Closing thoughts on the strike

Some closing thoughts on the conflict between the FA and the administration that culminated in last fall's strike.

I suppose the lead can be that less has changed, at least in relations between the FA and administration, than many of us expected. Many expected Armageddon. It didn't happen. Neither the FA nor the Poshard/Cheng administration has ceased to exist. Neither side won a clear victory, but neither has peace and goodwill broken out. Now back to business as usual isn't the worst of all possible results. The Cheng administration has not engaged in any significant retribution that I'm aware of (my relatively smooth approval to serve as chair is one sign of that for those who don't regard me as a traitor to the True Cause). Nor, so far as I am aware, has there been much in the way of action by FA stalwarts to punish their colleagues who didn't strike.

Of course that fact that nothing much has changed doesn't mean that a stalemate was inevitable, or that there aren't longer-term consequences of the strike and the conflict leading up to it that have yet to become evident. I still tend to believe that the FA faced a true existential threat during the strike, and suspect that putting an end to the FA was at least one result devoutly to be wished as far as some on the administrative side were concerned. It's also possible that had more faculty joined the FA strike, more effectively shutting down campus, Cheng could have been sacked. The fact that one emerges from a contest with the parties more or less where they started doesn't mean that the stakes weren't high in the first place, only that the contest came out more or less even.

Thoughts on possible longer term results after the break.

Agreement between FA and FS

I've received a request to post the "Principles of Agreement" (a.k.a. "Memo of Understanding") between the FA and the FS. It's embedded below. This memo dates to the origin of the Faculty Association in 1996.

Principles of Agreement

Overload update: The FS and the FA on the same page

Vero Maisier of the FA bargaining team notes that SIUC has a new overload policy. And one of our more indefatigable commentators, "paranoid", has well noted that the Faculty Senate proposed changes very close to the bargaining position of the FA, and even linked to the relevant FS minutes for December 14, 2010.  Scroll down to the Faculty Status and Welfare committee, and click on the pdf attached there for details. 

If one studies the pdf, which shows the original proposed policy and suggested changes, and compares and the overload policy now posted on the SIUC website, one can see that the administration did indeed respond to some of the concerns raised by the FS. It did not, however, alter its original compensation proposal (half to one month's salary). Among the many other changes the administration did not accept were proposals by the FS to change various clauses indicated that overload compensation "may" be paid to clauses saying that overload compensation "will" be paid.

1. The FS and the FA both take seriously their roles of representing faculty. The position of the two bodies here is essentially the same (whether through coordination or not I frankly don't know). It is not necessary to play one body off of the other, as some on both side too often do (FA members characterizing the FS as a group of lackeys, and Professor Eichholz of the "Faculty for Sensible Negotiations" characterizing the FA as a bunch of uncivil louts).

2. The FS can only advise. The administration, to its credit, did make some changes in its original policy. But on the bottom line issue of funding, it gave no ground. Without the collective bargaining rights of the FA, that would be the end of the story. Unless or until the Sensibles call for converting the Faculty Senate into a faculty union, that is all the FS will be able to do. This advisory role is important, but it is obviously limited.

92% of FA voters support strike authorization

Most of you will already have heard the news. Here's the official announcement from Randy Hughes, President of the Faculty Association:

Dear Colleagues,

The strike authorization vote by Faculty Association members has been completed. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the voting members of the Faculty Association participated in the balloting. Of those voting, ninety-two percent (92%) voted yes to authorize the Departmental Representative Council (DRC) of the SIUC Faculty Association to initiate a strike.

It is my hope that the results of this vote will stimulate productive negotiations and that the SIUC Administration will address the issues at stake in a spirit of mutual give and take instead of unilateral imposition. Our goal, and the best outcome for our university, will be a collective bargaining agreement that is ratified because it meets the interests of both the faculty and the Board of Trustees.

In solidarity,
Randy Hughes

DRC moves to hold strike authorization vote

After a General Membership Meeting of the FA this evening, the DRC (Departmental Representatives Council) tonight voted to have the full membership of the FA (dues paying members) vote on September 28th whether or not to authorize the DRC to call a strike. If the vote carries (by a majority of those members who turn out to vote), the DRC would then have the power to call a strike at a date of its choosing.

The thinking, I believe, is that the DRC is the most representative body in the FA (save the full membership itself, of course), but also has the ability to coordinate with other locals, and to respond to any changes in the bargaining situation (things the full membership could not do itself). The DRC vote is a major step forward in preparation for a strike, and the membership vote would be a still greater one. If members approve the measure, they will give their elected representatives the authority to call a strike on their behalf.

FA General Membership Meeting

General Membership Meeting of the FA: 

Today (Thursday 9/15) 5:00-6:30 
in Lawson 171. 

This crucial meeting will discuss the lack of progress on key issues at the bargaining table, and preparation and planning for a possible strike. As important as getting information to members will be getting questions and concerns from members. If you are a member (or wish to become one: there will be membership forms at the door), and there's any way you can make the meeting, do make every effort to attend. 

See you there.  

Dave

"Informational Picketing" for Thursday 9/1

Here an announcement in which I shed my kinda objective sorta journalistic blogger hat for my union activist cap.

