[Note: Those lucky enough to be too young to remember the "Doomsday Clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists may not understand this splendid new feature. The "clock" reflects my guesstimate as to how close we are to a strike (and so the starting time is decidedly arbitrary). The clock can move closer or farther from midnight, depending on developments. Don't worry: by January first, the clock should be set in the AM. The Atomic Scientists, by the way, currently have their clock set at 11:54 PM (they now include the threat of a manmade catastrophe from either nuclear weapons or climate change).
Strikeometer = 11:48:37 PM
At midnight, Strikeometer time, we (or at least many of us) would go on strike.
Channel 6 news tonight, in it's story on the rally, indicated that the unions were prepared to walkout within three weeks. The FA secretary was on camera saying that there will be a strike before the unions go 450 days without a contract (22 days from now). Is this where things are now? Should members and non-members be preparing for the end of September and ready to make whatever personal decision will be made?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the WSIL story. Before any of the union locals would go on strike, each would need to have their membership vote to approve a strike. That vote would need to be announced in advance. The vote would probably give the leaders of each union the authority to call a strike on or after a certain date, with some delay between vote and strike date (to allow for last minute negotiations). The leaders could of course wait to call a strike if some progress was being made in bargaining. So in practical terms we are some time away from a strike, and you can count on at least some warning period before a strike were called.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the unions are beginning strike plans in earnest. I think it is safe to say that the leadership of the unions (or at least the FA, the one leadership group with which I am familiar), will likely push for a strike well before the end of the fall semester if there is no substantial progress at the bargaining table. (Obviously faculty & staff don't want to be on strike over the winter break--and lose pay for time they wouldn't be working anyway.) And I don't see inconclusive bargaining dragging on into next semester.
Of course the unions can only do what their membership will support them doing. My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that the membership (dues paying members) would indeed vote to support a strike if no substantial progress is made in bargaining.
My silly clock is a measure not of how much time we have before a strike but, counter-intuitively, of the chances of a strike. (Just like the "doomsday clock" of the Atomic Scientists.)
Suppose a strike is called by the FA. Are all members of the bargaining unit affected? In other words, will all faculty (even those who are not supportive of the strike) lose pay, even if they choose to work through the strike?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that one has the right to strike and the right not to strike. So, no, if you don't strike, you don't lose pay just because others do strike. The administration could conceivably shut down campus if things got chaotic enough, or even lock out faculty (as they essentially did with furlough days), but that's another matter. Presumably they would try to tough it out, encouraging faculty to stay on the job and keep getting paid.
ReplyDeleteDave is right; the decision to walk out or cross the picket line is a legally protected right, however it is a moral decision we each will have to make. Personally, I'm walking.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how much its going to hurt I couldnt look at myself in the mirror knowing my colleagues are going without pay while fighting for my rights. I will never be a freeloader.
Disagreeing with the FA (or even the notion of a strike) does not make one a freeloader.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 5:01, you are correct; disagreeing with the FA does not make one a freeloader.
ReplyDeleteHowever, considering the FA is fighting for the rights of ALL TT faculty (members and non members alike) for the ultimate benefit of SIUs students not becoming a dues paying member does make you a freeloader. The FA has improved salaries and working conditions for the TT faculty at SIU; there is no denying that.
If you dont like the FA leadership I recommend becoming a member, encourage your colleagues do the same, and vote for someone who represents your interests and values. That is what unions are all about.
So, Mr. Wilson, if I understand your post... crossing or respecting an IEA picket line is both a legally protected right and an individual moral decision. But, if anyone does not respect the picket, then they are a "freeloader"? Now that's respect for other's right to follow their own moral compass!
ReplyDeletePerhaps you might want to ponder on the possibility that disagreeing with you or the FA is just as much our right as yours is to agree with their position?
I do not think that you have the right to spit at those who do not share your opinions of what is in the best interests of SIU, our students and the faculty and staff. No one who would choose to cross an IEA picket has any reason to feel any guilt, despite your efforts to make it appear otherwise.
