Gordon Sayre from English, quoted on the reasons for the UO faculty union victory in IHE: The story also explains that “The university has until April 4 to object to the petition for unionization, according to an official at the Employment Relations Board.” and that
Robert Berdahl, interim president at the university, said in an e-mail that the university was notified Wednesday that the authorization cards have been submitted. “The university has not had an opportunity to review the petition for certification yet and it is premature to comment further,” the e-mail said.
President Berdahl was notified LAST WEEK, not this week, about the Union’s successful card check. He chose not to meet with Union organizers who tried to give him plenty of warning and a chance to go forward cooperatively.
Hopefully, he will choose to respect the wishes of the MAJORITY of the faculty at this juncture, and as we go forward together.
In fairness to Berdahl, he may have meant to say that he was notified by the Employment Relations Board on Wednesday. But it is also true that Johnson Hall got the heads-up last week already.
This faculty member hopes he fights it tooth and nail.
If admin fights, it would represent a departure from its earlier neutrality pledge. From the IHE article:
‘A spokesman said at the time that the university’s leaders “support the right of workers to organize and have maintained neutrality on the issue of a faculty union. The university seeks to simply provide factual information to assist those affected by the effort to make informed decisions.”‘
Pernsteiner, on the other hand, made no such pledge. Maybe he could take up the banner?
My understanding is that state law prohibits the administration from doing much to oppose an attempt to unionize. Arguing with the ERB about the unit definition seems to be the limit of what they can do. Presumably that would mean arguing that TTF’s should be excluded. That now seems like a losing battle.
They could have worked with the faculty and senate to try and build some trust – but instead they decided to cash out with the administrative raises. Bean surely knew how his raise, and beamer payments, and sabbatical would help the union – he just didn’t care.
Selfish, but rational given that they are all short-timers.
Funny that you think Bean’s raise, beamer, and sabbatical drove the union because the union will have no control over these sorts of abuses.
Why do you say that? That is one thing Unions do–they can demand more transparency (and help legislators legislate more transparency–they will work on legislation in Salem), and then they can work to divide the pie differently. Pushing to fund the core missions of instruction and research MORE, administration growth and beamers less.
That is the goal–the Union is the tool.
Do you have any examples of transparency demands, or specifications of how the university budget is sliced up, in other CBAs? From what I’ve seen they mainly specify a lot of irrelevant minutiae (copy of the faculty handbook) along with salary floors, contorted formulas for teaching load assignments, etc. I’m sure our CBA will be special though, right?
the union drumbeat begins. sorry, bob.
1100/2000 sounds like a vast majority…. especially split up about faculty types..
Closer to 1200, and unit 1900+ (less than 2000)–card check ended when clear majorities were reached in each category. ALL abstentions are counted as No votes–all YES votes were supporters willing to sign cards in favor. Card check ended early because we reached our goal of ample cards, not because we reached the end…
More cards could have been collected–while we tried to collect as many cards as we could–we also need to grade, and publish, and see our families–so once we reached our goal–we filed and went back to our own lives.
The UNION is strongly supported here–we all need to work together to make it a good Union. It is our Union–we will run it–it will only be as corrupt as we are–and I for one am sick of corruption.
and the cards kept coming in after we filed.
So I wonder about this: will UO faculty now be subject to state furlough days? — weren’t the other unionized Oregon campuses forced to take them?
Another persistent MYTH. Nothing about Unions makes you more or less subject to furloughs.
All faculty could be furloughed NOW, anytime, no recourse. The reason UO faculty have not been furloughed is because the UO had $88 million in profit last year–who needs to furlough?
Will faculty that supervise postdoctoral researchers (officers of research) be able to have input into the union?
This is a legal issue that the ERB will decide. I think the issue hinges on “supervise”–roughly, the law does not allow those who truly hire and fire to be in the same unit as those whom they truly hire and fire. So PI’s who truly hire and fire will likely be out, while Dept heads who rotate, and suggest to Deans whom to hire and fire will likely be in. And how each individual is classified/defined may be a matter of how the UO describes each person?
The Union Organizers attempted to organize the MOST legally acceptable and logical unit according to Oregon law (following precedents). Oregon law clearly wants the BROADEST Unit possible–so that is the Unit that we have petitioned for. Putting people in or out will be up to the ERB, I think, (and somewhat up to the UO, but more up to the ERB, I think). We have tried to follow precedent in order to make the certification process easy.
So all I have to do is hire a postdoc and I am out of the union?
Yippee!!!
A postdoc or a technician it would seem. This will take a lot of science faculty out of the union.
Broadest unit, eh? What about cutting the law school faculty loose?