The campus IEA unions are holding an "informational picket" on Thursday from 11-1, on the campus side of route 51 near the intersection with Grand Avenue. The basic message we hope to send is that the administration needs to get serious about bargaining fair contracts with the various union campus--in order to prevent information picketing from the upgrade to strike picketing. Below you should see a flier announcing the four union rally/picket to be held on Thursday. Do feel free to copy, print, and distribute widely if you are so inclined. Other fliers are also making their way around campus.

A strong turnout for this event will be crucial to applying pressure on the administration to get moving at the bargaining table. If lots of people show up, the administration may feel a greater need to adopt a more flexible bargaining posture and hence prevent a strike. 

In the interest of fair play, I'd be willing to post announcements for any "Save Our Administration" rallies as well.

sept 1 dmj

Chronicle Forum on the Future of Faculty Unions

Jon Bean has brought my attention to an interesting July 24 Chronicle discussion of the future of faculty unions. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with his characterization of the debate as entirely one-sided--from the pro-union side. While three of the six participants in the forum are indeed union activists, two others are administrators. At any rate, it is worth a read.

From furloughs to fair share

This post started as a response to an anonymous comment (henceforth referred to as "Anonymous 10:31") made to the prior post.  Because I got so long winded I thought I'd go ahead and promote my comment to a new post here, to call this debate to the attention of readers not obsessive enough to be following the lengthy comment stream from the prior post.  This ramble will culminate in a paradoxical claim: that the moderate and consistent position is for the faculty to stop arguing about whether the FA represents us or not and decide once and for all whether we want a union to represent us. My guess is that the majority of the faculty has yet to make up its mind on that rather crucial issue.  It's time to do so, folks.

Anonymous 10:31 argued that the FA was willing to "throw faculty under the bus" by allowing layoffs. The FA opposed both furloughs and layoffs because neither was required, in our judgment (I helped form it), by the fiscal situation; either, in other words, would be an administrative decision to shift money from faculty to other priorities (Saluki Way, "professional non-faculty" staffers, etc.--check out the FA White Papers). So this wasn't the only move possible to balance the budget—which is how it was presented to us. The FA thus rejects the premise 10:31 relies on.  Whether furloughs or layoffs were necessary because the administration was going to get them come hell or high water is of course another issue--which the level of faculty support for the FA will largely determine. If you think the administration should be allowed to determine what is necessary, including shifting resources from academics to other things, without negotiating with the faculty, then the FA is indeed not for you. 

In other words, we're trying to stop the damn bus, rather than urging everyone to jump in front of it in the hopes that all of us will escape with only a broken limb or two. 

NEA Unions to Host "Labor School"

The same activists who've been working hard all summer producing events like the protest at the BOT meeting and the satirical campus tour are preparing a more substantive event on August 20, the Saturday before the first day of classes. Check out the embedded flier for more details--and I'll hope to see you there.

[As what appears to be an informed comment notes, this event is for union members only--members of any of the IEA locals--and as seating is limited an RSVP is in order.]


FAFlyer Labor School

Union Membership and Union Support

The Southern ran a balanced or even pro-union story on membership this morning, under the headline "SIUC Unions: Support is Strong". One could readily imagine the story being spun the other way, as membership levels reported are all at or below 33%. But probably Codell Rodriguez didn't find anyone to spin it that way on the record, so he played it straight. While it is entirely possible that an administration source gave him the numbers (which aren't a state secret, by the way, so this would just be normal story seeding, not anything unethical), no administration source was apparently available to opine that membership levels showed weak support for the unions. So the story consists largely of union presidents saying their unions are strong (though Anita Stoner is a bit more balanced in her analysis of things regarding the NTT).  Despite their rabidly anti-union editorial stance, the Southern's reporting is fairly even handed, for which they deserve credit.

The comparison Randy Hughes made to cultural organizations--who enjoy the informal and non-financial support of many but financial and time contributions from few--helps explain low membership. Union membership drives are a bit like NPR pledge drives. The problem is that everyone benefits from the union, whether or not they pay dues. And union dues are rather higher than my NPR membership.  My own ramblings on the overall impact of the membership issue, likely to infuriate many readers (as if there were many readers out there to infuriate), after the break.

"Strike Watch #1"

Most readers will have received the "Strike Watch" email from Randy Hughes already, but I'll paste it below the break for any who haven't, and this post will provide a forum for any who wish to comment on it.

The FA's basic argument, as I see it, is that the administration is refusing to work toward reaching an agreement on a number of issues the FA deems essential. Even the FA doens't expect the administration to agree with most of the FA's proposals on such issues: but it can and should expect and even demand that the administration reach some agreement on crucial points.

To some extent, to be sure, this sort of disagreement is to be expected: the administration will almost always want fewer matters addressed in a contract, the FA more. And there will be some issues where reasonable people could disagree about whether the "flexibility" lost by contractualizing something outweighs the gain in transparency and equity. But among the FA's issues are some pretty essential matters, including workload, tenure, and the administration's claim to the power to unilaterally cut salaries (via furloughs). A contract that fails to address these issues isn't a contract at all, so if the administration continues to refuse to engage in substantive bargaining about them (other than by saying that it retains the sole power to declare furloughs, to layoff faculty, etc.), the FA can't agree to it.