Taking anything without paying for it IS freeloading. Those saying that they are prepared to take the benefits that others are prepared to risk losing pay to fight for,without contributing either effort or money, are also per definition freeloaders. I am surprised that people feel they can constantly criticize the IEA unions and yet not get involved by joining. Being a dues paying member allows you to help set the course of YOUR union: it gives you voting rights, the right to run for office etc. I always tell my kids- ' don't like something? Then either shut up or do something about it' I think we are at that point at SIUC right now.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 5:38, I did not spit at anyone, attempt to make anyone feel guilty, or disrespect anyone elses rights. I would appreciate if you would not portray my posts that way as its not my intent to do any of those things.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (5:38 PM):
ReplyDeleteIt would have been more productive for you to explain why your moral compass tells you that it's OK to cross the picket line than to get angry at Keith for explaining why his moral compass tells him that it isn't.
Anon 5:38 pm:
ReplyDeleteShame on you for making such comments. If you are a faculty member, I feel sorry for students you are teaching. If you are an administrator, I can understand your position.
Here, for what it is worth, an embryonic version of what should perhaps be a full post.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Keith, but for a funny reason, that will make me first seem more angry with potential line-crossers, but may ultimately allow me to be less angry with most of them.
In an important sense, I don't think there's any freeloading if there is a strike. If there's a strike, everyone has to make a choice: there's no more playing neutral and just going along for the ride. If you strike, you're with the strikers; if you don't, you're against them. Abstentions are not allowed.
But there are still distinctions to be made among those who don't strike, should it come to that. If I decide to strike and you don't, I'll think you've made a major mistake of some sort--intellectual, moral, or some combination of the two (assuming your circumstances are roughly similar to mine--if you are an ACeS worker supporting a family on your paltry pay check, for example, striking is obviously harder than it is for others). But of course we all make mistakes, even major ones; and if you don't strike (in similar circumstances), that won't be the sole factor describing my relationship with you. I have friends on the faculty who likely wouldn't strike under any circumstances. I wish they would; I try to convince them to. Would I disown them if they failed to strike when I did? No.
What would make friendship difficult or impossible to recover is if someone chooses not simply to cross the picket line and do their own job but crosses it to do mine (unless you are subject to massive administrative pressure of some sort to do so). That's a direct repudiation of me and what I stand for--not just a difference of opinion about what's right for you. It would hard to preserve a friendship through that.
Neither case, though, would, I hope, make it impossible for me to work with you, after the dust settles, professionally and cordially.
That's just my take on things--not intended to prove that it should be your take too, but to provide one model (one I've actually more or less adopted from others who've thought this through already).
Comments above present the same tired argument that we are all indebted to the FA because they have done so many great things for us. I have worked at other institutions without faculty unions and they have better working conditions than we do. It is my opinion (and one that I'm entitled to) that the FA is not good for this university. This does not affect my ability to impart knowledge to my students or conduct research. Their representation was forced on me - I did not ask for it and I'm not thankful for it. Now you will all say that I should give back the raises that they have negotiated for me. I could have negotiated better raises on my own!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10:18: You write that you've worked at other institutions that have better working conditions than we do. What are your grounds for the claim that this disparity is rooted in the fact that we have unions while these other institutions did not? Where's the causal link? Don't you think a more plausible explanation is that our university has been poorly managed for a very, very long time? You seem to imply that the FA, rather than the administration, is running the university.
ReplyDeleteYou write that the FA representation was forced on you, so I have to assume that the FA was here prior to arrival. Have you spoken to people on this campus who were here before there was a faculty union? Do you have any idea how grim conditions were and how much they've actually improved, thanks to the hundreds of hours that people have spent at the bargaining table on your and my behalf? What conditions do you think gave rise to the FA in the first place? And what do you think is going to happen in the years ahead as distance education diktats and performance-based assessments rain down on us? Without a collective voice, we are totally screwed. Faculty all over the state recognize this, which is why union organizing is happening in public universities in Illinois. This is about so much more than negotiating a better raise for yourself. This is about the future of public education. Do you want to have a voice in that? I do, and if Friday's rally was any indication, I am not the only one.
