I withdrew my membership from the union and didn't walk the pickets, but I did withhold my labor during the strike.
The only exceptions had to do with emails.
Friday, January 27, 2023
Sunday, December 11, 2022
Status update: I've withdrawn from the UICUF
I've submitted paperwork to withdraw my name as a member of the UIC United Faculty Union. I believe the pending strike is unjustified, and I cannot in good conscience support the union while it entertains a strike that in my opinion is unjustified. Once the negotiations and any strike are resolved, I'll consider rejoining the union. In the meantime, I pledge to donate to the UIC Food Pantry the amount of money that would otherwise have gone toward the union dues.
I may, in a later post, explain why I believe the strike is unjustified. For now, I'll say only what the union is asking for falls at least in the pale of what is reasonable to ask for, even if I believe on some points the union is mistaken. I'll also say that the university administration is probably primarily responsible for the difficulty in solemnizing a new contract. Nevertheless, I believe the concerns over which the union might strike do not meet the high bar that is necessary for public servants such as the UIC faculty to justify a strike.
I hasten to add I mean no ill-will toward my union-supporting colleagues. I believe they are mistaken, but I'm confident that they are sincere in their belief that they are acting in the interests of themselves, their fellow faculty members, the students, the public, and the university.
Withdrawing from the union doesn't necessarily mean I would cross a picket line if there is a strike. I might and might not. It is one thing to withdraw one's membership in the union. It is another, more difficult thing to cross a picket line. That's true generally. That's especially true when it is one's friends and colleagues who are picketing.
Saturday, May 9, 2020
Unsolicited advice to the union on its response to the covid-19 situation
A few pieces of unsolicited advice to the UIC United Faculty Union in its handling of the covid-19 situation.
First, remember that UIC faculty are, at least in the short term, much more fortunate than many, maybe a large majority, of Chicagoans and Illinoisans. As the UIC administration asks us to do more, potentially without increased compensation, it would behoove the UICUF to consider the optics of how it pursues its "demands" and how it seeks to enforce the current contract.
Second, UIC will likely have a very hard time renewing non-tenure track appointments. In part, that's because revenues are likely to plummet. In part, that's because our (NTT's) wages have increased dramatically over the last 7 years or so and it costs more to keep up on. The union may wish to consider wage concessions or less than full-time reappointments for those of us who as of now have full-time appointments.
Third, the union may soon be forced to define more precisely what it means to protect the interests of its bargaining unit. It is better to accept wage concessions and preserve the jobs of more people, or is it better to keep wages (and other benefits, like professional development funds) at their current level and suffer more layoffs (or, the equivalent, non-renewal of NTT appointments).
Fourth, the university may decide to impose furlough days. The union will have to decide how much it really wants to fight furloughs.
I know I have my differences with the UICUF. But I do appreciate the tough situation it is in. It has done quite a bit of good over the past two months. It's job is to protect its members and its officers have been doing the best they can given the constraints they are in. I also realize that union's current position seems to be, "we're willing to work with the university, but the university needs to be willing to work with us." And from union communications (see the notes from May 1 and May 6 at the UICUF website), it seems the university has chosen to act more unilaterally and without much consultation with the union.
I am writing this "advice," however, because I believe it is easy to forget that--negotiations or no negotiations, unilateralism or "action with union input"--the faculty may have to accept concessions. If the faculty don't, some faculty may have to suffer. (I focus in this post on the situations of NTT's because I am one of them and have much less insight into how this situation may affect the people on the tenure track.)
As to the effect any of this will have on the taxpaying public and on the students, I don't know. Maybe it would be better (or less bad) to have fewer faculty, but higher paid, rather than more faculty, and lower paid.
First, remember that UIC faculty are, at least in the short term, much more fortunate than many, maybe a large majority, of Chicagoans and Illinoisans. As the UIC administration asks us to do more, potentially without increased compensation, it would behoove the UICUF to consider the optics of how it pursues its "demands" and how it seeks to enforce the current contract.
