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Status update: I've withdrawn from the UICUF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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Reconsiderations
I have often criticized the UIC United Faculty Union's website. My main criticism stands. It is inaccessible and seems designed to discourage people from viewing it, and it essentially erases the union's pre-website history. It is very hard to find statements online made by the union from its older website(s), and I have not found any statement from the union explaining why it has, apparently, erased its past statements, or even acknowledging it has done so. It may not be the union's fault. Maybe an easier to read website costs more resources and maybe the union cannot afford to devote its resources to the website. And maybe the union's legal counsel has advised the organization to erase statements made in the past.
I am, however, inclined to give the UICUF a break on one criticism I have made. I have often criticized the union for not posting its minutes of meetings. And except for two meetings, the union has posted no minutes.
I'm no longer sure that that criticism is a good one. The minutes are an internal document of union meetings, and the meetings are supposed to be a time for union members to speak and devise strategy or air grievances. For me to demand that the union disclose the content of such meetings is to demand that the union essentially abrogate its prerogative to be the voice of its bargaining unit.
I will point out that the union does have a section on its website called "meeting minutes," and as long as it has that section, it should provide some explanation of which minutes are posted there and which are not, and why. Perhaps the union should delete that section if it intends not to do such things.
But I no longer believe it's the right of the public, or of a dissenter like me who has declined to go to most union meetings, to know what those minutes include. Perhaps a non-dissenting member who has missed a meeting should be able to access the minutes, but there can be a more confidential way to make those available than an open website. The union should be as transparent as possible, but it need not disclose the content of its internal deliberations.
I am, however, inclined to give the UICUF a break on one criticism I have made. I have often criticized the union for not posting its minutes of meetings. And except for two meetings, the union has posted no minutes.
I'm no longer sure that that criticism is a good one. The minutes are an internal document of union meetings, and the meetings are supposed to be a time for union members to speak and devise strategy or air grievances. For me to demand that the union disclose the content of such meetings is to demand that the union essentially abrogate its prerogative to be the voice of its bargaining unit.
I will point out that the union does have a section on its website called "meeting minutes," and as long as it has that section, it should provide some explanation of which minutes are posted there and which are not, and why. Perhaps the union should delete that section if it intends not to do such things.
But I no longer believe it's the right of the public, or of a dissenter like me who has declined to go to most union meetings, to know what those minutes include. Perhaps a non-dissenting member who has missed a meeting should be able to access the minutes, but there can be a more confidential way to make those available than an open website. The union should be as transparent as possible, but it need not disclose the content of its internal deliberations.
Saturday, March 7, 2015
Wherein the UIC United Faculty Union demolishes one of my criticisms
A long, long while back, I criticized, at this link, a statement made by the union.* That statement said in part, that some faculty (before the union contract) earned "less than they would if they were managing a McDonald's."** At the time, I wrote, that the statement conveyed "a certain antipathy toward the type of people who work at McDonald's. It's almost as if it is offensive that someone who works 'merely' at fast food or other customer service jobs might earn more than someone who does higher work."
But now, I read on the minutes from the UICUF's last representative assembly meeting on February 5, 2015*** that the attendees spoke with a delegation from "Fight for Fifteen," an organization that, apparently, seeks to increase the pay of fast food workers and other workers in Chicago (and perhaps elsewhere) to $15 per hour and to promote union recognition for such workers. The union's Facebook feed contains a reference to a rally that those workers will hold in April.
Whatever reservations I have about the UIC United Faculty Union, I support fast food workers' efforts to unionize. And even if I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge that these statements of support--however modest they might be in the in the grand scheme--demonstrate more support for such workers than my prickly comments from over a year ago.
So to the union: Good Job!
*That link goes to a post in which I reproduced a letter I had written on February 8, 2014. The letter itself is in PDF format, and what I quote above comes from page 9 of that document.
**That statement was part of the union's old website and therefore cannot be linked to. I'll point out how that is one example in which the union has excised its public record. One effect of dismantling its old website is to erase potentially embarrassing statements such as the one I cite here. That said, I do not claim that avoiding embarrassment is the main, or even a, reason for dismantling the site. I don't know the reasons the union did so, and there may very well have been good reasons, about which I can only speculate, ranging (I suspect) from technical issues to legal problems with what the union may have said during the lead up to the contract ratification. Whatever the reasons and however critical I may be of the decision, I believe the union was within its rights to dismantle its old website.
***That link takes you to the page the union devotes to meeting minutes. From there, click on the link for the February 5, 2015 Representative Assembly Meeting. It is a PDF document.
But now, I read on the minutes from the UICUF's last representative assembly meeting on February 5, 2015*** that the attendees spoke with a delegation from "Fight for Fifteen," an organization that, apparently, seeks to increase the pay of fast food workers and other workers in Chicago (and perhaps elsewhere) to $15 per hour and to promote union recognition for such workers. The union's Facebook feed contains a reference to a rally that those workers will hold in April.
Whatever reservations I have about the UIC United Faculty Union, I support fast food workers' efforts to unionize. And even if I didn't, I'd have to acknowledge that these statements of support--however modest they might be in the in the grand scheme--demonstrate more support for such workers than my prickly comments from over a year ago.
So to the union: Good Job!
*That link goes to a post in which I reproduced a letter I had written on February 8, 2014. The letter itself is in PDF format, and what I quote above comes from page 9 of that document.
**That statement was part of the union's old website and therefore cannot be linked to. I'll point out how that is one example in which the union has excised its public record. One effect of dismantling its old website is to erase potentially embarrassing statements such as the one I cite here. That said, I do not claim that avoiding embarrassment is the main, or even a, reason for dismantling the site. I don't know the reasons the union did so, and there may very well have been good reasons, about which I can only speculate, ranging (I suspect) from technical issues to legal problems with what the union may have said during the lead up to the contract ratification. Whatever the reasons and however critical I may be of the decision, I believe the union was within its rights to dismantle its old website.
***That link takes you to the page the union devotes to meeting minutes. From there, click on the link for the February 5, 2015 Representative Assembly Meeting. It is a PDF document.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Good on the UIC United Faculty Union
I have complained recently (here and here) about transparency and the UICUF website. But I should point out that the union has posted minutes from its February 5, 2015 minutes. Here's it the link to the PDF, and here is the link to the page where the PDF is housed. I have not read the minutes yet but plan to do so when I get the chance (and am not sure when that will be).