Wonderful! The big science guys/gals get to opt out, the lawyers too. It’s too bad the Knight Professors couldn’t come up with a clever excuse…
I’m waiting to hear what “opting out” means for those of us with techs or postdocs – will we have to pay “fair share” dues or will we be completely out? I’m also waiting to see what will happen to things like tech salaries as I often take on freshly minted BSs with the understanding that they’ll start out with low pay, but will get good training for a year or two before grad school. If the floor gets bumped much, I won’t be able to hire into this sort of position. I imagine there will be a lot of unintended consequences like this.
Dog to Anon 09:53
I’m with you – we are in the exact same boat – I can share some dog food
with you if it comes to rationing …
A good thing would be to make these concerns known as the union is formed and positions are being debated. Long ago in the process I noted that many of our adjuncts are architects who teach a studio for us every once in a while out of the goodness of their hearts, not from any expectation to make a living, and if a union were to preclude such arrangements, it would cause a big problem with us. So I think everyone should make their own particular arrangements known, and we should work on this together so that we don’t end up with a one-size-fits-all approach.
Now will someone please follow up with a comment telling what a tool I am for thinking that this could happen?
Dog on tools
I ain’t got a thumb so can’t use ’em.
However, I can bark and I think what Peter @9:20 pm has stated may become
an unintended consequence of unionization. That is, both course “buyout”
and the hiring of 1-term teaching help need to be feathered carefully
so as not to create undue obstacle. For instance, my unit hires tmp
help from a “pool”. This instructor/RA pools are setup in Business
Affairs and are usually required before you can hire someone temporary.
Its not an ideal system but it does work. So I worry that process may
get affected. In the case of my unit, due to extended circumstances,
we sometimes need to suddenly (i.e. within 2 weeks of the start of a term) hire some additional instructional resource. We use the pool
for that. Would people in that pool drift therefor drift in an out
of Union status?
Can someone answer whether adjuncts would be in the unit or only TTFand career NTTF? And, what is the FTE requirement?
Now anybody who says that UO had “$88 million in profit last year” clearly hasn’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about.
Perhaps the better way to say that is not “profit” but “$88 million in unrestricted reserves” that could be viewed as profit? Is that the technical difference you are trying to point out?
The UO was over $88 million in the red last year–what do you want to call it? We had excess financial intake that could be used for instruction, library resources–core missions…. unrestricted reserves.
Look here: (slide 7 is the graph)–open financial audit–by Dr. Howard Bunsis. His work has been viewed as highly credible as far as I know.
http://uauoregon.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/75/files/2012/02/Update-of-OUS-and-UO-financial-situation-Bunsis-February-2012.pdf
In the BLACK–(not red)–excess, not debt. beg your pardon.
I don’t know what those “unrestricted reserves” mean and I doubt that you do either.
Whatever they mean, I don’t believe there was a “$91 million profit” in 2011 as that report claims.
In the first place, revenues were barely up in 2011. For there to be a huge sudden profit, there would have had to be a corresponding drop in expenses. What was that? You would have to understand the numbers a lot better than you or I can from that report to know what is really going on.
Another thing: if there is so much money sitting around, why are they finding it impossible to come up with startup money (a few million a year) for science hires?
This claim that there are huge profits being stashed away, or huge reserves, reminds me exactly of the claims on local (Oregon) right-wing blogs, reporting what certain Republican legislators had said, about huge state reserves that could have been used to offset the budget deficits in the income tax referendum not so long back.
This stuff really is starting to make me sick. Whatever you may think of any of the personnel involved, I can tell you this. One of them ruined his career to give the TTF good raises last year, during a ruinous economy. Another came out of retirement to run the place when the former got the axe. Remember just a few weeks back when Lariviere was our great hero? I guess now we just trash them all. Wouldn’t it be great if Berdahl had gotten himself fired by now? Should we just set up a guillotine in front of Johnson Hall and go to work?
Here’s something else: a good deal of progress has been made toward rectifying the TTF salary/compensation situation since the old white paper. Especially after the last round of raises.
I’ve heard that another round, and even two more rounds, were planned, waiting for the opportune time. This, of course, was before Lariviere got his head chopped off. We would be sitting pretty after that.
Do you think the state of Oregon — OUS, the legislature, the governor — are going to be more kindly disposed to all of this after there is a union?
This is an interesting version of history. It might be true, for all I know. But I wonder how you can know it to be true. How many faculty got raises? Which faculty? How can you tell whether they received raises based on merit or based on the perceived utility of their future political support? The faculty support for Lariviere during his termination fight seemed to be largely linked to those raises, which lead some to wonder whether that wasn’t precisely the purpose of the one-time raises. The raises weren’t the only reason for his termination, and it’s not clear that they were the primary reason.
In any case, it will be nice to have institutional leverage (a union) for protecting salaries and other other faculty interests, rather than having to rely on the whims and unbridled discretion of managers.