Second, UIC will likely have a very hard time renewing non-tenure track appointments. In part, that's because revenues are likely to plummet. In part, that's because our (NTT's) wages have increased dramatically over the last 7 years or so and it costs more to keep up on. The union may wish to consider wage concessions or less than full-time reappointments for those of us who as of now have full-time appointments.
Third, the union may soon be forced to define more precisely what it means to protect the interests of its bargaining unit. It is better to accept wage concessions and preserve the jobs of more people, or is it better to keep wages (and other benefits, like professional development funds) at their current level and suffer more layoffs (or, the equivalent, non-renewal of NTT appointments).
Fourth, the university may decide to impose furlough days. The union will have to decide how much it really wants to fight furloughs.
I know I have my differences with the UICUF. But I do appreciate the tough situation it is in. It has done quite a bit of good over the past two months. It's job is to protect its members and its officers have been doing the best they can given the constraints they are in. I also realize that union's current position seems to be, "we're willing to work with the university, but the university needs to be willing to work with us." And from union communications (see the notes from May 1 and May 6 at the UICUF website), it seems the university has chosen to act more unilaterally and without much consultation with the union.
I am writing this "advice," however, because I believe it is easy to forget that--negotiations or no negotiations, unilateralism or "action with union input"--the faculty may have to accept concessions. If the faculty don't, some faculty may have to suffer. (I focus in this post on the situations of NTT's because I am one of them and have much less insight into how this situation may affect the people on the tenure track.)
As to the effect any of this will have on the taxpaying public and on the students, I don't know. Maybe it would be better (or less bad) to have fewer faculty, but higher paid, rather than more faculty, and lower paid.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
The Janus decision
As I (kind of) predicted last year, the Supreme Court has invalidated compulsory fair share provisions for public sector employee unions. As I promised, I have effective today, June 28, 2018, rejoined the union despite the fact that I do not support it. The reasons I have joined are two:
First, I have personally benefited in many ways, directly and indirectly. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to forbear paying and yet receive benefit, absent any compelling reason.
Second, there has been no compelling reason. The union, its leaders, and its members have refrained from doing anything unconscionable. With very few exceptions--such as anyone must expect from an organization of this sort--the union's members have refrained from the types of antagonistic confrontation against dissenters in which other unions sometimes engage.
In fact, the few times I have raised my concerns about the union, I received an empathetic hearing even if my interlocutors disagreed with me. And when I rescinded my membership back in November 2015, the union rep cheerfully went out of their way to return my membership card and while they expressed hope I might rejoin, they didn't pressure or harangue me.
I may or may not comment later on the Janus decision itself. I'm still reading it and I haven't made up my mind about whether or not I agree with it. I just wish to say now that while I disagree strongly with my colleagues who choose to support the union, I appreciate the opportunity to be their colleague and am grateful for every day I can work with them at UIC.
First, I have personally benefited in many ways, directly and indirectly. It would be wrong, in my opinion, to forbear paying and yet receive benefit, absent any compelling reason.
Second, there has been no compelling reason. The union, its leaders, and its members have refrained from doing anything unconscionable. With very few exceptions--such as anyone must expect from an organization of this sort--the union's members have refrained from the types of antagonistic confrontation against dissenters in which other unions sometimes engage.
In fact, the few times I have raised my concerns about the union, I received an empathetic hearing even if my interlocutors disagreed with me. And when I rescinded my membership back in November 2015, the union rep cheerfully went out of their way to return my membership card and while they expressed hope I might rejoin, they didn't pressure or harangue me.
I may or may not comment later on the Janus decision itself. I'm still reading it and I haven't made up my mind about whether or not I agree with it. I just wish to say now that while I disagree strongly with my colleagues who choose to support the union, I appreciate the opportunity to be their colleague and am grateful for every day I can work with them at UIC.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
A promise from me: revisiting the "fair share" requirement
Earlier on this blog I said that if "fair share" for public employee unions is ever invalidated by the US Supreme Court, I would rejoin the UIC United Faculty Union. I stand by that statement. The only exception would be if the union does or promotes something unconscionable. I'm not exactly sure what I mean by "unconscionable," but I'll say I haven't seen the union or any of its members do anything approaching "unconscionable" even when I disagree with them.