Regrettably, the union has not posted its minutes from the December 2015 meeting, or at least not yet.
Still, I would like to congratulate the union for deciding on transparency over secrecy.
Regrettably, the union has not posted its minutes from the December 2015 meeting, or at least not yet.
Still, I would like to congratulate the union for deciding on transparency over secrecy.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Re-evaluating transparency: grade changed to B+
In my last post, I went to some length criticizing the union's website and expressing my view that the union is not as transparent as it should be. There are still some issues with the website and, in my opinion, with the union's overall transparency and outreach to members.
That said, it has been a while since I've looked at the union's Facebook feed. One thing I've noticed is that the union posted there its response to Mr. Rauner's recent executive order on public employee "fair share" dues. In my last post, I had explicitly criticized the union for not making that statement public. I therefore must retract that criticism.
I will add, however, that the Facebook feed doesn't seem to announce new meetings, post minutes of meetings, or mention some of the problems with working conditions that I am aware of. For the latter, it's possibly the case that not publicizing those problems might be a wise thing.
Still, in focusing only on the website, I failed to look at the other ways the UICUF tries to keep its members informed. (It also, by the way, has a Twitter account.)
That said, it has been a while since I've looked at the union's Facebook feed. One thing I've noticed is that the union posted there its response to Mr. Rauner's recent executive order on public employee "fair share" dues. In my last post, I had explicitly criticized the union for not making that statement public. I therefore must retract that criticism.
I will add, however, that the Facebook feed doesn't seem to announce new meetings, post minutes of meetings, or mention some of the problems with working conditions that I am aware of. For the latter, it's possibly the case that not publicizing those problems might be a wise thing.
Still, in focusing only on the website, I failed to look at the other ways the UICUF tries to keep its members informed. (It also, by the way, has a Twitter account.)
Friday, February 13, 2015
"B-" for transparency: the UIC United Faculty Union website
I have already noted some of the challenges in the UICUF's new website in an earlier post. In that post, my biggest complaint was that the new website essentially wipes clean the history of the UICUF. (Yes, "wipes clean the history of" is a value laden, question-begging cliche about what "history" actually is....but I think my readers get my point.) Unless the particular page has been cached in one's browser, it is almost impossible to read pages from the prior version of the website. Therefore, it is much more difficult to know or study what the union said or did in the lead-up to the adoption of its contract.
In that post, I noted in passing what I considered a promising feature of the new website. It posted the minutes from its last meeting. That was an admirable move toward transparency.
But the minutes from that meeting were also the only minutes the union has posted. There has been at least one other meeting, on December 3, 2014, the same day the UICUF sponsored the "academic freedom panel." I believe there was a meeting sometime last week, but I am uncertain, and if there was, I didn't attend. It would be hard at any rate to know, because the website doesn't seem to announce new meetings. The announcement for the academic freedom council on December 3, for example, doesn't disclose that there was a meeting right before. In fact, I'm not sure I realized there was a meeting until I went to the panel, and arrived about a half-hour early and found a meeting going on.
There are other announcements which I would have expected the union to post on its website but which it has not (at least not yet) posted. Those announcements would have dealt with certain problems the union and the members of its bargaining unit have encountered in the last two months or so. I don't wish to disclose them now because the announcements I received came to my email as "official" communications meant only for union members. If I do comment on them later, I will do so using only sources available to the public or personal information about myself which I feel I have the prerogative to disclose.
To be sure, when it comes to meeting minutes and certain announcements, I can see a rationale for the union not making them public. I don't believe it has a strict obligation disclose all or any of the minutes . And something is to be said about reserving the privacy necessary to plot strategy and to discuss sensitive personnel or discipline issues.
However, some of the "official" announcements sent to the union's listserv seem designed for public consumption, and placing them on the website strikes me as a good way to broaden access to them. For example, I don't believe I"m disclosing any great secret by saying that the UICUF has a position on Governor Rauner's executive order to exempt certain state employees from fair share dues payments. That seems like the type of statement the union would want to publish on its site. Further, while meeting "minutes" might need to be private to cover some issues, publicity is good for transparency. Because things tend to get known anyway, it might be helpful for the union to have its side of the story out there. If privacy or secrecy really is a concern, it wouldn't be unheard of or particularly bad for a meeting to speak about certain sensitive topics off the record. And for what it's worth, in the few all-member meetings I've attended, strategy and "difficult" issues were discussed in only a very general way. And....the "minutes" from the only meeting that have been posted were not the free flowing discussion or even traditional minutes any way. They were more like a Powerpoint presentation that the union gave and about which there was presumably discussion not noted in the "minutes." If something like that from other meetings were reproduced for the website, it would be better than nothing.
In my last post about the website, I said that it has "a bit of an aesthetics problem." That "aesthetics problem" wasn't something I harped on then. But the more I think on it, the less charitably I am inclined to it. The website is so hard to read it seems almost deliberately designed to discourage reading it. I also wonder how its color dynamics might affect people with color blindness. (I do not myself have color blindness or know much of anything about that condition, so maybe my objection is off-base. But still.....)
As far as aesthetics--and even my other points--go, I'll reiterate what I said in my last post on the website. There is a lot I simply do not know about web design. I do know that there is more work involved than simply typing in something and posting it online, and my vantage point from the cheap seats might make it seem easier than it really is. The union has limited resources and the time. It also probably has to concern itself with the security of its site. It's one thing for me to set up a pseudonymous blog account using a blogspot platform. It's another thing to set up a website for a sometimes controversial organization. I imagine there is a non-trivial danger that the site would be hijacked or somehow shunted offline. Maybe this design is part of an effort to prevent such a development.
Still, I mean this post to be a suggestion to the union on how it might improve its website. I realize the union has requested feedback from its members on the site. And this blog post is my way of giving that feedback.
In that post, I noted in passing what I considered a promising feature of the new website. It posted the minutes from its last meeting. That was an admirable move toward transparency.
But the minutes from that meeting were also the only minutes the union has posted. There has been at least one other meeting, on December 3, 2014, the same day the UICUF sponsored the "academic freedom panel." I believe there was a meeting sometime last week, but I am uncertain, and if there was, I didn't attend. It would be hard at any rate to know, because the website doesn't seem to announce new meetings. The announcement for the academic freedom council on December 3, for example, doesn't disclose that there was a meeting right before. In fact, I'm not sure I realized there was a meeting until I went to the panel, and arrived about a half-hour early and found a meeting going on.