One more thing: this is not just about the FA and its alleged failures. All four unions--representing NTT and TT faculty, civil servants, and graduate assistants--are facing a possible strike. This isn't a pissing contest between pro and anti-FA factions. This is so much bigger than that at this point, and anyone who thinks otherwise is working with outdated information. The strike--if it should come to pass--will be, among other things, a time to stand in solidarity with all of the workers on the SIUC campus. This is one of the reasons that I will honor a strike, should it come to that.
Natasha - All I'm saying is that I was not given a choice regarding representation by the FA and so I'm not compelled to praise them for providing me with marginal working conditions. The presence of the FA on this campus is certainly not the only thing that makes our situation different from campuses without unions, but it demonstrates that faculty can do fine without them. I'm not opposed to unions in general (or even for the other three groups - they truly need the support). TT faculty do not need a union. Contrary to what the FA contends, there is no attack on tenure on this campus. Continued good performance provides job security here as it does anywhere else. Being an effective teacher and graduate student mentor and conducting high quality research will not be going out of style at SIUC.
ReplyDeleteMy primary opposition to the FA is their always anti-administration stance. The worse things are, the more people join. More people join means more money in the union coffers (whereever that may be). In short, the union benefits from strife between the faculty and administration. I would like to see an SIUC where the faculty and administration move forward together. This is one of the reasons that I was working with the other 500 TT faculty while you picketed and it is one of the many reasons that I will cross the line and serve our students if there is a strike.
I disagree. I think that this is absolutely about the division on campus between the FA and anti-FA factions. If the FA calls for a strike and fails to negotiate an outstanding contract, it will probably be the end of the FA on this campus. I'm amazed that the FA always claims to be standing up for what is best for the students, yet they would walk out and leave the students high and dry. I do care about the students on this campus and I suspect that the 500 other TT faculty that did not participate in your rally do too. This is one of the reasons that I will not honor your strike, should it come to that.
ReplyDeletePolarized Lenses...
ReplyDeleteWhat all who follow this blog, both commentators and readers, need to keep in mind, is that everything that is posted here is read through “polarized lenses”.
It is an oft discussed theme here that the faculty at SIU are deeply divided and polarized at present. IMO and experience, that observation is very true. We are, regrettably, divided into two camps and for some, at least, those camps are at war. Everything that is read here is read at least by some as if written by, “the enemy”.
For example: I read this morning yesterday’s exchange between KW and one or more anonymous posters. To Anonymous 5:38, KW’s post regarding not being able to look himself in the mirror if he did not strike, and not being a “freeloader”, was an affront. An accusation that not supporting the FA is crime of sorts (being a freeloader) and an effort to impose a guilt trip (“how could you look yourself in the mirror if you do not strike?”). Was it intended to be read as such? I doubt it. But electronic messages have no inherent “tone”. They are read in the context of the tone imposed on them by their readers. That in turn is a reflection of the mindset of the reader, which in this case boils down to which camp the reader associates themselves with.
Others have suggested that everyone should take a deep breath before posting inflammatory comments and before taking offense at posts (or replies) that seem offensive. That is good advice and given the deep divisions between us, both readers and commentators should also try to consider how their post will be perceived by others who do not share their own points of view and choose wording with a view to avoiding misunderstandings as much as possible. I do not mean to suggest that anyone should refrain from posting an opinion or comment, just consider words carefully and be prepared when posts are interpreted diversely by different readers and differently than was, perhaps, intended.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnon: 9:28AM
ReplyDeleteThe same thing is true for the administration. If they care about students, contract should have been settled by now. It is the divide and rule tactic. I am sorry, that you are not able to see it. Stand-up for your rights, stand-up for your students, stand-up for your university, and stand-up for the communities we serve. You and I have been serving our beloved university for many years; don’t let the new dictators ruin our place by driving wedge in the heart and soul of this university.
I've finally deleted a comment. The anonymous comment posted at 10:41 AM on 9/3 contained a particularly coarse expression used to characterize another anonymous poster. The author of the offending comment may not have intended to be particularly coarse, as there were other features in the comment that indicated that the author may not have been a native speaker, and a very slight alteration would have rendered the offensively coarse expression adequately euphemistic to pass muster. But I'm afraid that the post as written was indeed too nasty for me.