It now appears that I may soon be called upon to act on my promise. The US Supreme Court seems poised to decide the issue. And given the court's current composition, it's more than even money it will invalidate "fair share" dues in the public sector.
One thing I liked about the fair share dues was that I could claim to dissent from the union and yet know I'm at least contributing to the upkeep of something that benefits me. I have personally and very tangibly benefited from the union contract at least in the short term. (In the longer term and among my other reservations, I worry that the union making my services much more expensive and those expenses may be a reason for the university to terminate my position.) If fair share dues are invalidated, my conscience will compel me to sign on as a union member. And under the card check system, joining the union is a vote to keep the union, a vote I might cast differently if it were presented on a ballot.
If the Court does invalidate fair share for the public sector, it will essentially create new rules for public sector unions. I believe there may be a way to save the essence of fair share while operating under these new rules, and doing so will be more likely to win approval from the Court
The union should consider offering a "conscience exemption" for those who simply oppose the union and don't wish to or cannot honestly invoke the religious exemption. I envision the conscience exemption to operate like the current religious exemption. The one who invokes it gets out of paying union dues, but instead must devote the same amount to a charity or other nonprofit organization.
Here are reasons to consider a conscience exemption.
First, let us remember we are all colleagues. Under a conscience exemption, those who dislike the union strongly enough to invoke it would probably continue to dislike it. But they would be less likely to be a committed enemy of the union. If someone dislikes the union strongly enough, that person would have an outlet that's better than a voice vote or a show of hands at a meeting, where he or she would otherwise stand alone in front of a large group and advance an unpopular opinion. In the meantime, that person remains a colleague, whose strong views on the union are given substantial respect.
Second, I predict union would lose very little money. While I wouldn't make invoking the exemption an onerous process, a dissenter would still have to go out of his or her way to invoke the exemption and in the end will have to part with the same amount of money. And even though I dissent from the union, I believe it has strong arguments to offer in its favor. In other words, I don't believe the only reason the union continues to get dues is because it compels the dues in the first place.
Third, a conscience exemption could be a useful signal to the union about how it might improve its appeal. If my prediction above is wrong, and the union suffers a noticeable loss of funds from a conscience exemption, that circumstance will alert the union that it needs to rethink how it appeals to the bargaining unit. It's better to be alerted by an uptick in conscience exemption claims than to be surprised by a decertification campaign. I don't believe such a campaign is forthcoming, but should it come or even be considered, a conscience exemption could provide a timely warning about its possible success or failure.
Fourth, as I suggested above, if the Supreme Court does invalidate "fair share" in the public sector, perhaps a conscience exemption could be just the modification that would pass muster in a subsequent case. The conscience exemption would likely not resolve all the Court's constitutional concerns, but it could resolve just enough of them to secure five votes. If I'm right, the conscience exemption would save "fair share."
One problem with my proposal is that my predictions above could simply be wrong. Maybe the union would lose a lot of money. Maybe the Supreme Court would invalidate even a conscience exemption.
Another problem is that executing the "conscience exemption" might be harder than I make it out to be. Perhaps there are unseen opportunities for abuse that I don't know about.
A more significant problem is that the union and university might not be in a position to agree on a conscience exemption. Perhaps such an exemption must be enabled by a state law. I'm too ignorant of the legalities.
But if such an exemption does need state approval, it might very well prove to be the type of law that the current legislature and the current governor can agree on. It contains something for both sides of the current debate about public employee unions. Those, like the governor, who question those unions' legitimacy, gain an acknowledgment on behalf of those who believe they are unfairly coerced to support an organization with which they disagree. Those, like a large number of the Democratic delegation in the legislature, believe that public employee unions should remain strong, will find a policy that in practice offers such unions most of what fair share already does, but on a potentially firmer legal basis.