There are other announcements which I would have expected the union to post on its website but which it has not (at least not yet) posted. Those announcements would have dealt with certain problems the union and the members of its bargaining unit have encountered in the last two months or so. I don't wish to disclose them now because the announcements I received came to my email as "official" communications meant only for union members. If I do comment on them later, I will do so using only sources available to the public or personal information about myself which I feel I have the prerogative to disclose.
To be sure, when it comes to meeting minutes and certain announcements, I can see a rationale for the union not making them public. I don't believe it has a strict obligation disclose all or any of the minutes . And something is to be said about reserving the privacy necessary to plot strategy and to discuss sensitive personnel or discipline issues.
However, some of the "official" announcements sent to the union's listserv seem designed for public consumption, and placing them on the website strikes me as a good way to broaden access to them. For example, I don't believe I"m disclosing any great secret by saying that the UICUF has a position on Governor Rauner's executive order to exempt certain state employees from fair share dues payments. That seems like the type of statement the union would want to publish on its site. Further, while meeting "minutes" might need to be private to cover some issues, publicity is good for transparency. Because things tend to get known anyway, it might be helpful for the union to have its side of the story out there. If privacy or secrecy really is a concern, it wouldn't be unheard of or particularly bad for a meeting to speak about certain sensitive topics off the record. And for what it's worth, in the few all-member meetings I've attended, strategy and "difficult" issues were discussed in only a very general way. And....the "minutes" from the only meeting that have been posted were not the free flowing discussion or even traditional minutes any way. They were more like a Powerpoint presentation that the union gave and about which there was presumably discussion not noted in the "minutes." If something like that from other meetings were reproduced for the website, it would be better than nothing.
In my last post about the website, I said that it has "a bit of an aesthetics problem." That "aesthetics problem" wasn't something I harped on then. But the more I think on it, the less charitably I am inclined to it. The website is so hard to read it seems almost deliberately designed to discourage reading it. I also wonder how its color dynamics might affect people with color blindness. (I do not myself have color blindness or know much of anything about that condition, so maybe my objection is off-base. But still.....)
As far as aesthetics--and even my other points--go, I'll reiterate what I said in my last post on the website. There is a lot I simply do not know about web design. I do know that there is more work involved than simply typing in something and posting it online, and my vantage point from the cheap seats might make it seem easier than it really is. The union has limited resources and the time. It also probably has to concern itself with the security of its site. It's one thing for me to set up a pseudonymous blog account using a blogspot platform. It's another thing to set up a website for a sometimes controversial organization. I imagine there is a non-trivial danger that the site would be hijacked or somehow shunted offline. Maybe this design is part of an effort to prevent such a development.
Still, I mean this post to be a suggestion to the union on how it might improve its website. I realize the union has requested feedback from its members on the site. And this blog post is my way of giving that feedback.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Credit where it's due
I spend a lot of time criticizing the UIC United Faculty Union, and I stand by most of my criticisms, and when I don't, my goal is formally retract them or admit when I am wrong. I also wish to acknowledge when it does right. The recent election is one area where it did so.
From what I understand, the union decided at its last general membership meeting not to endorse any candidates. (I did not attend the meeting, but you can find the notes/minutes from the meeting by clicking here [PDF]). And it didn't go back on that decision. I may have received one or two emails reminding me to vote. (I say "may" because I'm on the list serve for another union, and am not sure which one sent me the reminders.) And none of them told me who to vote for.
Given that the majority of the union's members and an even stronger majority of its leadership probably favored certain candidates over others, that was a hard commitment to honor. I appreciate them doing so.
I do not speak here about any of UICUF's affiliates, which as far as I know may or may not have endorsed candidates.
From what I understand, the union decided at its last general membership meeting not to endorse any candidates. (I did not attend the meeting, but you can find the notes/minutes from the meeting by clicking here [PDF]). And it didn't go back on that decision. I may have received one or two emails reminding me to vote. (I say "may" because I'm on the list serve for another union, and am not sure which one sent me the reminders.) And none of them told me who to vote for.
Given that the majority of the union's members and an even stronger majority of its leadership probably favored certain candidates over others, that was a hard commitment to honor. I appreciate them doing so.
I do not speak here about any of UICUF's affiliates, which as far as I know may or may not have endorsed candidates.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
On geese, gander, and going dark; or, why some of the links on this blog don't seem to work anymore
In a recent post, I explained why I had briefly taken my blog offline and why I put it back online. I say this now because in this post I am about to criticize the UIC United Faculty Union for doing something similar with its new website, which you can find here.
The site has a bit of an aesthetics problem, but my main criticism is that it does not have archives of older posts the UICUF had written, to which I have linked on this blog from time to time. Whatever the intent behind the decision to make this new website, the function is to reduce transparency about the union's history. The union had made statements on its old website, most of which, in my opinion, were reasonable for a union to make, even those with which I disagreed. But now, with the older posts not online, it's hard to track the statements it made.
Perhaps the intent behind this website change is indeed justifiable. As a pseudonymous blogger, I have the luxury of setting up a blogspot account and then type away. Mine is not the official voice of any organization with multiple members not all of whom agree with each other. Also, I imagine a blogspot account is easier to hack into or to pirate. When it comes into hacking into my own musings as represented in this not very widely read blog, that's a small thing. If, however, someone were to hack into the union's website, that would be a bad thing. Also, there's a lot I don't know about running a website. Perhaps for the sake of functionality, that type of website is best practices. Maybe there's something about the code or whatever that makes the website better.
I did send an email to the union, and their response was polite and open to discussing my dissension, and I very much appreciate the interaction. Their response was further proof that whatever my disagreements with the union, they are willing at least to treat people who disagree cordially. That's smart unionizing. But the response left a little to be desired and didn't explain much. It was basically this: the union wants a more useful and better looking website.
I seem to recall, back when the last website was created, around January 2014 (maybe? I don't recall), reading a statement on that site suggesting that there had been an older site the union had used. I don't know if older posts were imported to that new site or not.
Finally, kudos to one thing I've found on this website. The union has posted the "minutes" on that site from its last meeting. I didn't go to the meeting, so I don't know how faithfully those "minutes" represent what went on. And the "minutes" seem actually more like a report from the union to its members and not minutes per se. But that is a good thing to make public. And the union deserves credit for that.
