Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Faculty for No Negotiations 2.0

I'm going rogue on the FSN and letting Blogger Dave out of the box for a moment (though he's snuck through in comments below).  I do so because the FSN message sent yesterday may seem to meet the objections I raised to the FSN earlier (so I feel it's pretty imperative to comment) and because the FA is too busy with other things right now to make the FSN an official priority or produce an official response.

The FSN white paper presents what many will find an attractive vision for shared governance on campus.  But what is utterly lacking, still, is any practicable means for achieving this end, their vision of shared governance. And the faculty committee they are calling for us to vote for seems to me to be chimerical.

1.  The FSN isn't proposing a union to replace the FA, but a beefed-up faculty senate.  There is no allowance for dues, collective bargaining, contracts, or--heaven forfend--strike authority in their proposal. They aren't, in short, suggesting that we switch unions but that we no longer have one.

2.  I'm not a lawyer.  But unless I am mistaken, the IELRB is the governing Board for Illinois Educational Labor Relations in the technical sense--union-management relations at educational institutions.  If you don't have a union, you don't need to follow their rules, I don't think. You don't qualify as an "exclusive bargaining agent".  But neither do you have the legal rights the law affords labor unions.  The JRB doesn't automatically gain the right to binding arbitration which the FSN says it would have--because the right to binding arbitration in grievances is protected by the IELRA, the Illinois Education Labor Relations Act--where "labor relations" again means "relations between unions and employers".  The administration could, if it so chose, give this power to the JRB, I suppose. Good luck with that. Similarly, the administration could, if it so choose, voluntarily enter into discussions with the faculty senate which would produce memorandums that limited its powers to shut down programs or fire faculty. Again, good luck with that.

3. Thus the FSN proposal doesn't pass what I will honestly characterize as an amateur sniff test if evaluated as a proposal to switch bargaining agents. Neither does it pass muster as a legitimate effort to improving shared governance. For the FSN has not engaged in any formal or informal conversations with the faculty senate about their proposal to radically change the faculty senate.  In large part this is because of fears of collusion with those with AP and managerial appointments on the FS.  This shows once again the problem with the FSN proposal: they are trying to present the faculty with an autonomous faculty bargaining agent when in fact their proposal requires administrative cooperation. There is a good reason, in other words, that the FSN and FS are tied up in legalistic knots to such an extent that they can't even meet.  Illinois law requires exclusive bargaining agents to be truly autonomous groups representing workers, not management. This simply not possible for the faculty senate.  Hence the FSN can't even get meetings with the FS started, much less work out an plan for how to get from where we are to the happy place they want to be.

4. Thus the FSN plan is neither fish nor fowl: it is neither a legitimate effort to produce an alternative exclusive bargaining agent for the FA, nor is it a bona fide effort to improve shared governance on campus. What it amounts to, then, is a way to provide a positive cover for their attack on the FA--a seemingly positive proposal whose only effective function will be negative, to destroy the FA. If you doubt my legalistic reasoning above, you need only consider the rush to get this petition done this week, of all weeks--likely the most important in the history of the FA.

Let me repeat what I have said before--and said for long before the FSN came into existence.  I (Blogger Dave) can well understand principled reasons why some faculty would prefer to work at a campus without a union. And I can also understand that some faculty have honest and principled beefs with how the FA has represented them, and would like the FA to change tactics, or even want to see a wholesale change in its leadership. I could also understand faculty wanting not to be associated with the IEA but with some other union organization. In short, there are open and honest ways of attacking the FA. Whatever its proposers may believe, and whatever their true intentions may be, the FSN proposal is not, in my view, an intellectually honest way of attacking the FA. I cannot see how this effort to persuade faculty to vote for a chimerical faculty senate committee, a fantastic concoction imagined to have all the powers of a union and all the comity of traditional shared governance, but with none of the weaknesses of either approach, can be a principled way of pursuing any legitimate goal.  It is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest to suggest that we can have something we cannot have.


  1. "It is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest to suggest that we can have something we cannot have."

    Perhaps someone needs to tell that to the FA bargaining team.

  2. If you a problem with your chair or dean or another administrator and have to file a grievance the FSN will do nothing to help you. We need a real union.

  3. We cannot have union without unity. The current situation is that the FA's tactics have divided the faculty, pitting those that support the FA against the those who do not. Thus divided we cannot survive. It is time for change. The FA, as it currently exists, has to go. I support the FSN.