Again, if fair share is invalidated, I plan to rejoin the union. If a conscience exemption is created, I plan not to invoke it. I have benefited so much and in ways so tangible that I would feel remiss if I did not contribute a share of the cost involved in securing those benefits. Having said that, I still hold to most of the reservations about the union I have expressed in this blog.
Finally, I wish to say that while I disagree with most of my colleagues about the union, I realize that they sincerely believe the union is good for them, for the university, and for its students. I have also heard from one union member that the union itself has strengthened his or her commitment to the university--if that anecdote is generalizable, then the union could be a good thing even if one grants my reservations. Finally, I should say that union officers and fellow colleagues who support the union have always treated my views with respect and have never put undue pressure on me or made me to feel self-conscience about my dissent from the union. We disagree, but that disagreement need not impede, and has not impeded, our friendship, collaboration, and dedication to the university's mission.
It now appears that I may soon be called upon to act on my promise. The US Supreme Court seems poised to decide the issue. And given the court's current composition, it's more than even money it will invalidate "fair share" dues in the public sector.
One thing I liked about the fair share dues was that I could claim to dissent from the union and yet know I'm at least contributing to the upkeep of something that benefits me. I have personally and very tangibly benefited from the union contract at least in the short term. (In the longer term and among my other reservations, I worry that the union making my services much more expensive and those expenses may be a reason for the university to terminate my position.) If fair share dues are invalidated, my conscience will compel me to sign on as a union member. And under the card check system, joining the union is a vote to keep the union, a vote I might cast differently if it were presented on a ballot.
An alternative to fair share?
If the Court does invalidate fair share for the public sector, it will essentially create new rules for public sector unions. I believe there may be a way to save the essence of fair share while operating under these new rules, and doing so will be more likely to win approval from the Court
The union should consider offering a "conscience exemption" for those who simply oppose the union and don't wish to or cannot honestly invoke the religious exemption. I envision the conscience exemption to operate like the current religious exemption. The one who invokes it gets out of paying union dues, but instead must devote the same amount to a charity or other nonprofit organization.
Here are reasons to consider a conscience exemption.
First, let us remember we are all colleagues. Under a conscience exemption, those who dislike the union strongly enough to invoke it would probably continue to dislike it. But they would be less likely to be a committed enemy of the union. If someone dislikes the union strongly enough, that person would have an outlet that's better than a voice vote or a show of hands at a meeting, where he or she would otherwise stand alone in front of a large group and advance an unpopular opinion. In the meantime, that person remains a colleague, whose strong views on the union are given substantial respect.
Second, I predict union would lose very little money. While I wouldn't make invoking the exemption an onerous process, a dissenter would still have to go out of his or her way to invoke the exemption and in the end will have to part with the same amount of money. And even though I dissent from the union, I believe it has strong arguments to offer in its favor. In other words, I don't believe the only reason the union continues to get dues is because it compels the dues in the first place.
Third, a conscience exemption could be a useful signal to the union about how it might improve its appeal. If my prediction above is wrong, and the union suffers a noticeable loss of funds from a conscience exemption, that circumstance will alert the union that it needs to rethink how it appeals to the bargaining unit. It's better to be alerted by an uptick in conscience exemption claims than to be surprised by a decertification campaign. I don't believe such a campaign is forthcoming, but should it come or even be considered, a conscience exemption could provide a timely warning about its possible success or failure.
Fourth, as I suggested above, if the Supreme Court does invalidate "fair share" in the public sector, perhaps a conscience exemption could be just the modification that would pass muster in a subsequent case. The conscience exemption would likely not resolve all the Court's constitutional concerns, but it could resolve just enough of them to secure five votes. If I'm right, the conscience exemption would save "fair share."
Potential problems
One problem with my proposal is that my predictions above could simply be wrong. Maybe the union would lose a lot of money. Maybe the Supreme Court would invalidate even a conscience exemption.