The site has a bit of an aesthetics problem, but my main criticism is that it does not have archives of older posts the UICUF had written, to which I have linked on this blog from time to time. Whatever the intent behind the decision to make this new website, the function is to reduce transparency about the union's history. The union had made statements on its old website, most of which, in my opinion, were reasonable for a union to make, even those with which I disagreed. But now, with the older posts not online, it's hard to track the statements it made.
Perhaps the intent behind this website change is indeed justifiable. As a pseudonymous blogger, I have the luxury of setting up a blogspot account and then type away. Mine is not the official voice of any organization with multiple members not all of whom agree with each other. Also, I imagine a blogspot account is easier to hack into or to pirate. When it comes into hacking into my own musings as represented in this not very widely read blog, that's a small thing. If, however, someone were to hack into the union's website, that would be a bad thing. Also, there's a lot I don't know about running a website. Perhaps for the sake of functionality, that type of website is best practices. Maybe there's something about the code or whatever that makes the website better.
I did send an email to the union, and their response was polite and open to discussing my dissension, and I very much appreciate the interaction. Their response was further proof that whatever my disagreements with the union, they are willing at least to treat people who disagree cordially. That's smart unionizing. But the response left a little to be desired and didn't explain much. It was basically this: the union wants a more useful and better looking website.
I seem to recall, back when the last website was created, around January 2014 (maybe? I don't recall), reading a statement on that site suggesting that there had been an older site the union had used. I don't know if older posts were imported to that new site or not.
Finally, kudos to one thing I've found on this website. The union has posted the "minutes" on that site from its last meeting. I didn't go to the meeting, so I don't know how faithfully those "minutes" represent what went on. And the "minutes" seem actually more like a report from the union to its members and not minutes per se. But that is a good thing to make public. And the union deserves credit for that.
Monday, October 13, 2014
My unsolicited advice to the UICUF: shy away from electoral politics
The UIC United Faculty Union proposes to hold a meeting of members this week. I won't be going, mostly because I think it would be wrong to go and be privy to a members-only conversation when it is not clear that I am a member. But I have some thoughts about one of its proposed items of discussion: "Should the UICUF engage in electoral politics." (This item is listed on a public facebook feed. One doesn't even need to "like" the union on facebook to read it. Therefore, I do not feel as if I am disclosing anything confidential.) By "engage in electoral politics," I assume the union means, "choose to endorse specific candidates or ballot measures." I urge the union not to do so.
My argument is both practical and principled.
Practical: Union endorsements either don't work, or work very poorly and can have unexpected and bad (for the union) consequences. While any glad-handing politician may be eager to rack up all the endorsements possible, I suspect very few minds are changed when a union, or other organization, endorses a candidate. I won't deny the possibility altogether that minds are changed, but I doubt whether people are waiting for what the UICUF's position on, say, Rauner vs. Quinn before making a decision. Also, and perhaps more important, a UICUF endorsement will probably alienate two groups of people in the union: those who support the non-endorsed candidate and those of a contrarian nature who may support the endorsed candidate, but resent what they see as "the union telling me who to vote for."
Principled: The members of the union's bargaining unit are required to give money to it. If they do not wish to be a member of the union and thereby pay dues voluntarily, they are required to pay them anyway, with only minimal provisions for opting out. The money is taken from their paycheck. If the union "engages electoral politics," the members of its bargaining unit are being compelled to endorse speech they may not agree with. I admit that my case is stronger if the union actually funds advertisements for or against a candidate, while what is at issue is probably something like a press release that costs almost no money and simply says, "the UICUF endorses x candidate for y office." But the union does claim to speak for the interests of its members and the members of its bargaining unit, and political endorsements are usually at least one step removed from a determination of what those interests are and how best to pursue them.
Of course, the $100 billion elephant in the room is what to do about the state's outstanding pension obligations, and a smaller, but still sizeable, elephant is the prospect that the state might further cut funds to higher education. And it seems (to me) very clear that if one candidate is elected governor, the hits against public employee pensions and funding to higher ed are likely to be less severe than if the other candidate wins. What could be more relevant to the people the union claims to represent than the fate of their pensions and the funding for their jobs? Why can't that fact justify at least endorsing a gubernatorial candidate?
My answer is twofold. First, I cannot deny those are probably the most important and most discussed issues at play in this election. But I ask people to keep in mind that there are many reasons to support or oppose either of the major candidates. We don't vote for party platforms. We vote for people. And we vote given the likely outcome of who will control the statehouse. And sometimes we weight our interests differently. To one person, the possibility of a tax increase may be more ominous than the possibility of a cut in education funding. To yet another, a cut in education funding is regrettable, but to be preferred if the money saved goes, for example, to health care or to food stamps or to other ways to help people who are less well off.
Second, we can have good faith disagreement on the appropriate approach to addressing some of these problems. Take pension reform. One person might very well conclude that 90 percent of a loaf from any pension reform that is likely to be enacted is better than the half a loaf, or the quarter loaf, that a non-reformed system could bring about in 10 years, assuming the most dire predictions of pro-reformers are realized.
Those types of issues are not easily addressed in a union meeting or in an up-down vote on any given candidate. The union should keep that in mind and its leaders and voting members should exercise caution before entering those waters.
My argument is both practical and principled.
Practical: Union endorsements either don't work, or work very poorly and can have unexpected and bad (for the union) consequences. While any glad-handing politician may be eager to rack up all the endorsements possible, I suspect very few minds are changed when a union, or other organization, endorses a candidate. I won't deny the possibility altogether that minds are changed, but I doubt whether people are waiting for what the UICUF's position on, say, Rauner vs. Quinn before making a decision. Also, and perhaps more important, a UICUF endorsement will probably alienate two groups of people in the union: those who support the non-endorsed candidate and those of a contrarian nature who may support the endorsed candidate, but resent what they see as "the union telling me who to vote for."
Principled: The members of the union's bargaining unit are required to give money to it. If they do not wish to be a member of the union and thereby pay dues voluntarily, they are required to pay them anyway, with only minimal provisions for opting out. The money is taken from their paycheck. If the union "engages electoral politics," the members of its bargaining unit are being compelled to endorse speech they may not agree with. I admit that my case is stronger if the union actually funds advertisements for or against a candidate, while what is at issue is probably something like a press release that costs almost no money and simply says, "the UICUF endorses x candidate for y office." But the union does claim to speak for the interests of its members and the members of its bargaining unit, and political endorsements are usually at least one step removed from a determination of what those interests are and how best to pursue them.