  4. My understanding is that, under Illinois labor law, a local collective bargaining unit has the same legal rights as any union. Of course, a local collective unit does not have the backing of a national or state labor organization and that is really the debate. Do we need an external organization to exercise our rights? I do not think that Dave is correct in stating that the proposed committee would have no power. I think it would have precisely that same legal rights as the FA, short of the team of lawyers from the NEA.

    Whether that team of lawyers is needed could be a valid debate, but lets make sure we are accurate about the rights of a local collective bargaining unit. If I am wrong, please educate me.

  5. I don't know what chimerical means.

  6. "It is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest to suggest that we can have something we cannot have."

    Perhaps someone needs to tell that to the FA bargaining team."

    Amen to that! I grant that my reasons for voting for strike authorization on 9/28, AT THAT TIME, were valid: the administration was not bargaining with us in good faith. Now that is no longer true. Instead of an absurd and unreasonable RIF article imposed on us last spring, we have a full academic year if this rare event occurs. We have a 26:1 ratio, which will in all likelihood mean the swift ending of the hiring freeze next fall given that tenured and tenure-track professors are down at a greater percentage than enrollment. We have a concession from the administration that overload and distance learning would be voluntary and that professors can opt out if they feel that DL is pedagogically unsound (although they are sticking to an overload formula that allows them to pay 0.5-1 month salary, standard at most universities throughout the US, but a non-starter with my bargaining team it appears.

    My FA bargaining team only very recently it seems backed off of their joint-commission idea, but they still want a fact finding body to weigh in on whether furloughs and financial exigency are necessary. I support this to a point; there ought to be some standards written into the contract as to what FE is (or perhaps is not). But as Socrates Finger and others have repeatedly pointed out, the BOT has a sole fiduciary responsibility for all of this granted by the state of Illinois. There are external audits done every year on the books by trained CPAs from the state not "real SIUC budgets" written by classic professors. Sorry that fish don't fly.

    So where does this leave us? Are we really going to strike over having a fact-finding panel put into the contract? Perhaps I can see the wisdom in that if it leads to some standards being put into the contract about what FE is (or is not). But we are taking a risk here in assuming that the FA will win the strike if one is called on Thursday. Come Thursday, I will be a loyal soldier and will join my picket line if it comes to that. But I will be pissed as hell if I find out that my bargaining team is being unreasonable and may just sign that FSN card. I am not there yet - I think their proposals are somewhat naive - but the longer the FA does not settle this contract, the more people like myself are getting frustrated, disgusted, and pissed off.

  7. Here's the thing: Under Illinois law, you cannot simply "deauthorize" a union (the FA). You have to follow a procedure to decertify that includes an election with the incumbent, a rival entity, and "no union." So this is the only way, weird as it sounds, for the FSN to put the FA up for a vote of confidence.

  8. Disgusted-- Can you point to the RIF-one year language you referred to? Thanks.

  9. http://siucfa.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/board-rif-offer.pdf

    This was offered to the FA on October 7th... It seems clear that we needed to vote to authorize a strike on 9/28 to get this from the administration, and since then, the administration has conceded other things. Question is: are we going to take a half-loaf at this point and move on to the next contract, when a better economic climate will likely be the case? Or are we waiting for 90% and will strike if we don't get it?

  10. A semester after the semester one gets notified they may be laid-off in effect is a full-academic year. For lay readers thinking this overly generous, I point you to the peculiar nature of the academic job market, where jobs are often advertised in the fall the year ahead of when they actually start, and so if a professor is laid off in November, giving him his pay through May gives him or her a chance to land another comparable tenured or tenure-track job whereas 30 days' notice just is laughable given the structure of the job market.

    Now, this could be better. U-Conn, for example, has severance pay built into their RIF language, recognizing how hard it is for academics to find a job sometimes. Perhaps we should be pursuing things like this, that might really matter materially to us, than tilting at conspiratorial windmills with DL and workload. Just saying.

  11. It is very clear the FSN does not want any union. If we had a local union we'd end up electing pretty much the same group of activists to run it. So, those who don't like the FA's tactics would gain nothing.

    A major loss, aside from IEA state support, would be our connections with the other three IEA campus unions.

    As for the FA's tactics, it is clear as Disgusted noted, that the contract we will get out of this will be better then what the Chancellor imposed. We're winning.