Another problem is that executing the "conscience exemption" might be harder than I make it out to be. Perhaps there are unseen opportunities for abuse that I don't know about.
A more significant problem is that the union and university might not be in a position to agree on a conscience exemption. Perhaps such an exemption must be enabled by a state law. I'm too ignorant of the legalities.
But if such an exemption does need state approval, it might very well prove to be the type of law that the current legislature and the current governor can agree on. It contains something for both sides of the current debate about public employee unions. Those, like the governor, who question those unions' legitimacy, gain an acknowledgment on behalf of those who believe they are unfairly coerced to support an organization with which they disagree. Those, like a large number of the Democratic delegation in the legislature, believe that public employee unions should remain strong, will find a policy that in practice offers such unions most of what fair share already does, but on a potentially firmer legal basis.
Parting words
Again, if fair share is invalidated, I plan to rejoin the union. If a conscience exemption is created, I plan not to invoke it. I have benefited so much and in ways so tangible that I would feel remiss if I did not contribute a share of the cost involved in securing those benefits. Having said that, I still hold to most of the reservations about the union I have expressed in this blog.
Finally, I wish to say that while I disagree with most of my colleagues about the union, I realize that they sincerely believe the union is good for them, for the university, and for its students. I have also heard from one union member that the union itself has strengthened his or her commitment to the university--if that anecdote is generalizable, then the union could be a good thing even if one grants my reservations. Finally, I should say that union officers and fellow colleagues who support the union have always treated my views with respect and have never put undue pressure on me or made me to feel self-conscience about my dissent from the union. We disagree, but that disagreement need not impede, and has not impeded, our friendship, collaboration, and dedication to the university's mission.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
(Another) status update
It appears I am now a member of the bargaining unit. My last paycheck had the automatic fair share deduction taken out.
This is not actually a surprise. There are a lot of complicated details I won't go into, but enough has changed at work that it's perfectly reasonable that I'm in the bargaining unit now when I wasn't before, even though I had for a time mistakenly believed I was.
As I've said in the past, I'm not opposed in principle to paying fair share dues even though I am no longer a formal member of the union and even though I do not wish to endorse the union by becoming a member. (I had signed a card but have also terminated my membership and asked for my card back, which the heads of the UIC United Faculty Union did courteously and promptly.) If I receive the benefits of membership, I feel a personal obligation to pay.
This is not actually a surprise. There are a lot of complicated details I won't go into, but enough has changed at work that it's perfectly reasonable that I'm in the bargaining unit now when I wasn't before, even though I had for a time mistakenly believed I was.
As I've said in the past, I'm not opposed in principle to paying fair share dues even though I am no longer a formal member of the union and even though I do not wish to endorse the union by becoming a member. (I had signed a card but have also terminated my membership and asked for my card back, which the heads of the UIC United Faculty Union did courteously and promptly.) If I receive the benefits of membership, I feel a personal obligation to pay.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Status update
Well, it seems mostly settled that I'm not in the bargaining unit after all. I recently rescinded my membership in the union, and when I did so was informed that I was not a member of the unit in the first place. (Still, the leadership promised to honor my request to leave the union and promised to return the card I had signed.)
On one level, this news is a bit disturbing. I had been told much earlier that I was a member of the bargaining unit. I participated in the two-day strike because I thought I was a member of the unit. If I understand correctly, someone who walks off the job in a labor dispute and who is not a member of the bargaining unit can be fired. It's also disturbing because I was allowed to vote on the contract. Finally, it could mean that I was inadvertently lying when I claimed to be a member of the bargaining unit.
On another level, it's not quite as disturbing as it seems. Dues have never been deducted from my paycheck, so I haven't had to pay. Also, I do believe that those who told me I was a member of the bargaining unit did so in good faith. I am in a marginal position. By marginal I don't mean "marginalized" (being full time, I'm definitely better advantaged than many NTT's), but I mean "on the margin between member and non-member of the bargaining unit." It's likely that the question of whether the small number of people like me are in the bargaining unit has been a point of interpretation. It's also possible that I was in the bargaining unit at the time of the strike and at the time the contract was voted on, but wasn't when my contract was removed.