Of course, the $100 billion elephant in the room is what to do about the state's outstanding pension obligations, and a smaller, but still sizeable, elephant is the prospect that the state might further cut funds to higher education. And it seems (to me) very clear that if one candidate is elected governor, the hits against public employee pensions and funding to higher ed are likely to be less severe than if the other candidate wins. What could be more relevant to the people the union claims to represent than the fate of their pensions and the funding for their jobs? Why can't that fact justify at least endorsing a gubernatorial candidate?
My answer is twofold. First, I cannot deny those are probably the most important and most discussed issues at play in this election. But I ask people to keep in mind that there are many reasons to support or oppose either of the major candidates. We don't vote for party platforms. We vote for people. And we vote given the likely outcome of who will control the statehouse. And sometimes we weight our interests differently. To one person, the possibility of a tax increase may be more ominous than the possibility of a cut in education funding. To yet another, a cut in education funding is regrettable, but to be preferred if the money saved goes, for example, to health care or to food stamps or to other ways to help people who are less well off.
Second, we can have good faith disagreement on the appropriate approach to addressing some of these problems. Take pension reform. One person might very well conclude that 90 percent of a loaf from any pension reform that is likely to be enacted is better than the half a loaf, or the quarter loaf, that a non-reformed system could bring about in 10 years, assuming the most dire predictions of pro-reformers are realized.
Those types of issues are not easily addressed in a union meeting or in an up-down vote on any given candidate. The union should keep that in mind and its leaders and voting members should exercise caution before entering those waters.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Blog backup
A while ago, shortly after my last post in which I explained I may not be in the union after all,
shut down my blog. I did so largely for self-interested reasons. A
reader of the blog inquired about what my intentions to it were, and
that inquiry got me thinking about some of my stated policies,
particularly my first post, in which I promised in part to do the following:
I have now decided to reopen comments and to recommence blogging, at least occasionally. My original fears--that continuing to blog might harm my own interests--stemmed from my own realization that I might very well be outside of the bargaining unit. I believed that should the university realize I had gone out with the union during its two-day strike back in February--even though I did so in full belief and in good faith that I was in the bargaining unit--it could fire me.
I have decided that the risk is probably very minimal and that regardless the risk is worth it. I also believe that the doings of a union that represents public employees are matters of public concern. That does not mean the union has no prerogative to deliberate privately, but it does mean that I, as a private citizen, can comment upon the union's actions and its public statements. I realize that recently, the U of I system has taken actions that call into question its commitment to respecting the private speech of its employees. But I believe everything I have said on this blog so far falls into realm of bona fide political speech. And I'll also point out that I never visit this blog while at work and have never logged into this blog account or email from work or from a workplace computer.
So, the blog is back up.
I will keep post-hoc editing of my posts to a minimum, and I will try to be as clear as possible about what I've edited. In other words, once I've written a post, I would like readers to be confident that what I've said is there to stay. I may, from time to time, tweak the formatting, especially in the beginning as I try navigate the in's and out's of the blogger templates. In exceptional circumstances, I may delete a post, but even then I pledge to announce such deletion and explain the reasons for it.So I put the posts back up, but until now have written nothing more.
I have now decided to reopen comments and to recommence blogging, at least occasionally. My original fears--that continuing to blog might harm my own interests--stemmed from my own realization that I might very well be outside of the bargaining unit. I believed that should the university realize I had gone out with the union during its two-day strike back in February--even though I did so in full belief and in good faith that I was in the bargaining unit--it could fire me.
I have decided that the risk is probably very minimal and that regardless the risk is worth it. I also believe that the doings of a union that represents public employees are matters of public concern. That does not mean the union has no prerogative to deliberate privately, but it does mean that I, as a private citizen, can comment upon the union's actions and its public statements. I realize that recently, the U of I system has taken actions that call into question its commitment to respecting the private speech of its employees. But I believe everything I have said on this blog so far falls into realm of bona fide political speech. And I'll also point out that I never visit this blog while at work and have never logged into this blog account or email from work or from a workplace computer.
So, the blog is back up.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
I may not be in the union/bargaining unit after all
I have a confession to make and the short version is that it appears I might not be member of the bargaining unit and therefore not a bona fide member of the UICUF. Although I have had reason to suspect this was the case since the Non-tenure-track contract was made public, it's only in the last week or two that I have had compelling reasons to believe so. If that is true--that I'm not a member of the bargaining unit and therefore not a union member--it obviously vitiates my claim to speak as a dissenter from within the union. And, again if it's true, I apologize for not acknowledging the signs earlier.
The longer version of the story is this. Back in January or early February 2014, I asked an acquaintance who is active in the UICUF, but who does not work in the same unit I do, if I was part of the bargaining unit. Instead of answering right away, he or she checked with his or her colleagues to see if I in my visiting position made me a member of the bargaining unit. Whoever he or she checked with seems to have believed that I was.
Around the same time--probably after I spoke with my acquaintance although I am no longer certain--I asked one of my supervisor/colleagues if I was in the bargaining unit. He or she thought I was.
After conferring with my acquaintance and supervisor/colleague, I initiated contact with the steward from our department and he or she, believing in good faith that I was a member of the bargaining unit, gave me a union card, which I signed.
Shortly after signing the card, I started this blog to express my dissent "as a member" of the UICUF. I also participated, albeit reluctantly, in the two-day strike in February. I also self-reported that I did not work on those two days because I believe it would be wrong to receive payment for days I have not worked. To now, I have not yet seen any deduction for those days.
The first evidence I had that something might be off came when I first read the union contract for non-tenure-track faculty. Article II [on page 3], which discusses recognition, defines the bargaining unit thusly:
That should have been a clue to me that something was amiss. I can't plead that it's only fine print, either. I didn't read the entire contract, but I remember reading that particular portion, among others. So I should have 1) raised my question then and there and 2) disclosed that issue on this blog. I failed to do so and I apologize for that.
At any rate, I did not heed what should have been an indication that I might not be a member of the bargaining unit/union.
I voted on the contract and as I stated at the time I voted to approve because I believed that a vote not to approve would unconscionably precipitate the very strike about which I had been critical on these blog pages.
In the succeeding months, on these blog pages, I have occasionally noted not having received any wage increase but also that I had seen no dues deduction from my paycheck.