4:21:
I strongly agree with you on the gratitude we owe to our current and prior presidents. They are both men of integrity, who put the welfare of this university above their own interests, and who clearly had the faculty’s interests at heart too. We are lucky to have had them here. I also agree that real progress has been made towards the White Paper goals, especially last spring. We don’t know exactly how much, since the statistics haven’t been compiled, but I believe that if future phases had been carried forward, we would have reached the promised land, and had our salaries reach the average of our comparators.
And I don’t think that OUS, the legislature, or the governor will be any more kindly disposed towards this than before (which I might remind you, was not at all kindly disposed) after there is a union. The point is, if we depend on their kindly disposition, we can expect to go back to the lack of progress we had before. If the only person who was kindly disposed towards faculty raises got fired (partially) for this reason, why would we want to rely on the kindly disposition of the firers? As 6:28 above says, we need to work together to protect our interests, as it is clear what will happen to anyone else whom we are relying on to look out for us.
So what leverage will the union have. Will we go out on strike. No thanks! Will we be better able to force money out of private donors? I don’t think so!
I haven’t noticed money from private donors ever showing up for general faculty salaries ever before anyway (except for Knight Chairs for the Excellent Faculty), so no loss there, right? But I think a union representing all the faculty, which says, How about something for us, the people who generate all the income on this campus, before you throw a few miilion at that new police force – that might carry a bit more weight than any one of us stammering, Please sir, I’d like some more.
I can imagine Persteiner, via Geller, is pulling more strings on the Admin’s strategy than Berdahl; we’ll see. An option for collaborative engagement is on the table; I hope they see the rationality of that option vs. some kind of messy political struggle to appease anti-union interests. A faculty majority has spoken and anything that stirs an already frustrated faculty seems very counterproductive.
Collaborative engagement would be refreshing.
Berdahl bringing Jim “Beamer” Bean back as Provost no doubt helped the unionization effort. Berdahl could have set a new collaborative course by soliciting input from the faculty on the next Provost, but he didn’t. Bringing the “Beamer” back probably resulted in more cards being submitted more rapidly than if Berdahl had consulted with the faculty about the next Provost. Its clearly business as usual over there in Johnson Hall.
A union wouldn’t have prevented Jim Bean from being appointed provost. If you signed a union card because of this then you made a huge mistake. Scratch that- if you signed a union card, then you made a huge mistake.
And who would the faculty, having been consulted, have put in place come June 15?
Beyond belief:
Another United Academics Organizing Committee member, Gordon Sayre, an English professor, said faculty input is not respected in budgeting or in campus planning. Sayre said that faculty salaries at the university continue to lag behind those at peer institutions. “And when we did get raises last year, it seemed to be a very secretive process,” he said.
You’re damn right the process was secretive! They had to keep it secret because if it had become public knowledge, it would have been stopped dead in its tracks. Would it have been better had the raises not happened, so that there could have been transparency and collaboration? It would have been better for Lariviere!
As for faculty input not being respected in budgeting — under Lariviere, at least, budget priorities took a U-turn back toward academics. This wasn’t very well publicized, either by the administration or the faculty leadership, but it was true. Certainly, faculty input on salaries/benefits was taken very seriously by Lariviere, and to some extent also under Frohnmayer/Moseley, though under the latter unevenly (which maybe helps explain why Dave survived so long).
To repeat: Lariviere took faculty concerns so seriously that he terminated his administrative career. If he hadn’t done things the way he did them, the raises wouldn’t have happened (and he’d probably still be president).
What should Lariviere have done, set himself on fire in front of Johnson Hall? Or is he waiting for Bob Berdahl to make it a duet?
What planet is Gordon Sayre living on?
Gordon Sayre is on my planet. The raises were secretive, and wholly at the discretion and whim of administrators.
I did not at all like the way Lariviere was terminated. It was appalling. And he might have been the absolute hero you think he was. But that is not clear because he did not clean up the culture of corruption at the top. The whole top administration needs to end the corruption and secrecy and lining-of-pockets with tax payer money.
As an Oregon tax payer, and a tenured faculty member, I want our University to get back to educating Oregon youths, and top-notch research, with NO national headlines of secret contracts, athletic scandals, golden parachutes, etc, etc–it is embarrassing and sickeningly wasteful. We need OPENNESS and HONESTY.
The Union will give us the power to insist on transparency, and VOICE in determining priorities. Most faculty feel faculty input is NOT respected. Legally, with a Union we can now bargain for more inclusion in decisions.
Many people on this page want to insist Unions are corrupt–but the Union is US–no one else. No one is going to come here and run our Union. WE will run it. If we run it openly, and democratically, it will be far less corrupt than our current administration. Being less corrupt than they are will be an EASY goal to match. I am sure that is why the faculty voted YES–can’t do worse than the status quo. Heck, we might do a lot better.
So I take it you think it would have been better without the raises, since they were secretive.