I may still comment from time to time on UIC United Faculty matters. One reason is that as a citizen, I'm interested in how things turn out. Another reason is that whether or not I'm a member of the bargaining unit, I am still affected by what the union does, for good and for ill. When my contract was renewed last year, I got a pay increase. It's possible that increase was a result of the fact that a union is on campus. However, my usual fears about the union making it more expensive to hire people and making it more difficult (albeit perhaps only marginally more difficult, given other non-union challenges to the university's budget) for me to keep my job remain. For example, as I noted in a prior post, visiting appointments like mine seem disfavored by the contract:
Therefore, I have done the following:
On one level, this news is a bit disturbing. I had been told much earlier that I was a member of the bargaining unit. I participated in the two-day strike because I thought I was a member of the unit. If I understand correctly, someone who walks off the job in a labor dispute and who is not a member of the bargaining unit can be fired. It's also disturbing because I was allowed to vote on the contract. Finally, it could mean that I was inadvertently lying when I claimed to be a member of the bargaining unit.
On another level, it's not quite as disturbing as it seems. Dues have never been deducted from my paycheck, so I haven't had to pay. Also, I do believe that those who told me I was a member of the bargaining unit did so in good faith. I am in a marginal position. By marginal I don't mean "marginalized" (being full time, I'm definitely better advantaged than many NTT's), but I mean "on the margin between member and non-member of the bargaining unit." It's likely that the question of whether the small number of people like me are in the bargaining unit has been a point of interpretation. It's also possible that I was in the bargaining unit at the time of the strike and at the time the contract was voted on, but wasn't when my contract was removed.
I may still comment from time to time on UIC United Faculty matters. One reason is that as a citizen, I'm interested in how things turn out. Another reason is that whether or not I'm a member of the bargaining unit, I am still affected by what the union does, for good and for ill. When my contract was renewed last year, I got a pay increase. It's possible that increase was a result of the fact that a union is on campus. However, my usual fears about the union making it more expensive to hire people and making it more difficult (albeit perhaps only marginally more difficult, given other non-union challenges to the university's budget) for me to keep my job remain. For example, as I noted in a prior post, visiting appointments like mine seem disfavored by the contract:
The contract [p. 10] says all visiting appointments are to be for one year and appointments for greater than one year (which I assume includes also visiting "re-appointments") "should be utilized to meet unpredicted or unexpected staffing needs."As I've said before, if this situation is unfair, it's not peculiarly unfair, and I've gotten my share of advantages from the way things work. That said, I believe I'm correct to say that on balance, the union does not represent my immediate interests. For that reason and for reasons stated elsewhere on this blog, from other observations I have not noted, and from a private conversation with one other union member, I decline to support the union.
When that provision was announced at the informational meeting, several members cheered and clapped. If you had asked them why, I assume each would have said that this provision prevents the university from simply reappointing someone to "visiting" positions and thereby forgoing its responsibility to make a long-term commitment to its employees. But I suggest that they're also cheering a policy, the practical result of which might be the discharge of at least a few people currently in "visiting" positions.
Therefore, I have done the following:
- I have changed the blog lede from "a voice of loyal opposition" to "a voice of opposition."
- I have rescinded my signed support for the union. I decided on this even before I found out I was no longer a member of the bargaining unit.
- I have unsubscribed myself from the online forum on which union matters are discussed. I actually did this several months ago. And I did so because I did not want to risk learning something confidential and inadvertently blogging about it.
- For similar reasons, I have decided to no longer go to union meetings, not that I can, not being a member of the bargaining unit. Occasionally I must attend faulty meetings at which union matters are discussed. In those cases, I probably will not absent myself from that part of those meetings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)