  12. You know, the FSN has about 20-30 core members. If they really believed in sensible negotiations, they could join the FA and by working as a block get some of their people into the FA leadership. There they could influence the FA's tactics. But everyone knows that is not what they are interested in. If you support the Chancellor's imposed terms, if you are a big fan of furloughs, sign the FSN's decertification card.

  13. I don't quite agree with the 1 year argument, Disgusted. If budgets from the state are handed out in June/July, the administration can give notice on July 1 (45 days) and the employee would be out of a job on January 1. Then all of the problems you point to emerge. That is because they refer to the summer as a semester for purposes of the contract provisions.

    In the past, the unions have negotiated non-reappointment language of Sept 1. If not by Sept. 1, you have your job for the year. If after Sept 1, you have it for 2 years (though I would image people would be searching to leave as soon as possible). Why not that as the standard for FE as well?

  14. Sorry, 7:16 here. I just saw that the 1 year is what the FA is calling for (from point of notice). This covers my summer concern. I missed this in my response. This is and continues to be my big issue-- not raises, not DL, not overload, not fair share, but furlough/layoff/RIF that takes into account the uniqueness of the academic job market that Disgusted noted.


  15. Anonymous 7:16 If tenure and tenure-track faculty other than in the library are on on nine-month contracts, technically we do not work on July 1. Our contract states that we work beginning on August 16th.

    So... say the university pulls the FE trigger at that point mandating a RIF. That would give me, the least senior continuing appointment in my department after all the term lecturers, civil service people, etc., are laid off, the entire fall semester, and then one more semester after that.

    Unless I am really reading things incorrectly - which given the drama around here and the lack of sleep lately that I and others have suffered - may be possible, I believe that gives me a full academic year of protection before I am laid off. Should at the time I am an associate professor, I would then get the three years additionally before I lose my tenure at the university (although I agree with Dave J. that this is a bit farcical).

  16. Mike - I disagree. I think that we are all losing. I don't think that the FSN or any other faculty member on this campus should have to support a union to have their voice heard. The FSN is calling for the faculty to voice their support for different representation. If the FA really has the support it claims, there is nothing to lose.

  17. Now of course: if we wanted to be really paranoid about this, and assume, for the sake of argument, that the university changes the meaning of "the end of the semester after" (e.g., goes back to the quarter system of the 1960s when President Morris was here), then I think you would have a point. But any reasonable parsing of the "the end of the semester after" denotes a window of time from six months (if the FE is declared in December during the tail-end of the fall semester to a full academic year if at the very beginning of that academic year as your example suggests).

  18. Disgusted-- The proposal does not specify that you have to be on contract at the time such notice is given (unless I missed it). Only that classes have to be offered during the academic term (e.g., summer). That is why I think someone could be out of a job come January.

  19. Sorry, I finished reading your 7:20 response - it's been a long day grading first drafts to get those back to my students tomorrow so they aren't in the cross-fires of any strike. Yeah, RIF language is about the only thing I care about now as well - even furloughs don't excite me as much. This is because I would rather this university, if it had a cash-flow crisis similar again to the one that started two years ago (when our library cancelled buying books for a while and then cancelled a lot of journal subscriptions) furlough us than lay off people. I suppose more senior people don't see it the same way, but those of us on the tenure-track the past few years have been a bit nervous about being laid off. Plus, the state is financially broke and dead-beat about paying its vendors (including SIUC) to the point where several of us are now getting charged up front by our medical practitioners.

    So, no, I do not get so excited about furloughs. Not in this economic climate. I expect them to be rare because they are so counterproductive for administrators to employ except when actually needed to prevent layoffs (like I believe was the case last year). And I count on the FA crying uncle as a break on administrators abusing this - hence why I think the FSN's proposals are overly naive. Do we absolutely need this in the contract or else? I am not 100% sure.

  20. Anonymous 7:43 in which case, you may have a point. I would hope that this could easily be clarified into a full academic year (not counting summer).

  21. "Disgusted said...
    A semester after the semester one gets notified they may be laid-off in effect is a full-academic year."

    And don't forget the 99 weeks of unemployment compensation!

  22. If the FA actually were responsive to all faculty then there would be no need for an FSN.

  23. Anonymous 7:53 that is assuming SIUC agrees to unemployment compensation. Does anybody know what they are required to do legally?

  24. My understanding (informed by the good Dr. Bean) is that one can have an independent union unaffiliated with any national organization (AAUP, NEA, etc.). But I don't see how you can have a union whose rules are subject to approval by the employer--and the operating paper of the FS is subject to approval by the administration.