The remark about “educating Oregon youths” is interesting. You mean cut back on the out of staters? But then how does UO make up the money.
fact check. If our president was given the courtesy of a copy of your petition and card count, then please post that document dated prior to this past weekend on the union website. Otherwise how could berdahl have been notified before actually getting a copy of your petition and before organizers were still out tracking faculty down at their homes last weekend? by the way, just what was the count among TTF before manipulating the law school out? I’m sure many of us wanted out, too. not a good start on transparency. we’ll be waiting for the posting and explaination of how berdahl could have been notified before the petition was filed and cards were still being collected?
We sent him a letter, and Pernsteiner and the governor. Berdahl was well aware of it, and set up a meeting to discuss it, then Berdahl cancelled at the last minute.
We told him in advance (middle of last week) that we had met our card check goals and we were going to file. Maybe he did not believe us. I would believe him because I respect him, but maybe he thinks he cannot believe us until we file. Not sure what happened or what he thought. But his statement easily could have been, “Yes, they told me last week the faculty had voted for a Union, I met with them and I look forward to working with them collaboratively in the future.”
We did tell him, and we asked for a meeting with him before we filed. We thought he would be anxious to meet, but he wasn’t. Maybe he did not think he could meet before we filed. This surprised us, but we could not know what he was doing or thinking. Maybe it did not matter–but he was notified. He has a copy of the letter, as do others. I think he would only think he was not notified if he did not believe us. Maybe he is like you and thinks we are “manipulating.” Fortunately, we have the cards and do not need to be “manipulating.” The faculty has voted YES loudly and clearly.
Forming a Union is a democratic process. Our law school demonstrated they wanted out, and they were legally going to try to get out (they have good free lawyers), and the law appears to be on their side for getting out — which would complicate our certification process. You can be nasty and say we “manipulated” them out–we actually felt terrible not being able to include those few faculty over there who wanted in. We organized the whole time with the intention of including them. We collected more than enough cards to still have a Union if the administration insists on pushing them back in. We feel we respected their wishes and the law, but we would love to include them if they do decide they want in in the future.
Bigger Unions are stronger Unions. Unions with excellent lawyers are awesome.
We hope sometime they will see all of the advantages of Unionizing, and then choose to fight to join us.
You may think that is unrealistic–but some people (few, to be sure)–but some– over at the law school were quite sorry not to be in.
Maybe they can convince their colleagues to join. We would love to have them, but they have to democratically want it.
Probably bad legal advice made Berdahl not meet….I think HE would have met–I hear he is a really good guy.
Yes, if only the czar knew…
“faculty input on salaries/benefits was taken very seriously by Lariviere, and to some extent also under Frohnmayer/Moseley,”
You lost me on the Frohnmayer part of that. And also on the reasons for the Lariviere firing. The faculty raises were defensible – the RG and Oregonian had already supported them in Op-Eds.
What hurt Lariviere with the public and the politicians and the press was giving out large raises to retiring administrators, then claiming they were justified by retention concerns.
It’s almost as if some people him Johnson Hall set him up.
Totally
You mean Lorraine Davis and Jim Bean?
Re Frohnmayer: he was very supportive of the white paper at the time, and for a while. The early raises were really quite good — we were on track for a couple of years toward meeting the stated goals.
Then, for whatever reason, Frohnmayer either lost interest and or courage to continue on the higher salary path. That was during/after the recovery from the recession following the 2000 stock market crash, when he was under much pressure from the state NOT to raise salaries.
Of course, Frohnmayer had no problem raising his own pay during these years, from $390,000 to $713,000, counting his various perks. By the time we got rid of him a Wall Street reporter listed him as one of the 5 most overpaid university presidents.
https://uomatters.com/2009/04/frohnmayers-compensation-takeoff.html
Putin touts his majorities too. as stated before, no claim either way is credible in a truly democratic sense until there is a secret ballot election supervised by an independent pthird party, but we’re not going to get that are we? so no claim of a democratic majority (or lack thereof) is credible, unless of course your name is Putin with a Kremlin address.
Putin? The post above is getting very close to Goodwin’s Law.
The card check procedure was agreed to by a legitimate government process, including approval by the Oregon Legislature, etc.
The UO cards are now in the hands of the state ERB, which will or will not certify that the law of the state of Oregon was followed.
You don’t like it, fine. But it sure as hell is democratic!
I take your point, and the putin reference was just rhetorical shorthand for my belief that we ought to have higher standards for democracy than ‘is it legal? in the same sort of way you refer to Godwin’s law as a shorthand way to suggest I’ve called someone a nazi or hitler. but to repeat, I take your point, even though I doubt nyou take mine. in any event cheers.
Please tell me, what is the status of the Law School TTF in the Union? Is there anybody
who can tell us (the uo-community) the real story? Thank you!
I explained above–they are in a special legal position….see above.
