First, a little trip into the way-back machine: Back at the near-beginning of our current contract negotiations Inside Higher Education was already reporting disturbing trends in the ways university administrations were working their way around financial exigency policies to layoff tenured professors. The FA did not manifest its concerns about the weakening of tenure as merely a paranoid fantasy. They saw what was happening elsewhere, and they saw very clear signs that the new Administration meant to lay the foundation for similar strategies here.
In the several proposals made by the FA regarding FE, there is a clear theme: transparency and accountability. More accurately, I believe there has been a clear attempt to preserve checks and balances in the shared governance of this university. The comments section of this blog is full of many differing opinions about what the Chancellor, the BOT, and the faculty (as represented by FA, FS, or even a gaggle of soggy picnickers) can legally do re: FE. An emergent theme there is the role trust should play in any policy creation and its deployment -- and more pointedly, who has the greater role to play in building trust (or, conversely, who bears the greater responsibility for its erosion).
On that point, it might be worth considering a different route to trust. Consider how President Richard Rubsamen of Sierra Nevada College addressed the financial crisis at his institution this month. As reported in the North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, he resigned, stating:
I was tasked by the board with planning for financial sustainability in order to (ensure) the long term health of the college...It was clear to me where reductions had to occur. While the idea of leaving the college is very difficult, it is the right thing to do. I need to lead by example and practice what we teach.In addition, staff and administrative employees will take a 5 to 10 percent pay cut. Wow.
Granted, it is not the purpose of the current labor negotiations to dictate layoffs and resignations of administrators. Even if it was, calling for or demanding such a reduction in administrative work force would not result in much trust building. Still, there are gestures (symbolic and material) available to the Administration to move beyond imposing burdens to sharing them. It's hard to trust those who impose.
I agree with you “it is hard to trust those who impose”. That is why FA is looking for legally binding agreement. You may lose a few days of pay if you go on strike to get a fair contract. You may lose the same amount anyway because in the absence of a fair contract Cheng can impose furloughs whenever she wants, she will ask you to work more for less pay, and may even fire you. Don’t forget what was about to happen to a tenured faculty member in law school just a year ago. This administration is not trustworthy. Support your colleagues who are fighting on your behalf. If it takes to strike, so be it. Think long-term.
ReplyDeleteI support the above post as well as the reference to the "gaggle of soggy picknickers" who support SIUC's version of the Dowager Empress and Madame Mao, our "Gang of Four" (Poshard, Niklow, and Gary Metro) being the leading lights!
ReplyDeletePerformance-based pay for administrators and faculty. The FA wanted to tie their raises to the budget; why not go further and tie all salaries to the financial performance of the university? (Don't start accusing me of "corporate modeling" -- the FA brought this proposal up, not me. I'm just suggesting that the administration ought to have its salary recalibrated to emphasize performance. We can't offer stock options (to any class of worker here) but bonuses aren't out of the picture, right??
ReplyDeleteIn that case and following the lead of Sierra Nevada College, Cheng, Poshard, Nicklow % Co should receive a 90% reduction in salary and instant dismissal for the chaos they have caused. Tie adminstrators' salaries to enrollments!
ReplyDelete3:41 PM,
ReplyDeleteNot a bad idea. Maybe it could be in the next contract. Join the FA, if your not a member, and push for your ideas.
I'll say it again.
ReplyDeleteThe FA cannot negotiate any aspect of the terms and conditions of employment of anyone it does not represent. Please try to stop thinking of "negotiation" as a synonym for "punish your enemies".
I think the point is better understood, digit of Socrates, that the FA might be more willing to engage in trust about its own contract (so often called upon in these comments) if the Administration made significant gestures like those of President Rubsamen. I'm pretty careful to note in that last paragraph that a RIF for administrators is not within the purview of these negotiations.
ReplyDeleteI'll also reiterate, forcing the Administration to downsize is not the same thing as them choosing to do so themselves.
I remain pretty firm in my belief that the Administation has the larger role to play in (re?)establishing trust with the faculty, GAs and staff on this campus.
I believe FA’s proposal for salaries is tied to performance. I believe they have proposed that if SIUC’s revenue or expenses are flat, we are happy with no raise. However, if the revenue or expenses go up by 3%, give us 3% raise. I believe it is totally fair. However, keep in mind that agreement on salary increases has no meaning unless there is agreement on no furloughs or layoffs. Administration may agree to 5% raise next year but then impose two weeks for furloughs to get more back.