    At least if Mike Eichholz is right about this much (from his email this evening), it is indeed possible to have a vote to simply decertify an incumbent union. Bean would thus be wrong (and my quick skim of the IELRA would seem to confirm that's he's in error here). What the law requires is a third option (no representation) in the event that a second union hopes to replace the first. So the FSN had the option of calling for a straight decertification vote, but chose to present us with what I continue to believe is a phony alternative option. Put otherwise: I would not be making anything like the same argument had the FSN simply called for a decertification vote. I can't claim there's anything unprincipled, illegal, or chimerical about that option. I don't think it's wise, and it would put an end to negotiations with the administration (making it an odd proposal from Faculty For Sensible Negotiations), but you couldn't classify it as nonsense.

    There's a distinction between what any one of us may regard as "impossible to get" based on what we think the administration would never give us and what is impossible to get because it's illogical & illegal. Now some have claimed here that the BOT cannot legally surrender some of the things the FA wants. We would of course need a panel of fine lawyers to sort out just what's legal and what's not regarding legal representation (vis a vis the FSN) and "board responsibilities" (vis a vis the FE). In the meantime, try this quick test. Unions can negotiate terms and conditions of employment. That encompasses layoffs. So I can't see how it can be impossible for the administration to negotiate with the FA over layoffs of faculty.

    You can tell the FSN gets under my skin, as it elevates my vocabulary. A chimera is an ancient Greek monster consisting of part goat, part lion, and part snake. Hence "chimerical" means "imaginary and unreal". Nice to end on a classical note. (May I suggest a Chimera for a future FSN website, to battle it out with the deo volente ostrich?)

  25. 8:28 PM,

    What does "responsive" mean? In a large group of people there will most likely be a minority. Some people won't agree with the majority on some issues. If a handful of faculty want to accept furlough days but most do not, who should the FA be "responsive" too? If a few faculty like the imposed terms but most do not, who should the FA be "responsive" too?

    The FA did a survey of the faculty before bargaining began so that it could be responsive to the concerns of as many faculty as possible. (I think the survey included non-members, but I don't remember for sure.) Departments elect representatives to the DRC so the FA can be responsive to as many faculty as possible. Should the FA be unresponsive to those faculty worried about DL in order to be responsive to the FSN? Should the FA be unresponsive to faculty worried about workload issues in order to be responsive to the FSN?

    A minority faction can either argue for its views or do what the FSN is doing and try to abolish the system. Who will be "responsive" to faculty concerns then? Will the FSN respond to and do exactly what every single faculty member wants done? Get real.

  26. 8:28 PM = "Quiet One"

    Guess what Quiet One. Nobody will be responsive to those who do not speak up.

  27. Dave J.,

    FSN can't simply "decertify" the union without a three-way vote with "no union" being an option. So it has to be a two-step: get 30%, then the vote. This Faculty Senate whatever is the fill-in-the-blank.

    Right to work activists call a revocation of union "deauthorization." Illinois doesn't allow deauthorization. So it is still my understanding that there must be enough petitions for the election. The FA is still on the ballot but all semantics and rule nonsense aside: this is a vote of confidence/no confidence for the FA. So, yes, the FSN is essentially in favor of no union but they leave it up to faculty - all faculty including non-FA members - to do what they did in 1996: vote one way or the other.

    If the FA feels confident, it ought to welcome the test. The timing is awkward but, hey, the law says the windows is now so you can't blame the FSN for it! (Every time I hear FSN I see a mental image of Daniel Ortega of the Sandinista group FSLN!).

    PS: I'll call a lawyer at NTRWLDF but that is my recollection of what he said and what we have here in Illinois law. But at this point it is all moot. You are either for the FA, against it, or for it long term but opposed to a strike now. Yeah, yeah, we are all supposed to be brothers and stand by our union, right or wrong. "Kumbaya. . ."

  28. Funny I've been called "good Dr. Bean" twice in one day. I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek but recall scripture:

    "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. (Matthew 10:18)

    Let's see a FA supposal on "The Good." lol

    Lights out...

  29. Faculty ought to be thankful they have good paying jobs in this economy. Most folks would like to be in their position. A strike would take substantial income out of their pockets. Talk of protecting academic freedom and long-run interests of students is self-serving nonsense.