I still do not see why the law school is in a special legal position, unless I’m missing something. If one group can opt out, any group should be able to opt out — thereby causing the whole edifice to fall apart.
Their “special legal position” is that they’re LAWYERS, in a position to sue for their interests pro-bono. The union was craven to let them opt-out. It badly damages the “we’re all in this together” song they want the minority to sing along with them as we move forward, arm in arm toward… whatever we’re moving toward when the union leadership, whoever they are, figure it out exactly.
No–study the law. The union was following the law–not our choice. “Craven to let them opt-out” is ignorant and uncivilized. Not our choice.
The whole “edifice” does not fall apart–it works this way all over the country (in places with Unions–some states do not have them.). This is not new, or secret, or unusual. It is typical.
The union has to follow the law–it cannot invent it.
Someone keeps posting that the union was following the law. But that’s not an explanation. What is the law that allowed the law school to opt out?
Someone tell me why professors in the law school can opt out of the bargaining unit. If state law *forces* their exclusion, as 11:02 implies, then please clarify why (can lawyers simply not be in unions or something?). But if the union organizers somehow allowed them a pass merely because they have the expertise to challenge unionization, then that was, if not “craven,” then certainly an abdication of the organizers’ own guiding principle, namely that we are all in this together — TTFs, NTTFs, postdocs. If law profs get to opt out by choice, then *any* group or individual should have the right to opt out by choice — which would clearly defeat the very purpose of a union.
The law school can make a much stronger argument that they’re not similarly situated. They don’t teach undergraduates. They’re on a semester system instead of a quarter system. They’re budgeted separately, etc.
This makes no sense to me: the differences that separate law profs from the rest of us are *minuscule* compared to the differences that separate TTFs from NTTFs, not to mention postdocs. Do you really mean to claim that semester vs. quarter etc. etc. is a *bigger difference* than lifetime tenure vs. short-term contract?
If TTFs and NTTFs are to be in the same union, then law profs and non-law profs sure as heck need to be too. Otherwise, anyone who so much as *claimed* to have an argument for being exempted should be let out. And whether that’s a legal point or a moral point does not matter if this union is to have legitimacy.
Postdocs don’t teach undergraduates, aren’t on any academic calendar, and many receive independent funding. Please explain why they should be in the union but the law school shouldn’t.
And post-docs generally don’t teach at all or follow a semester or quarter system and they’re budgeted separately (i.e., through research grants) and yet they are in the union? I don’t get it.
Phooey. Those are all superficial distinctions. The difference between what a research post-doc does and a tenured CAS faculty member does is much larger than the difference between the latter and a law professor. So still we await a decent, thorough explanation of how “state law” requires them to be exempt, which seems to the be the most recent claim here.
Seconded. If the law is so well defined, should be easy to point to it, no? Have the union organizers told us exactly how many TTFs signed on?
The distinction between postdoc and boss/patron/advisor tenure track faculty is enormous. Law profs budgeted separately — hah! The postdocs are REALLY budgeted separately — their pay comes out of their boss’s grant, or they don’t get paid, if the boss loses the grant, or if the union demands more than the grant will pay — out on your ass! — not tuition, not the UO general fund budget to cover them — compared to them, the TTF/assistant coach distinction is miniscule.
If the law faculty really opted out, it makes the whole thing a farce — is this an example of the vaunted union integrity? Then we are headed to On the Waterfront. This stinks to hell.
I long ago stopped trying to make any sense of the law. Things that are obvious to laypeople are not obvious at all to lawyers. Think of the law as a capricious god, one whose logic is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. This will set you free.
What I heard about this exclusion of the law faculty is that there is lots of precedent for it. At this point my eyes glazed over, and I decided to leave it to those who understand such things. If you really want to understand this or have it justified to you, I suggest you contact the law faculty, not the union organizers. I am sure they can provide you with a detailed and accurate analysis. They’re the ones who brought it up.
It is institutional differences, not tasks. Accreditation and calendar reflect significant differerences. And we still have a majority with them in. What is it with the knight beneficiaries anyway; no union shops for Nike, no union at UO? How privilege so often leans against the sway of democracy.
post ORs are budgeted separately, too and aren’t necessarily on any instructional calendar or teaching undergrads either, but then the union found out a majority of them were pro union, so they’re in the union with their ttf bosses?, even though it makes no sense.
I would like the return to, and endorse, Gordan Sayre’s main point, that unionization is a response to administration unresponsiveness. During the presidency of Dave Frohnmayer, administrators ceased to be accountable to those they administer. Though Oregon state law requires that they be subjected to regular performance reviews, with faculty input, this ceased to be done. Long-timers may remember former CAS Dean Risa Palm, the worst administrator of the last forty years. (Not the most incompetent–he is still with us, though about to leave.) Frohnmayer ignored repeated requests that her performance be reviewed, per state law. Some of us finally brought the issue to the U of O Senate, where the administration agreed to do it; it never happened, though, because Palm almost immediately resigned. Is this how you run a university? When Miles Brand was U of O president, he himself requested a full review of his performance by faculty after three years. Can you imagine that happening now? I understand that the administration is upset about the faculty decision to unionize. They might look around the room at their next meeting and ask: Who should we have fired years ago (so we might not be in this mess)?
