It's kind of cool that the University Museum is currently holding an art exhibit on "The Way We Worked" that just happens to coincide with a potential strike on campus.
There's also a public presentation in the Museum Auditorium tomorrow night at 7pm. Look at what the topic is and who's on it:
“The Future of Work,” Panel Discussion by Dr. Glenn Poshard, Mr. Gary Metro, Ms. Kathy Lively and Dr. Robert Mees
Bosom buddies Glenn Poshard and Gary Metro opining about the future of labor? Really???
So. Anybody want to go and ask some questions? I'd be very curious to see what these folks think the rather short-term future of labor is.
Anyone know why the bargaining report on this week's posting no longer appears, but has a SCRIBD maintenance visual instead?
ReplyDeleteLooks like Scribd is, well, down for maintenance. If it isn't back up by tomorrow, I'll seek a different method for posting a multi-paged PDF.
ReplyDeleteSo we're down to university professors considering themselves "labor?" Kinda funny. Maybe more than kinda funny. I know some coal miners, electricians and plumbers whose laughter is probably out of control right about now.
ReplyDeleteCarry on!
Work can involve mental as well as physical labor. Also, since Poshard and Cheng now regard faculty as disposable items only there to obey their orders the old divisions no longer exist.
ReplyDeleteQuiet One asks:
ReplyDeleteJonny, why do you not want to be on the FSN mailing list? I'd be a lot more comfortable if everyone were on the Admin list, the FA list, and the FSN list. I don't know that I could really make many decisions without listening to all the faculty, even those with whom I may not agree.
I do not want to be on the FSN mailing list because I think their proposal is disingenuous and unprofessional. I also resent their call for discussion but their limitations on that discussion by having it be a one way email relationship that they reserve the ability to "report" on. I would welcome an open and honest discussion of viable alternatives to the FA. The timing of the FSN's proposal, their refusal to have an interactive web presences (outside of FB), and the rush to get a petition before the faculty before they have a viable alternative to support are all problems.
ReplyDeleteI hope that petition is reviewed very carefully to make sure those who respond are actually in the bargaining unit. In my department, cards were placed in adjunct and even secretary mailboxes. But then, these are the errors of carelessness and rush.
Jonny - The e-mail addresses of FSN members are listed on the e-mail messages that faculty receive. Therefore, the e-mail relationship is not one-way. A message from the FSN this evening states that, contrary to your statements, they are interested in input from all tenured/tenure-track faculty on the details of the ultimate bargaining unit. You might have known this if you hadn't asked to be removed from the list. If the faculty truly support the FA, this is a chance for them to loudly reaffirm their support. If they don't, they have the ability to shape the FA's successor.
ReplyDeleteAnd how am I to hear that "loud support" except that the FSN tells me so? Set up a listserve. Set up a web site. Set up a blog. I have no doubt that I can communicate directly with FSN members. What I cannot see is the discussion that my colleagues are having. I certainly don't have to see all of that -- email will always provide private exchanges. But they resist an open forum of discussion when the mechanisms for such are easily within their capabilities. And why is that, exactly?
ReplyDeleteYou are the one that called it a one-way e-mail relationship. It is not that. You have said that you don't want their communication and now you are complaining about their lack of communication?
ReplyDeleteNot complaining. Answering a question. And that, Anon 8:27, is a dodge of my question.
ReplyDeleteMy sense is that if the FSN set up an online forum such as this, you would see primarily anonymous support (just as you do here). This wouldn't convince you of the "loud support" but I agree that it would be an alternative forum for debate about representation issues. I would be surprised if such a forum isn't forthcoming from the FSN, but I'm only a supporter, not a member. Can someone from the FSN chime in?
ReplyDeleteImagining what the kind of response you would get for and at such a site before you set it up is rather like asserting you have sufficient support in a petition you haven't started yet. Increasingly, the FSN seems even less transparent than the Administration, and that is not sensible.
ReplyDelete