  30. Whatever viable FA alternatives might still be available in our collective brain trust, I am unimpressed with the options provided. I find no negotiation unwise. I find Faculty Senate subcommittee negotiation infeasible. And I believe we are a shrewd enough community of colleagues not to let a long struggle with management/paradigm shifts lead us to vote "no confidence" with these insufficient alternatives.

  31. FSN could have filed a decertification petition any time since July 1, 2010 or even earlier, in late Jan. or Feb. 2010. They also could have filed back during the bargaining for the previous two contracts.

    "With respect to petitions with proposed bargaining units containing professional instructional personnel, representation and decertification petitions may not be filed
    whenever there is in effect a collective bargaining agreement of three years or shorter duration covering all or some of the employees in the bargaining unit. Collective bargaining
    agreements of longer than three years duration shall serve as a bar for the first three years of their existence. In all cases, representation and decertification petitions may be filed between January 15 and March 1 of the year in which the collective bargaining agreement is due to expire or in the third year of an agreement of more than three years duration. However, no such petition may be filed if it would otherwise be barred by subsection (a) or (b) of this Section."

  32. Mike - Since I arrived here in 2006, the FA has never surveyed my ideas on anything.

  33. 7:00 AM: Are you a member? Anyone can contact the leadership or their DRC or college rep.

    Jonny or Dave: Can you find out if the issues surveys go to the entire bargaining unit or just to members? I certainly think it should to everyone.

  34. I am not a member. A survey was sent prior to the start of bargaining asking about important issues.

  35. November 1, 2011 7:36 PM said: "If the FA really has the support it claims, there is nothing to lose."

    By pushing this now FSN is trying to undermine bargaining. We all lose by this stunt. If they were advocating for different tactics they could explain what tactics they think the FA should use. Then, if they are still unhappy after we have a contract they could organize a decertification vote. That is their right.

    I am not afraid of the FSN. I am exercising my right to argue that they are wrong and are being disingenuous. They clearly want no negotiations but won't say that outright. But they do know how to cook hot dogs! I will do my part to keep the debate civil.

  36. Sorry, for clarification, I (7:12) am not the same anonymous as 7:00. I recall an email survey from the FA (again, I am not a member) because I raised concerns about furloughs when they were only being discussed. Perhaps 7:00 was not on the list but the survey could not have been limited to just member input.

  37. 7:00 AM,

    Check your spam filter.


    Maybe if would good to remind people how to submit with a chosen name. Just click the "Comment as" menu and chose "Name/URL". A box will appear. Enter any name you like that no one else is using. You can leave the URL blank.

  38. In three contracts negotiations worth of representation I have NEVER been surveyed by the FA in anyway. I have been thankful for the periodic updates that I receive, but have never been asked my opinion. When I first saw it reported that the Departmental Representative Council had voted unanimously for something in which I disagreed, I contacted the FA president to ask who my Departmental representative was why I had not been queried. I was informed that I did not have a representative in my department and that I should express my concerns my College representative. I have done so, but I still have not been asked my opinion or surveyed in any way.

    We can of course debate the merits and special privilege of paying dues, but the FA lost me when they refuse to bring important decisions to a full vote of the faculty they represent. Most alienating was the vote to authorize a strike and the actual vote to strike. Regardless of the vote results, ALL faculty should have a considered voice in this decision. It is even arguable that the BOT final offer should have been brought to a vote of the entire body, not only dues paying members. I am all ears if anyone can tell me a reason otherwise in a way that does not insult my intelligence or dedication to this University.

    Despite all the rhetoric of union busting and administrative puppetry, THIS is the type of thing that gives power to an alternative such as the FSN and why many people are longing for a representative body to represent them. The call to pay significant dues to join a union to potential instil a more moderate approach is insulting in this academic community that we call home.

  39. What Mike said. If you post here often, consider using the unlinked "name/URL" process below, leaving URL blank. Pick a clever name, if you like.

    I did not check with the FA yet (they are kind of busy), but I polled the FA and nonFA faculty in my department, and they all remember a pre-negotiation survey. That was over 500 days ago, so I understand how you might not recall or, if you are a recent hire, how it happened "before your time."

  40. Mike....I was not offered a survey. But I have emailed Randy Hughes with my views and have always been treated with dignity and tact.

    I have voiced my concerns and views with the Administration and have always been treated with dignity and tact.

    I have voiced my concerns in the Faculty Senate and have not always been treated with dignity and tact.