It’s not a mess for them – they’ll get their PERS and beamers regardless. They could care less about the faculty, unionized or not. They don’t care about UO either. Well, except for Lorraine, who does care about the football team, if that counts
That’s a wonderful argument for a union. If they “could care less about faculty”, then how can anyone argue that they would ever negotiate in good faith absent leverage requiring them to do so?
Faculty governance, despite the laudable efforts of a few, failed to stem the tide of admin excess and incompetence. In a system with limited resources, admin excess and incompetence funneled those resources in directions counter to our academic mission. A union at least requires those admins to sit at a negotiation table and justify their choices and actions.
The solution to this problem isn’t a union – it’s hiring good administrators. Sadly, the presence of a union will make this more difficult.
A union will be able to make the admin justify their actions? In what way will administrative actions be subject to a CBA?
They will have a legal obligation to fulfill the CBA or will have to explain why they can’t. Now, they don’t have to do that – they can spend however they want and faculty have little recourse. Clearly, our faculty governance has failed to keep them in check. Not saying a union will do this – but it can.
We can specify in a CBA that administrators don’t get beamers?
For everyone on here who is praising the advent of unionized faculty as a positive move for the UO, I would ask these two questions. First, have you or did you consider the repercussions of this on our ability to recruit a new president of substance? Trying to get your position set with a new institution amidst even the ongoing debate and work on the OEIB and the work on independent institutional boards is already a potential reason folks may opt out, but taking on the work of an initial union contract at the same time? Talk about killing any chance of starting off on the right foot and building a rapport and relationship with faculty when you are dealing with what is by definition an adversarial process? Second, what does this say about local college level administration? For all of the comments about Johnson Hall and its notable blunders over the last year (and there were many that I believe contributed to this whole effort), what has become of the notion of free and open discussion at your local college level where you have the freedom to negotiate and determine what is best for your college relative to your teaching loads, research time, service requirements. The clamor during Lariviere’s firing that the UO was being asked to aspire to the “least common denominator” I fear is now rearing its head here relative to comparison among the research aspirations and needs of our faculty. Sure there may be common support needs, but at the details, what is good for a research faculty member in the sciences is not the same as what is needed for a social sciences faculty. Yet this union process negates, or at least deters, people’s ability to search out these college and unit level distinctions — and that is what makes an academic institution excel.
Free and open discussion/negotiation at my unit level doesn’t happen because local admins are free to ignore faculty governance and all but the elite faculty. Everyone else is basically told they are lucky to have a job. That creates a climate of compliance, not excellence. It’s also not true that we can’t craft a CBA that allows for unit distinctions.
Here is an honest question to all opposed to the union. What actions have you taken as a faculty member to participate in faculty governance and push back on admin excess? How many Senate meetings did you attend or significant committees did you serve on?
If you are satisfied you performed your governance duty as a faculty member, then we should welcome your comments and the debate.
If not, then you can start by pointing your finger at the face in the mirror.
Fair enough questions, Anonymous 10:17, but the same will need to be aimed at the union organizers/supporters.
I am anon 10:17 , hereafter known as Puppy (in keeping with some sort of theme). Agreed that all need to ask themselves that question. I have participated for years and not seen the results necessary to keep us out of this mess.
I am trying to highlight the fact that it is easy to lob grenades from a foxhole. None of this effort was a secret and anti-union fOlks could have worked as hard as pro union folks on a ground, door to door effort to prevent the union. Reading this blog, I think they didn’t because they were certain it would not pass. They lost that bet. Some of the rhetoric here about a secret, underhanded union campaign are just disingenuous. Many faculty, TTF and NTTF worked long and hard on something they believed in. The opposition didn’t give the same effort and now want to claim its not fair.
The card check process makes it difficult to mount a serious opposition to the union. In my opinion, it’s a process that’s really favors union formation and keeps those against the union disorganized. A vote with a firm date would have made it much easier for anti-union folks to get organized to the same degree as those for the union. As it stands, Puppy is correct – anti-union UO members did not organize to any significant degree. But I blame that on the process more than anything else.
Anti-union folks managed to organize a survey with over 300 responses in just a few days as one example. To cite an open process that has been going on for months as the reason for anti union inaction seems like sour grapes. Maybe I’m dense (puppies are sometimes) but I can’t see how the process prevented anti union folks from organizing, especially if there is such intense and widespread opposition as has been cited on this blog.