ReplyDeleteI notice with interest that an anonymous commentator has used the "spitting" reference that was inaccurately ascribed to anti-Vietnam War demonstrators in accurate sources such as FIRST BLOOD's Rambo played by Sylvester Stallone, a former draft dodger. Do I sense the presence of one of SIUC's "silent majority (30!) here? Anyway, you may be interested to know that this incident never happened as Jerry Lembke's book SPITTING IMAGE reveals. It was, used by the reactionary right in the same way that "silent majority" was used by Nixon/Agnew and SIUC's silent majority today. However, I can assure "anonymous" that s/he will be free from this action crossing the picket line but not from the consequences of supporting a Chancellor who has virtually undermined tenure here as the evidenc shows despite the protests. Nobody is safe especially if "irrelevant departments" will be eliminated in the near future should a strike fails. But nobody seems to want a strike except Cheng in her bizarre vision of management. Union busting, job insecurity, and erosure of faculty salaries are among the issues on her agenda. To her credit, she has been upfront about this ever since she arrived and has not engaged in deceptive, wish-fulfilment agendas of denial like our "silent majority" have.
ReplyDeleteDisseminated from minutes of a meeting held at Rita's bunker. Following the collapse of a strike this semester, the Chancellor will change Labor Day to CEO Day, or Rita Day in honor of her achievement. Faculty and staff will be expected to work without pay donating the amount to SIUC higher administration for their enlightened and responsible management techniques.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous 7:47: As someone who has been working closely with the FA and the other three IEA locals over the last several months, I can assure you that the unions are very eager to reach a settlement with the Administration and avert a strike. The unions have done nothing but pursue their legal right to collective bargaining, which is their raison d'etre. The current administration has rejected proposal after proposal, unilaterally imposed terms, and furloughed workers. This failure to collectively bargain is why an unfair labor practice has been filed against the Administration.
ReplyDeleteThe people I have been working with over the last several months do not hate the Administration. They are heartbroken and admittedly angry over what is happening, as they should be. And the collective bargaining process does proceed from the premise that workers and employers have different, and at times, conflicting interests, which is why collective bargaining is necessary in the first place. But the people involved in union worker are desperate for sound leadership. And they also have hope that things can actually change and get better at SIUC, which is why they are volunteering hundreds of hours to fight for what they believe is right--a university where shared governance is more than an empty slogan.
Faculty unions exist at institutions where there were problems. I recall that when SIUC TT faculty unionized, SIUE faculty got pay raises!
ReplyDeleteIf you have gotten equity pay, thank your union.
Anon 12:58: Perhaps, but it is also true that where faculty unions are in place, there are problems.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly correct, as Anon 7:47 pointed out, that the IEA has a financial incentive to foment trouble between faculty and the administration. Look at the history of SIU since the FA was put in place. There have been multiple administrations with different provosts, presidents and chancellors, but the FA/IEA has yet to find an administrator they did not/do not despise. Over the same period the FA leadership has largely been a revolving triumvirate and our IEA rep pulling the strings in the back ground has been a constant. So perhaps the friction between the FA and the administration may not be entirely the fault of the administration(s)?
In any event, it is time for the FA to "piss or get off the pot". Call a strike vote! Then we will find out, first, if the FA has enough internal support to get that done, then second, we will see if the faculty at large will support the FA if/when they walk out. Remember that the FA has only about 230 members. There are about 690 total faculty. The four campus unions represent about 3400 employees, but fewer than 150 people bothered to turn up for the picketing last week and there were not many unfamiliar faces walking the line. The same people keep showing up, but we do not see many new faces stepping forward. The *piles* of unused signs lying on the grass suggest that the unions were expecting a much better turn out. Personally I think that the FA is worried that a strike will fail. They have good reason to be, and if it does, that will be the end of the FA.
But whether you agree with that or not I am sick of working with the Sword of Damocles hanging over me and my classes. The cards have all been dealt. Its time to call a vote and remove the uncertainty.
