, TTF teach 6 courses per year. Nominally, we spend 40% of our time on teaching, 40% on research, and 20% on service. NTTFs in our department teach but there are no research or service expectations and their evaluation depends solely on teaching. Therefore, it’s reasonable to expect an NTTF to teach 6 courses per year for 40% of the pay of an assistant professor (i.e. each course represents 6.7% of annual salary). Compensation for 9 courses should be 60% of the salary of an assistant professor (9 x 6.67% = 60%). By this metric, NTTF salaries at UO might be about right.
Anon 8:35. Nice idea but it ain’t happening in my unit. NTTF are subject to the capricious whims of inept admins. Ad Hoc is by definition not generalizable and therefore not consistent or predictable. When pressure mounts to cut costs and put more butts in the seats, those with no power or standing get a raw deal. That’s the reality in many units. I for one would prefer a system that doesn’t rely on the goodwill of others because that clearly has not worked campus wide.
Again this isn’t an argument for or against a union of TTF and NTTF.
Puppy- why do you work there? Regardless of the presence of a union, you’ll be happier in a department that isn’t run by “inept admins”.
What I hear in my group is that faculty pay is frozen, so my group of research NTTFs have all been without raises for years, and will continue to go without. Unless they leave, which is starting to happen. 85% of TTFs got raises, SEIU is getting raises and highly skilled research NTTFs are getting told that everything is frozen.
They can find other jobs easier than we can replace them!
The objections strike me as “the ways we think unions work in certain trades don’t work at the University,” but they ignore that the AAUP has to deal with this precise issue elsewhere (and has successfully done so). It also offers no way forward other than business-as-usual, which even a lot of anti-union people would agree isn’t acceptable. I think a lot of people who oppose a faculty union have never actually been a part of one, or else the objections would be more specific than these vague impressions that somehow a UAW-style shop boss is going to show up and impose a one-size-fits-all solution, which is ironically the very thing that Johnson Hall is starting to push down towards the units (new budget model, anyone?) in its efforts to run the UO like a giant cash machine.
The union is going to be taking part of my salary, therefore the burden is on them to give “more specific than these vague impressions” on how they plan to solve problems. Pointing out problems around here and riling everyone up is easy – but I’ve heard very little from the union on how they plan to solve these problems. The things that they ARE going to do, are likely to just create more problems, in my opinion.
In reply to Beowulf, it’s wrongheaded to assert that NTTF’s don’t or shouldn’t do research. They work as hard or harder than most TTFs I know and have a lot more student contact hours. Even if they don’t have time to work on their research, they SHOULD be able to. I think it’s time that we recognize this and make their jobs consistent with the egalitarian ideals that we claim to represent.
To Grindel (sic):
Perhaps NTTFs should be able to do research but the question is should the university pay them to do so? If you want the university (or society more generally) to subsidize your research, you must go on a noble quest for a TT job. The road is long and difficult and you are likely to face dragons and other difficult challenges along the along the way. Many strong knights from far away kingdoms will compete for this winner-take-all prize. Only the bravest and strongest knights will succeed. If you win such a contest, you have earned the right to have an AAU university subsidize your research. If you lose, and many a good and noble knight will fall, you end up with a NTTF teaching position. There’s no shame in competing and losing but a noble knight will graciously accept defeat and will never join a union.
I am very concerned by the apparent desire of NTTFs to try and mimic TTFs. How about keeping the role of NTTFs limited rather than trying to turn the position into a pseudo TTF one? Instead, focus efforts on hiring more TTFs and only using NTTFs when appropriate (picking up holes in the teaching schedule, etc.).
Don’t lump us all together. I like teaching and don’t want to do research – that’s why I chose this route.
NTTF’s as stopgaps who pick up holes rather than respected colleagues who do different, but valuable, work? Wow – back to square one.
There are also NTTF who are involved only in research and have little or no connection to instruction.
Awkwardly, some of them are even directly supervising other NTTFs, possibly meaning that the “PI” category is going to include NTTFs as well…?
to UO matters: Perhaps this could be placed in a new thread?
Today’s Oregonian has an interesting op-ed by Jennifer Schuberth, an assistant professor of religion at Portland State University:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/psu_stakeholders_need_transpar.html
On the question of whether a faculty union will promote more transparency and a “better” allocation of resources by the administration:
“Like many students and faculty, I have been frustrated by the administration’s lack of transparency about financial matters. For more than a year, PSU faculty and students have asked the administration to explain how a $54 million surplus will be spent and why the university, while forcing draconian cuts in the teaching budget, is building up reserves in excess of the Oregon University System’s recommendations. The administration has never given a clear answer. “
On the issue of salaries and benefits for NTTF faculty:
“With a growing deficit looming in the background, the administration claimed that faculty will need to increase productivity and capacity — i.e., increase class sizes — and that PSU will be implementing retirement incentives so that higher-paid faculty can be replaced with lower-cost alternatives. In academics, “lower cost” means adjuncts who are paid by the course, often teach huge classes and have no benefits. Many adjuncts working at PSU teach at one or two other schools and make only enough to hover around the poverty line. Some are on food stamps. This is the current administration’s vision of PSU’s future: lower-quality education and a workforce living in poverty.”