It seems more likely a result of apathy due to a firm belief a union could not happen here. Again, a bet that was lost.
Your example proves my point – a survey isn’t much of an organized opposition. The card check process favors union formation – gather signatures at your leisure rather than a vote on a specific date that both groups, for and against, can target.
Even if you’re right – that perhaps many didn’t get involved because they felt a union couldn’t happen here – that’s still bad, in my book. It means some proportion of the faculty got “hoodwinked” and reduces the legitimacy of the union.
I don’t know if it was so much complacency as the sense that there was really little way to campaign against a union. Many of those opposed were vocal and most of us do know who the “leaders” of the anti-union side are. But in normal elections, one is not only arguing against a particular candidate but for another candidate. And it’s not as if those of us anti-union folks were really thinking, “hey, let’s not form a union because we have the administration in our corner”, or wearing buttons that say “don’t vote for the union, trust the Senate”.
Moreover, we did not set the terms of the debate. No union organizer, so far as I know, polled faculty about the bargaining unit–as, in fact, Hurwit-Tublitz did. One of the reasons I oppose the union is because I think the bargaining unit makes no sense. That and the fact that they don’t yet stand for anything.
Finally, I might also point out that it came as very, very late news that the Law School was allowed to opt out, emerging almost exactly the same time as the cards were turned in. That the union organizers can’t explain this, or that their eyes glazed over so they don’t even know or care, or that they were willing to accept such flimsy excuses as teaching schedules–well, if any of that had been apparent two months ago, maybe indeed we’d have fought harder.
I don’t see the card check process as unfairly favoring union formation, but it does make it a straight yes/no vote where a lot of other aspects (bargaining unit, exclusions, etc) of how “our” representation will work were determined without input from many of the voters. Where, in effect, was the “primary” where we established who the candidates would be when the final election time came?
And in any other “democratic” election, the release of hard numbers, precinct by precinct, is customary. Are we waiting for the ERB to act as election commission? It seems to me the union is determined never to release the TTF/NTTF/OR breakdown.
Sour grapes we may have, but the union is the one that will need credibility to be successful as a bargaining unit. While they may have the numbers, I’m not sure–at least to judge by UOMatters–that their reactions in the past week to challenge have enhanced their credibility.
Call me Cat.
Some fair points Cat. If indeed union organizers witheld or disguised important information, I’ll be the first to call “foul”. I’d be interested to know though how many anti-union folks would be union folks if all this information was available during the whole process. My guess, which could be very wrong, is not too many.
To Anonymous 6:38. Your acknowledgement that this was a leisurely process supports the point that anti-union folks had plenty of time to organize. Union folks worked harder than anti-union folks – that is my main point. What would have prevented anti-union folks from going door to door as union folks did to explain why this is bad for UO, or get them to sign a petition, or do that simple survey way earlier in the process? I can think of a long list of things anti-union folks could have done to inform this process before the cards were in. No one ever communicated directly to me about the negatives of the union.
Again, if information was withheld or disguised, that is a bad thing. But my perspective is that anti-union would have been fervently anti-union no matter what. Where were they?
Yes, I concur that pro-union folks worked harder than those of us that are anti-union. But why? Are we lazy? Did we “bet” that this couldn’t happen? Those are silly answers. At least for me, it was the process. But whatever the reason, the result is bad: “No one ever communicated directly to me about the negatives of the union.” You made a decision without hearing both sides of the argument, as did many others I suspect. How can that be a good thing?
I never said I made a decision without hearing both sides of the argument – just that I didn’t hear from anti-union folks. I did my own homework before deciding anything.
We will disagree on this point, but I don’t think those reasons are any more “silly” than blaming it on the process. If you can provide evidence that anti-union folks tried to organize a response before the cards were submitted but were somehow thwarted by the “process”, then I will concede that point. As it stands, all I can see is a strong display of anti-union sentiment and energy after the fact. If that energy had been galvanized earlier, we might be having a different discussion. For example, the Tublitz survey alone, had it been done earlier, might have been a starting point for a more organized response.
Dog
I am not sure any real anti-union reasons have ever been clearly stated in this forum. They are usually couched in some kind of rant or otherwise reactive response.
From my point of view, there are the only two main anti-union arguments.
1. The nature of the Bargaining Unit, to many TTF, seems to be too diffuse and
ill-conceived that merges too many different constituencies. This might lead to making no one happy and many unintended consequences. (and its been belabored enough in this forum about whether or not this view is valid).
2. There are concerns that the ability to get release time for faculty research will be more difficult with a union (again, unclear if this will eventuate).
So, how does some combination of 1 and 2 affect me. In the worst case, my teaching load increases, my research time decreases, and likely any merit pay will decrease as my research productivity goes down. Now, none of this may happen, but I think these concerns are legitimate depending on the nature of
the CBA. Indeed, my biggest fear is that “course buyout” will become subject
to union approval (again, this might not happen).