Last week, the temperature nearly reached 100 degrees and it was amazing that the demonstration gained the numbers it did. Again, the pro-administration post above has its facts wrong. The NEA and FA had nothing to do with the changing administration problem on this campus. This was due to the house politics going on in higher administration and the Chicago "boss" machine plotting that has ruined this university since Poshard was appointed. Enrollment fell from the time of his appointment, let it be remembered.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since I was around at the time of the original vote, I can affirm that a majority of faculty voted for a Union as a result of the regime of Ted Sanders that attempted to do what Cheng is doing now. No pressure was put on them by the Union to do so. Previous attempts failed because faculty though a union was not needed as their jobs were safe due to tenure. Many reasons exist for the present number of union members: the virtual removal of tenure by Cheng, the economy, bullying tactics by higher administration, and the possible economic collapse of the USA in a few years. However, this does not disavow the fact that things may change and they will not change via the bootlicking tactics employed by the "silent majority" who deny the very principles of academic life such as job security and faculty governance. These have all been eroded by Cheng and those who support her are little better than the craven "silent majority" of previous decades who submissively allowed totalitarian regimes in Germany and Italy to deny both democratic freedoms and the very existence of unions. A vote will be made on these issues but it will be by those who have committed themselves to union membership not the reactionary right outside.
Godwin's Law! So I guess we are done here.
ReplyDeletehttp://catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Polarized Lenses:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what you wrote, even if I don't always do it. It probably is frustrating for you to see the next few posts demonstrate the problem and that the commenters did not take heed of what you wrote.
Anonymous (5:26 PM):
Much of what you write is a matter of opinion, but I will address a couple of statements that, to me, are clearly inaccurate.
Some of the administrators have come and gone quickly in the last few years. There wasn’t time for the FA to form a positive or negative opinion of them, let alone to despise them.
The protest on Thursday had 327 people sign in as participating. You may have noticed that there were no more than 150 people there at a time. First and foremost, union members are on campus to do our jobs. People came during their lunch breaks and their breaks between classes and were unable to stay for the full two hours.
Anonymous (6:40 PM):
Much of what you write is a matter of opinion, but I will address a couple of statements that, to me, are clearly inaccurate.
Despite everything that Anonymous 5:26 accused the FA of, Anonymous 5:26 did not accuse the FA or the IEA for being responsible for the administrative shuffle at SIU.
The enrollment problems began long before Poshard was appointed as President of the University. Enrollment peaked back in 1991. Poshard wasn’t made president until 2006. Even if you count the years when Walker was out with cancer, 1991 still predates Poshard’s tenure. The year 1991 also was well before Ted Sanders was President of the University and well before the FA was formed.
Paranoid,
ReplyDelete(Per "polarized lenses" I will try an choose words with care and will state in advance that I do not mean to offend or be confrontational).
You make a couple of good points. You are right that we have had at least one administrator, Chancellor Trevinio (sp?)that came and left quickly. (He was so forgettable that I forgot him!) He is the only one I can think of in recent years, but perhaps I am forgetting someone else, so let me pose the question in another way. Can you name chancellors/provosts/presidents that the FA has admired and respected and with whom they had a productive and amicable relationship? I can think of none based on what I have seen. For the most part the relationships between the FA and all of the administrative permutations and combinations over at least the last decade have been "frosty", at best. Certainly the FA has never negotiated a contract it liked because (if I recall correctly) it has always recommended that the faculty reject each contract and the faculty have always voted to accept each contract that was offered to us. (More evidence of a long-standing disconnect between the FA and the faculty at large, perhaps??)
Re the 327 claim. If the DE story on the protest is correct, then that number includes people not affiliated with SIU. i.e. union supporters from the community but not represented by any of the campus unions. Also, I followed your link to the SI story and noted in the comments the allegation (September 2, 2011, 10:27 am, unsubstantiated, I concede), that at least one instructor had students attend (participate?) in the rally _for class credit_. !!IF!! that is correct then that is utterly unconscionable and reprehensible, (and I hope that would be denounced even by the FA?). But even if every one of the 327 number you cite is a legitimate SIU employee represented by one of the 4 unions protesting, then that still is less than 10% showing support. IMHO, not an impressive turn out, especially given the intensity of the rhetoric around this issue at present.