Fast forward to the end of summer. My colleagues in the union got letters notifying them of contractual raises. To be clear, I did not ask to read those letters nor did I specifically ask my colleagues about the content of those letters. Also, at least some people who I know are not covered by the contract received letters, and again, I did not inquire directly to them of the letters' contents. But the "chatter" at the workplace suggests that those letters were to advise union members of their contractual ages.
That point in itself doesn't bother me. Again, I received my appointment late in 2013. And being my first full-time appointment, it's not clear to me that I should qualify for a wage increase or back pay under the contract.
Therefore, the weight of the evidence right now suggests I'm not part of the bargaining unit and therefore not a bona fide member of the union. Or I might be.
I'm not sure exactly where to go from here. As I said above, I participated in the two-day strike, and as I understand, labor law does not protect from firing non-members of a bargaining unit when they strike. That point aside, I'm wary of publicizing overmuch my dubious status as member of the union. I could query the people in charge of the union, but I am reluctant to do so because I do not want to be made into a special case over which the union has to fight in some jurisdictional battle with the administration. I've noted in these pages the special advantages that come from union representation, and those advantages were the main reason why I said I would continue to pay dues even if there were no fair-share provision. Still, it's like long-term disability insurance. It's good to have, but you don't ever want to have to use it.
If it is true that I'm not really a member of the bargaining unit, I don't intend any special criticism union or of my acquaintance and colleague who said I was a member. They honestly believed my membership to be the case. I do think--again, assuming I'm not a member--that this is representative of a bias in a union. In most cases, it's to any union's advantage to increase its coverage.
I do think the union should, however, be more sensitive to and vigilant about the marginal cases, like mine, before they declare membership status. There's a risk--not large, but still a risk--that identifying me as a non-member (if, indeed, I am a non-member) could lead to disciplinary action. If what I fear is true, that further substantiates my claim that the UICUF will function in a way more beneficial to certain employees than to others. It, or at least its contract, places some faculty on a more marginal position in relation to others. That's not necessarily a bad thing in general, nor is it a peculiarly unfair thing, either. But it needs to be acknowledged.
This situation, which I admit is not yet resolved, poses two challenges for this blog.
First, my months-long claim to speak as a dissenter from within the union could be now proved false. Even though as early as April I probably should have known, I have made those claims in good faith.
Second, I have blogged pseudonymously, but I have also adopted the attitude that if my identity were found out, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. I do not believe I have said anything on these pages that is so beyond the pale as to damage my reputation or bring dishonor to my unit/department. However, now that disciplinary action might be a possibility, I need to be much more careful and perhaps reconsider whether it is wise to continue this blog.
UPDATE: Unless and until this issue is resolved, or until I decide what to do, I am indefinitely disabling comments and indefinitely withdrawing my invitation to submit guest posts.
The longer version of the story is this. Back in January or early February 2014, I asked an acquaintance who is active in the UICUF, but who does not work in the same unit I do, if I was part of the bargaining unit. Instead of answering right away, he or she checked with his or her colleagues to see if I in my visiting position made me a member of the bargaining unit. Whoever he or she checked with seems to have believed that I was.
Around the same time--probably after I spoke with my acquaintance although I am no longer certain--I asked one of my supervisor/colleagues if I was in the bargaining unit. He or she thought I was.
After conferring with my acquaintance and supervisor/colleague, I initiated contact with the steward from our department and he or she, believing in good faith that I was a member of the bargaining unit, gave me a union card, which I signed.
Shortly after signing the card, I started this blog to express my dissent "as a member" of the UICUF. I also participated, albeit reluctantly, in the two-day strike in February. I also self-reported that I did not work on those two days because I believe it would be wrong to receive payment for days I have not worked. To now, I have not yet seen any deduction for those days.
The first evidence I had that something might be off came when I first read the union contract for non-tenure-track faculty. Article II [on page 3], which discusses recognition, defines the bargaining unit thusly:
All full-time...non-tenure track faculty who possess a terminal degree appropriate to the academic unit in which the faculty member is employed and all full time non-tenure track faculty without the appropriate terminal degree who have been employed for four consecutive semesters, excluding summer terms.I met the "full-time" criterion, but it's not clear whether I have the "terminal degree appropriate to the academic unit in which" I am employed. I do have a terminal degree in one field, but that field is not the same field as the unit in which I am employed. In my unit, there is currently discussion about whether a terminal degree in another field can qualify as a terminal degree for the sake of who can work in my unit. But my understanding is that so far, no decision in that respect has been reached. And although my terminal degree is indirectly related to my current field/unit, it is not clear that it meets the contract's standard of "appropriate." I also started my appointment late in 2013, so I have certainly not been employed "for four consecutive semesters."
That should have been a clue to me that something was amiss. I can't plead that it's only fine print, either. I didn't read the entire contract, but I remember reading that particular portion, among others. So I should have 1) raised my question then and there and 2) disclosed that issue on this blog. I failed to do so and I apologize for that.
At any rate, I did not heed what should have been an indication that I might not be a member of the bargaining unit/union.
I voted on the contract and as I stated at the time I voted to approve because I believed that a vote not to approve would unconscionably precipitate the very strike about which I had been critical on these blog pages.
In the succeeding months, on these blog pages, I have occasionally noted not having received any wage increase but also that I had seen no dues deduction from my paycheck.
Fast forward to the end of summer. My colleagues in the union got letters notifying them of contractual raises. To be clear, I did not ask to read those letters nor did I specifically ask my colleagues about the content of those letters. Also, at least some people who I know are not covered by the contract received letters, and again, I did not inquire directly to them of the letters' contents. But the "chatter" at the workplace suggests that those letters were to advise union members of their contractual ages.
That point in itself doesn't bother me. Again, I received my appointment late in 2013. And being my first full-time appointment, it's not clear to me that I should qualify for a wage increase or back pay under the contract.
Therefore, the weight of the evidence right now suggests I'm not part of the bargaining unit and therefore not a bona fide member of the union. Or I might be.
I'm not sure exactly where to go from here. As I said above, I participated in the two-day strike, and as I understand, labor law does not protect from firing non-members of a bargaining unit when they strike. That point aside, I'm wary of publicizing overmuch my dubious status as member of the union. I could query the people in charge of the union, but I am reluctant to do so because I do not want to be made into a special case over which the union has to fight in some jurisdictional battle with the administration. I've noted in these pages the special advantages that come from union representation, and those advantages were the main reason why I said I would continue to pay dues even if there were no fair-share provision. Still, it's like long-term disability insurance. It's good to have, but you don't ever want to have to use it.