ReplyDeleteIt is beyond my comprehension how Nicklow received over 300 percent raise in the last few years. Look at his record. What has he done? I believe he was in charge of enrollment and retention in engineering where number of students has gone down every year. Then he was given raise to lead university enrollment management and the university enrollment has gone down. Then he was given raise to lead academics and you can extrapolate the fate of academics.
Now we are adding more administrators while cutting faculty. This administration’s priorities are wrong. Unless we all stand up for our students and support academics, we will have beautiful stadiums, tracks, and building but there won’t be anyone here to use them. Anthony Hall will be fully utilized though.
Exactly! A new administrative appointment will be announced soon and don't think any of the possible 10-15 new positions that might be available will go to faculty.
ReplyDeleteI used to say "SIUC is so nice without the student" (during the summer) but now I say "SIUC is nice without the administrators and the faculty..." Perhaps those Occupiers living under a tarp can take over and have a Free Up College Kids (excuse the acronym). But, oh yeah, who would accredit the thing and then we end up with art majors who painted with mud and can't get a job so they . . . Occupy Their Town....
ReplyDeleteThe above post looks like it has come from "Old Joe" and "Aunt Bessie" Southern Illinoisan bloggers.
ReplyDelete10:39, if you think that SIU administration and faculty have anything in common than "being employed by the same University", then you haven't been paying a whole lot of attention. The bottom line is this... we may be stuck with the expensive stadiums in Saluki Way, but we're not stuck with the administrative bloat. We can cut our Executive/Administrative Management payroll and our AP staff by 20 % and not miss a beat. Faculty, on the other hand, can't be cut as they're the reason students come here in the first place, not new stadiums, not to be Salukis, or any of that. They come here to learn.
ReplyDeleteSo, to say that faculty are in the same boat as the administration, ignores the reality of what is happening not only here at SIU, but reality throughout higher education.
I don't understand why some here think a strike would be short in duration. FA membership is a minority of those those eligible for membership. Those who choose the strike would probably be a minority of that minority. If the administration can cover any classroom vacancies with non-strikers and emeritus and alumni faculty, some of you people could be walking a picket line for a loooong time. Call 'em scabs if you want...sticks and stones...but life can be pretty miserable without a paycheck and health insurance. I mean, who ISN'T going to cross your picket lines.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1:32, where is proof that the Chancellor CAN actually cover any classroom vacancies? And, were is the funding to pay her elite strike force (bad pun) coming from? It's true, the coffers will temporarily swell (ha!) with the unencumbered pay of those picketing but really how can she fiscally pull it off unless this elite strike force is working pro bono. Some emeritus and alumni might step up to base free but the numbers just don't add up.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's been no real mention of civil service staff vacancies being temporarily filled. Couldn't possibly be anyone who would fill those positions pro bono. To hire temps would be cost ineffective and way more trouble than it could possibly be worth.
Comes down to smoke and mirrors.
Anonymous (4:38 PM):
ReplyDeleteSee page 5 of the Oct. 4 Daily Egyptian.
http://issuu.com/gusbode/docs/sx6qwe
I will work for free to cover the courses of my colleagues if needed. I may have to work for free to cover the lab sections of my courses. I'm not going to cancel them if my GAs walk out!
ReplyDeleteAnon 1.32,
ReplyDeleteAt least 188 faculty will not teach their classes, that is a minimum established at the last DRC meeting, and I think it will easily be 200 who won't teach. Current FA membership is about 42% of the Faculty, which, of course is less than 50% so is a minority, but many Faculty support the FA and for their own reasons (often finachial) don't want to join the FA, so I think we have the support of the MAJORITY (greater than 50%) of the Faculty. And at least 70% of the FA will not teach, which is again a MAJORITY (of the FA), not a minority.
It will be tough for the admin to cover all these striking `workers'; and then there are members of the other 3 unions who won't do their jobs either, so there will be plenty of disruption for sure. Hopefully enough to get them to give us a decent contract.
Anon 7.21
ReplyDelete`Colleagues' like you we could do without!
Yes 12:30 - Colleagues that REALLY put the students first are not colleagues at all!
ReplyDeleteAnon: 7.35
ReplyDeleteThey are not colleagues, but merely `colleagues'.
Anon 7:21
ReplyDeleteAnd I will be there with you, side by side, teaching my classes, the classes of my GAs and TAs, and as many classes of my colleagues as possible.
I am honored to stand by you.