A couple of stories to help view our situation in its wider context.
UIC faculty are moving toward unionization though it has yet to be seen whether a majority of faculty support this. Here's the AFT story on the move, which claims this would be the first public research university in Illinois to unionize. Oops. (Already sent them a comment.)
An Inside Higher Ed story details how many faculty at state universities in Nevada view changes to the state's policy as an attack on tenure, though state education officials deny this.
Friday, April 29, 2011
"Unions announce intent to strike"
Just one quick clarification for any getting their news mainly from the DE. Today's DE story is rather confused on a number of counts, but while the headline (repeated above) is a forgivable abbreviation, the story proper ought to have more clearly distinguished between an intent to strike notice and the intent to strike. The awkwardly named notice merely gives the unions the right to strike after ten days. Votes by each local would be needed to authorize a strike. So saying the unions "intend to strike" now is a bit like saying the US intends to relect Obama (or elect Trump). The notices say, to my mind, that the unions are beginning to openly prepare for a strike should that become necessary. But the goal is a contract. A strike threat and, should it come to that, a strike, are means to that end. The intent, then, is to do whatever it takes, within our legal rights, to secure a fair contract.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
"When Bitter Bargaining Bleeds Over"
I stumbled upon something rather interesting in the automated feed of links I've set up down on the left side of the blog, a story in Inside Higher Ed about a no-confidence vote against the president of the University of New Hampshire, which is unionized. Negotiations there are stalled, and the state is talking about major budget cuts. I have no great insight into the New Hampshire no-confidence vote (which the president predictably wrote off as a bargaining tactic). But reading down the rather impressively detailed story brought up a gem I'll put after the break.
Unions file "Intent to Strike" notice
The IEA unions (FA, NTT-FA, ACsE, GA United) held a joint news conference today to announce that they had filed a "Intent to Strike" notice.
These notices will, once the ten day period called for by law passes, remove the last legal hurdle before a strike could be called. A democratic hurdle remains: votes of the membership of each local, and no such votes have been scheduled. As a matter of substance the filing isn't a surprise--anyone paying much attention would know that the unions were not going to simply keep quiet after the administration imposed its terms. The filing of this notice is really the least they could do to make their opposition to the administration's attempt to unilaterally dictate terms that should be negotiated and agreed to by both sides. But of course uttering the word "strike" in public raises the ante. Let us hope it leads the administration to start negotiating in earnest and work together with the unions resolve the outstanding issues sooner rather than later.
More information on this notice and the current state of negotiations (or rather the absence of negotiations, save for some nugatory talks with the GA union) will be available at the joint union meeting on Monday at 4:45 in Lawson 141. The FA will hold a general meeting of its own on Tuesday May 10 at 5:30 at the Carterville IEA office at 500 E. Plaza Dr. Directions to that office and the text of the announcement after the break.
These notices will, once the ten day period called for by law passes, remove the last legal hurdle before a strike could be called. A democratic hurdle remains: votes of the membership of each local, and no such votes have been scheduled. As a matter of substance the filing isn't a surprise--anyone paying much attention would know that the unions were not going to simply keep quiet after the administration imposed its terms. The filing of this notice is really the least they could do to make their opposition to the administration's attempt to unilaterally dictate terms that should be negotiated and agreed to by both sides. But of course uttering the word "strike" in public raises the ante. Let us hope it leads the administration to start negotiating in earnest and work together with the unions resolve the outstanding issues sooner rather than later.
More information on this notice and the current state of negotiations (or rather the absence of negotiations, save for some nugatory talks with the GA union) will be available at the joint union meeting on Monday at 4:45 in Lawson 141. The FA will hold a general meeting of its own on Tuesday May 10 at 5:30 at the Carterville IEA office at 500 E. Plaza Dr. Directions to that office and the text of the announcement after the break.
Dean Search for College of Engineering "Compromised"
The following was issued yesterday afternoon by the Seach Committee for the College of Engineering Dean:
A majority of the College of Engineering Dean Search Committee has endorsed this statement: The College of Engineering Dean Search Committee, a committee with 22 members representing various constituencies within and outside of the College of Engineering, was formed last fall to review applications and make recommendations for interviews on campus with the goal of recruiting a Dean for the College of Engineering by July 1, 2011. The Committee received 34 applications. The Committee met numerous times and spent countless hours reviewing, discussing, and evaluating the candidates based on the criteria published in the job description (which had also been reviewed and agreed upon by the Committee). Following this exhaustive review of the candidates' credentials and experience, the Committee narrowed the pool and contacted references for written letters and verbal comments (over the telephone). Following our review of reference letters and telephone input we further narrowed the candidates to a finalist of 4 and made a recommendation to the Chancellor that these candidates be invited for interview. The Committee was asked to review 3 candidates again on Affirmative Action grounds. However, the committee found large differences in the credentials of these candidates and those recommended for interview. The upper administration then unilaterally added one of these 3 candidates to the interview pool and ignored concerns expressed by the committee. We therefore feel that the uniformity of the search process has been compromised.
A majority of the College of Engineering Dean Search Committee has endorsed this statement: The College of Engineering Dean Search Committee, a committee with 22 members representing various constituencies within and outside of the College of Engineering, was formed last fall to review applications and make recommendations for interviews on campus with the goal of recruiting a Dean for the College of Engineering by July 1, 2011. The Committee received 34 applications. The Committee met numerous times and spent countless hours reviewing, discussing, and evaluating the candidates based on the criteria published in the job description (which had also been reviewed and agreed upon by the Committee). Following this exhaustive review of the candidates' credentials and experience, the Committee narrowed the pool and contacted references for written letters and verbal comments (over the telephone). Following our review of reference letters and telephone input we further narrowed the candidates to a finalist of 4 and made a recommendation to the Chancellor that these candidates be invited for interview. The Committee was asked to review 3 candidates again on Affirmative Action grounds. However, the committee found large differences in the credentials of these candidates and those recommended for interview. The upper administration then unilaterally added one of these 3 candidates to the interview pool and ignored concerns expressed by the committee. We therefore feel that the uniformity of the search process has been compromised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)