In any event, I still maintain that it is time to end the uncertainty. Call a vote! Lets get this behind us, one way or another.
Don Rice
ReplyDeleteThe 2006 - 2010 contract
ReplyDeleteI think the unsubstantiated comment is misinformed. I met a faculty member who asked his/her students to go and observe the communication methods and messages used and to analyze them. That's not at all the same as asking them to participate, as observing can be done from a distance, and the analysis can be negative (as yours was) rather than positive.
ReplyDeleteThere probably are other administrators. I haven't been involved in FA long enough to know who was liked and who was disliked.
ReplyDeleteI didn't hear many complaints about Goldman from FA people. The main thing I heard about Walker was that he should have acknowledged his illness and resigned earlier, not that there was active dislike toward him. I've heard people say good things about Arsinger, but that usually is accompanied by eye rolls from others in the room.
Finally, the FA, because of its role and obligation to handle grievances and negotiate working conditions, has a responsibility to complain on behalf of employees. Sometimes the complaints appear from the outside as dislike, even when they aren't. Other times, as can be seen from the comments around here, there is active dislike.
Don Rice was interim Provost from Dec 2006 - Nov 2010, and was an provost associate starting in 2004). He hardly qualifies as a short termer in the same category as Trev. Just saying we should keep the comparisons fair...
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that the FA "admired and respected" Don Rice and "had a productive and amicable relationship" with him, not that he was in and out so fast that no opinion was formed.
ReplyDeleteOK, sorry to have misunderstood (polarized lenses I guess)
ReplyDeleteDon Rice was an utter failure--both when he was Assoc. Dean of COLA and later on when he moved to Antny Hall as Associate Provost and Provost. Look at all the bad stuff that went on in Engineering! and the College of Science! All Don Rice wanted was to continue to be Provost and perhaps move up as well. I heard he has resigned--all the better for siuc.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (1:20 PM):
ReplyDeletePlease read the comment from September 5, 2011 9:08 AM. If you are a supporter of the FA, I encourage you to answer anonymous's question, "Can you name chancellors/provosts/presidents that the FA has admired and respected and with whom they had a productive and amicable relationship?" Otherwise you are simply supporting 9:08 AM's argument that the FA would be bitter toward any administrator, and by implication that the labor disputes are completely the FA's fault.
OTOH, maybe you are a member of the "silent majority."
Actually, individual expressions in support of or in opposition to individual administrators don't mean very much in this case. I am sure that opinions about particular administrators vary and individuals are certainly entitled to hold and express those opinions (within the limits of reasonable language and respectfulness, of course).
ReplyDeleteThe question that was posed asked about "...chancellors/provosts/presidents that **the FA** has admired and respected and with whom they had a productive and amicable relationship?" (emphasis added). That is, it refers to the FA collectively and does not appear to be asking about individual views.
In my opinion, there are none. From what I have been able to observe, the FA has always maintained a confrontational relationship with the administration, regardless of who the individuals involved with the administration were at any given time. That appears to be its consistent modus operandi, and probably(?) reflects the habits and attitudes of its leadership and the influence of the IEA rep ???
That is because SIUC higher administration has always exhibited total contempt for faculty who have better academic qualifications than they have. The problem with SIUC over the past few decades has been the bad administration here as opposed to places such as Illinois State where administration and faculty co-exist in harmonious agreement. With a President who has plagiarized his dissertation and a Chancellor with abysmal academic qualifications what else can you expect. The only way things will improve will be by shared governance with Senate resolutions binding on administration rather than submissively bowing down to these mediocrities like slaves as the "silent majority
ReplyDeletewishes us to do.
Anonymous 9:01 PM:
ReplyDeleteI don't perceive the FA as being controlled by a "triumvirate" with the "IEA rep pulling the strings" but rather as being controlled by a group of elected leaders who are pushed and pulled in different directions by FA members who pull the strings. Some of those members (e.g. Anonymous 10:20 PM) have suspicion and distrust of the administration as their M.O., and some (e.g. me) do not.