If it is true that I'm not really a member of the bargaining unit, I don't intend any special criticism union or of my acquaintance and colleague who said I was a member. They honestly believed my membership to be the case. I do think--again, assuming I'm not a member--that this is representative of a bias in a union. In most cases, it's to any union's advantage to increase its coverage.
I do think the union should, however, be more sensitive to and vigilant about the marginal cases, like mine, before they declare membership status. There's a risk--not large, but still a risk--that identifying me as a non-member (if, indeed, I am a non-member) could lead to disciplinary action. If what I fear is true, that further substantiates my claim that the UICUF will function in a way more beneficial to certain employees than to others. It, or at least its contract, places some faculty on a more marginal position in relation to others. That's not necessarily a bad thing in general, nor is it a peculiarly unfair thing, either. But it needs to be acknowledged.
This situation, which I admit is not yet resolved, poses two challenges for this blog.
First, my months-long claim to speak as a dissenter from within the union could be now proved false. Even though as early as April I probably should have known, I have made those claims in good faith.
Second, I have blogged pseudonymously, but I have also adopted the attitude that if my identity were found out, it would not necessarily be a bad thing. I do not believe I have said anything on these pages that is so beyond the pale as to damage my reputation or bring dishonor to my unit/department. However, now that disciplinary action might be a possibility, I need to be much more careful and perhaps reconsider whether it is wise to continue this blog.
UPDATE: Unless and until this issue is resolved, or until I decide what to do, I am indefinitely disabling comments and indefinitely withdrawing my invitation to submit guest posts.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Submit a guest post!
I respectfully request anyone who wishes to submit a guest post for this blog. Pretty much anything related to the UIC United Faculty Union is fair game. I'm soliciting posts from people who disagree or agree with me on the many issues discussed at this blog. I certainly have my own specific take on the union, but my main goal is to foster dialogue, and one way to do that is to give others a voice here.
A few ground rules:
1. If I publish your post, I won't edit for content, although I may edit for format or to correct typos.
2. I reserve the right NOT to publish a submitted guest post for any reason, or for no reason. The most important reason for not publishing something will be if the submission is uncivil, libelous, in violation of copyright, or derogatory toward people based on their race, ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or other category.
3. If I publish your post, I endeavor not to remove it unless it can be shown to be libelous or in violation of copyright or at the request of the author.
4. I will accept anonymous guest posts, or guest posts under the author's true name. I do not even have to know your true name to accept a guest post.
UPDATE August 31, 2014: It turns out I might not be a member of the UIC United Faculty Union. Unless and until this issue is resolved, or until I decide what to do, I am indefinitely disabling comments and indefinitely withdrawing my invitation to submit guest posts.
A few ground rules:
1. If I publish your post, I won't edit for content, although I may edit for format or to correct typos.
2. I reserve the right NOT to publish a submitted guest post for any reason, or for no reason. The most important reason for not publishing something will be if the submission is uncivil, libelous, in violation of copyright, or derogatory toward people based on their race, ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or other category.
3. If I publish your post, I endeavor not to remove it unless it can be shown to be libelous or in violation of copyright or at the request of the author.
4. I will accept anonymous guest posts, or guest posts under the author's true name. I do not even have to know your true name to accept a guest post.
UPDATE August 31, 2014: It turns out I might not be a member of the UIC United Faculty Union. Unless and until this issue is resolved, or until I decide what to do, I am indefinitely disabling comments and indefinitely withdrawing my invitation to submit guest posts.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
On "loyal opposition"
I have changed the lede to my blog to read "One voice of loyal opposition to the UIC United Faculty Union." I'd like to explain that a bit.
First of all, I say "one voice" because mine is not the only one nor do I necessarily speak for anyone who dissents from some or all of what the UICUF is doing. It is possible that some very committed members of the union, who would never think of abandoning it or its principles, might disagree with some of what it is doing.
Second, I'll explain what I mean by "loyal opposition." I mean that as long as the UICUF doesn't do anything I deem unconscionable or that I disagee with strongly, I will remain a member and cheerfully allow my dues to be automatically deducted. Of course, because the contract includes a "fair share" provision, I don't have much of a choice. But if fair-share were ever invalidated, my position would remain the same. I also believe that keeping one's membership gives the union a certain legitimacy it would not otherwise have. It is one thing to claim x number of dues-paying members. It's quite another to claim x-n number of dues-paying members and n number of members from whom dues must be taken against their will. To be clear, I have yet to see a dues deduction (or any of the promised raises).
What qualifies as "unconscionable" or criteria for "strong disagreement"? I don't know and it can be subjective, but here are the most likely candidates:
Third, if the question of re-certification comes up, I shall have to reconsider my membership. As I understand it, the "card check" procedure for certifying the union means that simply by signing a card and becoming a member, one has "voted" in favor of certification. If that is also required for re-certification, then I will have no choice but to reconsider my membership. In that case, I am in somewhat of a bind. I may believe that I owe a certain "loyalty" to the organization that is there to support my interests while it officially supports me. But if I come to the conclusion that I no longer want it to support me, then I must formally disaffiliate myself from the union, instead of merely voting not to re-certify. I haven't made up my mind whether I will disaffiliate when/if the time comes. (And I may no longer be faculty member by that time, either, if the university is not able to renew my contract. So the question then would be moot.)
Fourth and finally, "loyal opposition" means to me not an incessant criticism with the goal to undermine. It's too easy to find fault. I mean it as criticism, but with a goal toward helping the union improve its message and its operations. (I also want to give the union kudos when I see it doing something well.) I suggest that if the union wishes to represent its members well, it ought to listen to those who may be ambivalent about it. No one dissenter probably shares all or most of my concerns, but any given concern of mine might be shared, and the union might do well to learn of them.
First of all, I say "one voice" because mine is not the only one nor do I necessarily speak for anyone who dissents from some or all of what the UICUF is doing. It is possible that some very committed members of the union, who would never think of abandoning it or its principles, might disagree with some of what it is doing.