That's why there is a "strike watch", a neat phrase which may in fact be putting things a bit too conservatively. Unless the administration backs down from some of its major impositions in the "last, best, and final" terms imposed on us last spring, there will be a strike. The unions are making plans for a strike. I've seen a calendar with "first strike date"on it. A vote would have to authorize a strike, but I don't think there's any doubt that union members would back a strike if the administration fails to compromise--and only members can vote. If the administration thinks this is a bluff, they need to reconsider.

AAUP President: organize & scrutinize the budget

Kriti Brown over at the Unions United blog notes that the Chronicle has a story on a speech by AAUP President Cary Nelson in which Nelson (who works at UIUC) calls for faculty to organize (forming unions if they can, AAUP chapters if they can't) and scrutinize university budgets as a way of meeting the wave of cuts to academic programs around the country. This is a pretty direct endorsement of what the FA has been trying to do—though perhaps more in the way of a membership drive would seem to be called for.  Again, the issues we are dealing with here are part of a national context. In some ways (already having a unionized campus, for example) we are better off than many of our colleagues elsewhere.  But we will only manage to flourish despite the current crisis if more faculty get involved.

Tactical legal victory in Wisconsin

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that the Republican controlled state legislature violated the state's open meeting law when it gutted the pensions and collective bargaining rights of state employees.

This is by no means a final defeat for the Republican plan: the state's supreme court may overturn this lower court ruling, and the legislature could pass the law again even if the courts do invalidate their first action. But it is a pretty clear indication of the lengths to which opponents of public employee labor unions are willing to go to attack unions.

We are part of a big fight on the national and state level that will have a tremendous impact on the status of our jobs. We are lucky to be allied with a union (IEA/NEA) that retains some power on the state and national level. They will have more power if you join them. If you're a tenured or tenure-track faculty member click here for information on how to do so.  (You won't even have to pay dues until September.)

Unionization and Shared Governance in Western Washington

The AAUP's Journal of Academic Freedom has just published a positive account of the role of unionization at the University of Western Washington. The main thesis is that unionization preserves shared governance (rather than undermining it, as is sometimes argued). The conclusion:

I don’t want to romanticize unionization. There are still a lot of genuine differences and disagreements with administrators, trustees, resolutely anti‐union faculty members, and statewide affiliates. And no matter what system you have, dumb people in key positions making dumb decisions can always make things bad.

But the state of shared governance on our campus right now is the best it has ever been in the fifteen years I have worked at Western. And the biggest reason for that is that our faculty now have the statewide strength and campus clout that comes with collective bargaining.

New Joint Union Web Site

The closest thing to news at tonight's general meeting for the IEA unions on campus was the announcement of new joint website for the IEA unions . This site should of course continue to be regarded as the ultimate absolute gold standard for everything you'll ever need to know about faculty issues at SIUC, but the joint union site will clue you in to issues effecting folks other than (tenured/tenure-track) faculty. Among the things it links to is a new set of "FAQs" addressing various areas of concern, ranging from the legalities of "Intent to Strike Notices" to the unions' positions and approach to bargaining, as contrasted with those of the administration.

Point vs. Counterpoint

Dueling op-ed pieces in the Southern today, presented in "Point" vs. "Counter-point" format.

• The Silent Majority piece we saw in the DE on April 13 was resurrected to serve as the Point.
• Natasha Zaretsky wrote a new op-ed piece attempting to explain, to the Southern's readers, why so many SIUC faculty and staff are upset with the administration's unwillingness to negotiate with campus unions.

FA: Negotiate, or we file "Right to Strike" notice

The Faculty Association is making some moves, albeit in a fairly low-key way so far. A new "fact sheet" entitled "Our Bargaining Rights", the first of a planned series of such items, notes that the FA's Department Representatives Council has given FA President Randy Hughes the authority to file a "Notice of Intent to Strike". Such a notice would not, despite its legal title, in fact obligate the FA to strike, but would remove the last legal hurdle to a strike, and thus would count as "more serious action" in the language of the fact sheet.

I say "would count" as more serious action because the FA has not yet in fact filed this notice, choosing instead to give the administration an opportunity to return to the bargaining table and engage in good faith bargaining "right away". I have heard not the slightest hint of any such negotiations taking place, however, which presumably means that the FA may file this notice fairly soon.

"On Chancellor Cheng's Ultimatum"

The FA has released a document making its case that the FA negotiated in good faith while the administration failed to do so. To my not entirely unbiased mind it provides the clearest account of the breakdown in negotiations currently available. I would be curious to hear the administration's response. On Chancellor Cheng's Ultimatum

The Silent Majority Speaks

The silent majority has spoken up in today's DE, providing me with an easy cheap-shot illustration. 

Nixon famously used the phrase "the silent majority"of those who supported the war in Vietnam which he, of course, was earnestly attempting to bring to an end. Now there was a leader one could trust! But back to events more contemporary.