    I have quietly read and read and read these posts, the FA info, the Chancellors' info, and the FSN info. It amuses me that some are annoyed at the FSN's timing. When I talk with people FA and non-FA alike, they are angry at the FA's strike timing during a fiscally treacherous time for everybody. So timing is okay for the FA goose, but not for the FSN gander?

    Since I have been here, administrations have changed; yet the FA seems to be unable to change from a revolutionary one that is more adversarial to a true democratic one where negotiations are conducted between parties who can trust one another. Although the FA says it wanted interest based bargaining, I doubt either side has truly spent the time needed to heal and foster insight and create a working environment for shared governance.

  41. It may be a "fiscally treacherous time" for the state but not for spending on sports at SIUC and money to Rita's favorite PR firm who designed a crappy logo. Also, you can not conduct negotiations with people who are essentially non-trustworthy acting on behalf of a Chancellor whose imposed contract destabilizes tenure and undermines academic freedom, that is, unless you are a wimp and/or in the FSN.

  42. 3:58...what makes it so hard to talk about these things with dignity? Why do my views mean I am either a wimp or in the FSN?

    I'm likely not as well informed as you are, but money that was allocated for Saluki Way cannot legally be used for Faculty Salaries. Would that they could be! And focusing on the logo seems awfully simplistic; that money was spent on many other advertising, recruitment, and retention strategies that we have desperately needed.

    Personally, the furlough days made sense to me. I had no reason to want colleagues to be laid off. The contract negotiations that have been posted do not seem to destabilize tenure. Perhaps you could help me understand how?

  43. Last negotiations (2006?), interest based bargaining was in place. Although the bargaining lasted 6-8 months from the expiration of the contract, there was never any real public back and forth between union and administration. Things got worked out at the table. Now, it could be that the economy collapse as something to do with the change in attitudes but there are periods when negotiations run much more smoothly.

  44. ...and annonymous at 3:58 sends another potentional FA member into the arms of the FSN.


  45. Maybe, Anon: 4:18 actually prefers "BS" to the actual facts of the situation? Anyway, we can expect more of these posts from "Rita's pets" as the deadline approaches.

  46. Quite One,

    It is not clear 3:58 was addressing you specifically with the wimp remark. But I agree that his/her rhetoric was not helpful. But 3:58 and 4:12 raise an important point. The same FA has negotiated with past administrations without this much trouble. Negotiations are never easy, but this round has been the worst. And the problems are not just with te FA but with four unions.

    The economy is a factor. Certainly the imposed furloughs have hardened feelings. But the lack of progress on so many issues until the strike authorization vote gives evidence that the delay was mostly because of the Admin side.

    I am glad you have spoken up and welcome you r contributions here. However, you never did say what you mean when you say the FA should "responsive to all faculty." What does this mean? And in what way is the FA a "revolutionary" organization? And how is it not a "democratic" organization? And why would a democratic organization be more trusting?

    What would you have the FA do differently? Should the FA have agreed to the Chancellor's furlough days without double checking her numbers? Should the FA have agreed to the imposed terms and accepted those as the new contract?

    In short I don't understand your terminology and I don't know what your specific disagreements with the FA are.

  47. There was a mention of the FA having negotiated previous contracts without much trouble. Those of us here and paying attention know that is not the case. 2006 contract did not get as ugly as this, but was trouble. It can be argued that BOT actual caved at the last minute giving raises the university really couldn’t afford. In my experience, the net result was a shifting of money from OTS and staff positions to increases in faculty salaries. I, of course, made good use of my increased salary and it went a long way toward fixing some salary compression issues across campus, but I am not sure it was the best thing for the university, overall. The 2003 debacle came way too close to the called strike deadline. I don't hold the BOT harmless either, but the relationship seems broken.

  48. You also have to look into the past when faculty salaries were really low in comparison to peer groups. The university could afford those raises in the past since the money would have gone elsewhere into non-academic areas as it is doing now with sports stadiums, unwanted administration buildings, and none of it directed towards bringing books back into the Morris Library. This administration is only concerned with making money and treating students as passive customers. They have had it coming for some time.

  49. 6:02 PM,

    2003 was contentious but not like this. There was also a new Chancellor trying to prove himself. But thanks for acknowledging that the FA got you a pay raise.

    I'm off to the meeting. I hope some of you who are critical of the FA will come. You might learn something. I went to the FSN cook out. I have to say they had better food.


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.