Finally, at 2 of my former institutions, there was a class for TTF called “Graduate Faculty”. Under such a designation, those faculty only taught
small graduate seminars and spent the bulk of their time doing research (hence
they could also be called Research Faculty). While such a designation can
be polarizing, it did make sense at these former institutions (and faculty could
rotate in and out of this designation).
I certainly know TTF at the UO that would like this status and am wondering whether or not that could be part of the CBA. I imagine that something like “teaching equity” will be a principle part of the CBA but “research equity” should not be dismissed out of hand.
I am the author of the March 17 1:01 am anonymous post – henceforth I shall call myself Publius.
Anonymous March 17 8:28 am post asks: “What has become of the notion of free and open discussion at your local college level … ” Excellent question. CAS is far and away the largest unit. Believe it or not, it used to have college meetings where CAS faculty actually raised questions about what was going on, how decisions were being made, etc. When he was CAS dean, Berdahl was always engaged and attentive at these gatherings. Then they were abolished by Risa Palm as a nuisance, and no dean has thought to revive them ever since. (Are you listening, Coltraine?) So where is all this democracy at the college level supposed to occur?
One thought on local democracy. In a budget model that only compensates for butts in the seats, unit managers are forced to play that game. Democratic discussions about quality and academic mission just get in the way of that bottom line mentality. At least that is what seems to be happening in my unit, a gradual erosion of focus on quality teaching and on academic mission.
To publius, yes there was a time when CAS faculty would actually attend a meeeting for the good of the order on college-wide issues and concerns. I attended and enjoyed them in my junior years on campus, including when berdahl, vanhouten, and risa palm were dean. the next to last meeting I attended, included only two other faculty. the dean came, addressed perspectives on major issues facing the college, answered questions and discussed issues with the few faculty who came and the empty seats. the next meeting had only two faculty, peter gilkey and me, but a fullcrowd of empty seats. sadly, that’s what happened to the meetings. In my 30+ years in CAS, I know of no dean who would have completely ignored a thoughtful petition from a group of faculty on an issue of major concern. of course, a dead duck is well, dead, but even so, dead duck doubts that any such inquiry would be completely ignored now either. dead ducks in other colleges can speak for themselves. Of course any dean’s hands are legally tied and lips sealed on union-related issues.
Meetings have more or less attendance depending on the issues being addressed, and how important they are perceived. The same argument could have been used for abolishing the U of O Senate, but instead people thought of how to improve it. I was not talking about how to maximize input into ordinary decisions, which is one concern. I was speaking of the fact that CAS deans, like Coltraine, can be here for years without ever facing a community of faculty to answer for their performance.
dead duck agrees with Publius that agenda can affect attendance and was not aware that senate attendance had dwindled to as low as two, but In any event, the statement ‘here for years without ever facing a community of faculty to answer for performance’ is not correct in my opinion.(my opinion is very rarely wrong in my opinion), but if it is in this case, just ask that a college faculty meeting be held this year if you have not already asked for a meeting. spring term had been the tradition before the demise you and I both lament. I’ll be looking forward to flocking to the meeting. I fly as fast as any other dead duck. Cheers, and see you there. I’ll be in the back with moulted feathers around.
When has a dean of CAS invited to comment, in person or in any way, on his/her performance? As noted, the last time the faculty pressed for this, the dean – Risa Palm – resigned rather than be reviewed. The problem is that we are having this discussion at all. If I were dean of CAS, and serious about my job, I would want my performance to be evaluated, for the same reason I welcome student evaluations–to improve my performance. This is not the perspective of deans Palm, Stone, or Coltraine–none of whom asked to be reviewed. Perhaps they feared that their fate would be the same as Russ Tomlin’s, when faculty were finally asked if he belonged in his position.
I could name at least one other Dean who has no desire to be evaluated.
The problem with admins evaluating admins is that they have a vested interest in protecting each other. Poor performance by a Dean reflects poorly on those that hired and are supposed to be monitoring their performance. A 360 degree review exposes too much. That’s at least one reason why no admin around here ever gets fired. I propose a bumper sticker:
“UO Administrators never die. They just become special advisors.”
At least we had a search for Coltrane, Bronet, Moffitt (sort of). The other Deans?
Actually, we had two searches for Coltrane, since he was the product of a failed search. He was chosen from the second tier of candidates.
There was an open search for business school dean, but Provost Bean then went against the advice of the faculty and donors and appointed “Kees” de Kluyver. Very mixed results.
I wouldn’t call the results mixed at all. de Kluyver and his associate deans have been a disaster. LCB has gone backwards in so many areas and he has failed to do the one thing he was brought here to do – raise a bunch of money. Meanwhile, the glass palace internally is a mess – low morale, lack of a strategic focus with butts in the seats the only thing that seems to matter.