Thursday, October 27, 2011

Important Legal Notification

And on a definitely more serious note...

(Click Image to Enlarge)
Here are the links mentioned in the document:

FA Web Site


  1. Cheng and Poshard's goal is to bust the unions. The FSN is trying to help them do that with their third option of not having any representation at all.

  2. Poshard has often mentioned in public statements that salaries take up the bulk of SIUC's finances. Hence his support of Cheng's union busting tactics that will lead to a drastic RIF including the FSN. They will not be safe if Cheng succeeds no matter what they think. Poshard will choose sports over keeping these devious individuals around and will drop them once they have served his purpose.

  3. Anon 2:23 and 2:31
    I am in total agreement with your statements. Poshard is a politician. He knows how to use people and then kick them out.

  4. 2:31, Interesting how you and others levy these threats at the FSN. Last I checked they are simply wishing to ask the question whether the FA still has the mandate that results in ALL faculty being exclusively represented by the FA. If the FA has the support nothing changes. Should the FA go on forever without asking this question? These faculty you so readily demonize are your colleagues and they are simply asking a fundamental question about how we go about shared governance and collective bargaining on this campus. Is there really a need to get ugly?

  5. 6:30 PM,

    I agree people are getting heated and maybe a little paranoid. However, 2:31 PM was not threatening the FSN. 2:31 is saying that the evil C&P will not spare the FSN faculty when they destroy the place. Silly, yes; threatening no.

    It is certainly true the FSN wants to bust the FA. Here's an off the wall idea. What if the FA agreed to a re/de-certification vote every few years in exchange for fair share? As it is now, the FA will win a certification vote because at 40% who are paying members would vote to keep the FA and a good many others like having union protection for free.

    For the record, I think Cheng is way out of touch and she may well provoke a strike. If it happens I'll be on the picket line. Poshard is a politician, but I don't think he has any idea what he is doing.

  6. Mike, I would SO vote yes for that policy -- that is, a regular vote of certification in exchange for fair share!

  7. Mike, I understand your characterization of the threat as silly. I should have used the phrase "scare tactic" or "intimidation" rather than threat. Either way, I think it to be a low form of discussion on what is important to all of us, even when we disagree.

  8. If we did do regular recertification in exchange for fair share, would there be any possibility that dues could be lowered? Either way, I think that sounds like a great idea.

  9. Have you got bargaining stuck so prominently in your head that you really think they can bargain fair share extortion for the a right to a certification vote?


  10. Anonymous 11:36 AM:

    Mike's suggestion wasn't to exchange fair share for a "right" to have a certification vote. That right exists under state law and cannot be bargained away. The FSN will begin exercising that right on Oct. 31.

    Mike's suggestion was to exchange fair share for a mandatory certification vote every few years. I wouldn't call that extortion because the voters, everyone represented by the bargaining unit, could get rid of fair share by voting away the FA in the certification vote.

  11. Dani, my understanding is that fair share, with or without a recertification vote, would lower dues.

  12. I am not sure the statement about a reduction of dues if fair share is implemented is accurate. I can't find the post but someone here has suggested otherwise.

    It is my understanding that the IEA/NEA assesses dues per member. Those dues would not change even if there was an increase in membership. The local organization (FA) could alter its piece of the overall pie but, as has been said on this blog, the amount provided to the local organization is minimal. Thus, it would seem that fair share would triple the amount of contributions to the IEA/NEA. Correct? If this is wrong, please clarify?

    If fair share is a truly moral/equity issue (everyone pays their share), the total cost to represent SIU faculty should remain unchanged. What would change is the cost assigned to each member of the bargaining unit. If the goal is also to increase the power of the union financially, then the dues would not change even as membership increases.

  13. Dani and Anon 2:18

    Upon looking into the matter further, I find no confirmation that dues would go down if there were fair share. It is possible that I am missing something or that different rates might be negotiated, but it is clear to me that my "understanding" above was not fully accurate.

    I understand that the high cost of dues remains a concern for union members and non-union members, alike. Except in times like these, it is hard to see what your dues get you. It's a bit like insurance that way.

    The FSN's staunch anti-union stance (and, in some cases, their anti-negotiation stance) may have caused them to miss a real opportunity. They might find considerable support for reform if they offered an alternative (possibly local only) union to represent the bargaining unit.

    That said, I would not like to be in this current struggle to retain some input into the running of this place (some shared governance) without the resources the NEA/IEA has been able to provide.


I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.