1/31/2012: Sam Stites of the ODE has a good story with quotes from several pro-union faculty:
“We’re hoping to have the card-check done by the end of the term,” said Deborah Olson, union representative and special education instructor. “We’re actually shooting for a higher number. We want more than 50 percent plus one so we have a real clear statement that this is something that the faculty wants.”
“It would provide clarity and an opportunity for the next generation in how to find excellence in the face of the challenges that face state universities,” University professor Louise Bishop said.
“I believe that most faculty are pretty enthusiastic, and I think that they see a real need so it has a good chance,” said Scott Pratt, union representative and philosophy professor. … He says that a union will allow the faculty to have a larger stake in making decisions, setting budgets and other fiscal and administrative issues that the University faces.
It is not going to be all gravy though. Unions do some ridiculous things.
Will we have the same voice in the union as AAUP members id in the local AAUP chapter’s commitment to a union drive before even bothering to poll campus members of AAUP? Unions are the same as any other hierarchy. The top only asks te bottom if they already know the bottom agrees with them. As for excellence, did Rutgers with a union for some time, improve overall relative to the UO, with no union, in the recent NRC rankings? A question with an empirical answer if the union organizers can take the time away from telling us what they think we want to hear to gather actual facts.
With all due respect to Anonymous, United Academics is not like “any other hierarchy.” Nor is it composed of “outsiders.” We are composed of faculty, tenured and non-tenured, as well as officers of research. Contrary to the common misperception, United Academics does not include Officers of Administration. The path that we have chosen to take – “card check” – requires us to obtain signed and dated authorization cards from 50% of the membership of potential bargaining unit (i.e., TTF, NTTF, and officers of research), plus one. That is a considerably higher standard for certification than a yes/no/abstain election would impose, and correspondingly harder to attain. While we’ve invaluable help from AFT/AAUP staff, the organization and the unionization effort is ours. If unionization succeeds, it will be because University of Oregon faculty did the heavy lifting.
Dog to Pro-Union
two questions:
1. What exactly is the numerical size of the membership that your seeking 50% + 1 from?
2. What is the percentage of TTFs in the overall membership?
Anonymous above says the AAUP did not poll members before this union drive. Here are the facts: On March 31, 2011, in response to the recommendation voted on after discussion in the previous chapter meeting, the UO AAUP chapter sent all current UO AAUP members a mailed ballot on which to vote on the following statement: ““The UO Chapter of the AAUP supports and endorses the organizing effort of United Academics-UO, a joint effort of National AAUP and AFT, to bring collective bargaining to the UO instructional faculty.” On April 26, the chapter secretary sent out an email with the results of this vote. 80% of of all current members returned their signed ballots. The measure passed with 92% of ballots returned voting YES and 8% voting NO. There were no abstentions. In the email announcing the vote to the membership, the secretary also wrote: “The executive board will be discussing the implications of the vote for our relationship to UA and would appreciate feedback from members on what this should be.” This was a transparent and democratic process.
The union we will form here includes all TTF, NTTFs and officers of research. None of these groups will hold a majority, and all of these groups share a common interest in strengthening the instructional and research missions of this institution of higher education. Joining together we can make this University a much better place–getting it back on track to pursue excellence in teaching and research, as well as athletics and superb administration.
Thank you. Can we please move on from the divisive discussion insinuating some great divide between TTF and NTTF – as implied by the questions above. It’s elitist, ignores the incredible work done by NTTF all across this campus, ignores that our interests are more aligned than not around our core mission(as stated so well above), and has already been settled. On this campus, when we use the term faculty, it means TTF and NTTF – that is both the legal interpretation of “faculty” as per the DOJ and the definition used in our own constitution. Get over it and move on so we can figure out how to best deliver on that mission and get protection from the whims and leadership failures of an administration that has too often failed us.
How is freedom preserved for those who are opposed to the union? Answer it is not. One can sign a document saying that some portion of the forced dues cannot be used for lobbying. That is it. How can we call ourselves those that embrace freedom when people are FORCED to join? I would even pay the stinking dues if I had the freedom to cut my own deal. Most people thumb their noses at the south around here but most are right to work states. But I forget I live in one of the most socialist states in the country where personal freedom is sacrificed for the state.
To Anon above: I’m no philosopher, so I want to keep the discussions on this blog focused on concrete things that matter to UO. Your thoughts on this are appreciated, but they should be UO specific, with examples and arguments that apply to this particular fight at UO. Thanks.
In case the card-check passes, can we ask the Senate to free the faculty from being forced into the Union? Is there a legal procedure to do so?
After all we voted to have more weight in the decisions that concern this University only a couple of months ago. Now a Union is forced on us.