Second, I'll explain what I mean by "loyal opposition." I mean that as long as the UICUF doesn't do anything I deem unconscionable or that I disagee with strongly, I will remain a member and cheerfully allow my dues to be automatically deducted. Of course, because the contract includes a "fair share" provision, I don't have much of a choice. But if fair-share were ever invalidated, my position would remain the same. I also believe that keeping one's membership gives the union a certain legitimacy it would not otherwise have. It is one thing to claim x number of dues-paying members. It's quite another to claim x-n number of dues-paying members and n number of members from whom dues must be taken against their will. To be clear, I have yet to see a dues deduction (or any of the promised raises).
What qualifies as "unconscionable" or criteria for "strong disagreement"? I don't know and it can be subjective, but here are the most likely candidates:
- The union might choose to demonize those who criticize it as "anti-union" or "anti-student" or "scab." I can understand if certain members of the union engage in such shenanigans, but if the union officially does, or if it refuses to disavow such shenanigans, then I might construe its action/inaction to be official endorsement. I don't expect the union to take an official position disavowing every instance some hotheads make a precipitous statement. But if a pattern of demonizing people becomes prevalent, then the union would have a duty to reaffirm its main principles. (To be clear, I don't think this is a current problem with the union. Just a potential one.)
- The union or its affiliates might adopt a position on political issues outside its role of representing its members, or it might adopt a position on a political issue I disagree with very strongly. I won't here and now state what those are, mostly because some of my views are probably not shared by a majority of my union members and I don't wish to make the blog a forum to discuss them unless the union makes them a question of union policy.
- The conflict of interest that I believe is inherent in the union, which represents tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty, whose interests are sometimes opposed, might become more real than theoretical. I look at my tenure-track colleagues as true colleagues, and they haven't given me reason to think they are anything but fair, even more than fair, to people in my position. But if an issue develops that sets our interests against each other, and the union cannot handle the conflict of interests in an equitable manner, then I may need to reconsider my union membership.
- The union might explicitly endorse its members' providing the case for the union to students, outside of properly educational purposes. It is one thing, for example, for an instructor in a class on labor relations or government or numerous other topics to discuss the issues surrounding the UICUF. It is quite another for an instructor to take advantage of a captive audience to present the case for the union. To be clear, when a contract is up for negotiation, it's fair for instructors to alert students to the possibility of a strike, or to very briefly explain what the union is asking for. But I will say that some of the messages from union organizers during the last strike and lead-up to the potential 2nd strike seemed to suggest making the case to students during class time. And anecdotally, I knew some members who encouraged their students to attend the pro-union rallies. To me those examples are very close to the line and go over it. If that becomes official union policy, I cannot support it.
Third, if the question of re-certification comes up, I shall have to reconsider my membership. As I understand it, the "card check" procedure for certifying the union means that simply by signing a card and becoming a member, one has "voted" in favor of certification. If that is also required for re-certification, then I will have no choice but to reconsider my membership. In that case, I am in somewhat of a bind. I may believe that I owe a certain "loyalty" to the organization that is there to support my interests while it officially supports me. But if I come to the conclusion that I no longer want it to support me, then I must formally disaffiliate myself from the union, instead of merely voting not to re-certify. I haven't made up my mind whether I will disaffiliate when/if the time comes. (And I may no longer be faculty member by that time, either, if the university is not able to renew my contract. So the question then would be moot.)
Fourth and finally, "loyal opposition" means to me not an incessant criticism with the goal to undermine. It's too easy to find fault. I mean it as criticism, but with a goal toward helping the union improve its message and its operations. (I also want to give the union kudos when I see it doing something well.) I suggest that if the union wishes to represent its members well, it ought to listen to those who may be ambivalent about it. No one dissenter probably shares all or most of my concerns, but any given concern of mine might be shared, and the union might do well to learn of them.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
The case for a conscience exemption: Addendum
If this blog has any regular readers, they will know that I have devoted the last three posts to arguing for a general "conscience exemption" to fair-share dues payment. If you wish to read those posts, you can find them here, here, and here.
In this "addendum" to those posts, I wish to address a possible objection my readers might have. I have in this blog gone on record as believing the UICUF and its contract are on balance more harmful than good. And if the issue of re-certification ever comes up, I'm not now certain I would vote to re-certify. And yet, one of my arguments for expanding the exemption is that doing so could help the union more than hurt it. Am I not being a bit of a hypocrite or what on the blogosphere is called a "concern troll"? (A "concern troll" is someone in blog forums who raises a concern--in this case, perhaps the survival of the union--only for purposes of contravening that concern.)
First, I'll point out that that objection is not logically relevant to my argument. Expanding the exemption can be beneficial to the union. Or not. But any ulterior motivations I have do not affect that question.
Second, I don't see what I am doing as "concern trolling." As I've also argued in these posts, I believe expanding the exemption to be the right thing to do and if I am to be represented by a union, I'd prefer it be by a union that tries to do the right thing. Also, I realize those who support the union have fought long and hard for it. They want it to work. On this issue by itself and notwithstanding my all-too-human failing of wanting to be proved right in my predictions even if that means something bad will happen, I see us as sharing common ground. We can co-exist in an atmosphere of mutual respect and not one of acrimony.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have mentioned that most members of the union with whom I have raised my concerns have treated those concerns and the concerns of other faculty members with respect. At least one supporter has gone out of his way to listen to me and although he or she does not necessarily agree with most of what I say, he or she relayed , my concerns on to others in the union and for all I know, those concerns may have informed some of the union's decisions. And while I owe my own decision to keep my membership card to my sense that I ought to pay for the upkeep of the organization from which I benefit, I could resign the membership in protest and with a clear conscience because I'd be paying anyway through fair-share requirements. (As an aside, I'll note that under the conscience exemption plan, one can resign one's membership and yet not elect the exemption.). And one reason I haven't resigned is in part because the unions' supporters have been so willing to engage.
Finally, does the union want to create active opponents? I can understand why the union would not want to go out of its way to appease the likely very small number of dissenters and thereby compromise the support it enjoys from the overwhelming majority of its bargaining unit. But the union might want to consider how many of those who support it support enthusiastically and how many support it only reluctantly. And it might also want to consider whether, among those who don't support it, it wants to alienate them and encourage them to take stances actively opposed to it. It's one thing to have dissenters. It's another to have opponents who might, for example, speak to local media as the voice of internal opposition. In my opinion, expanding the conscience exemption will prevent alienating dissenters in that way.
If the union expands the exemption, that would be a sign to me of its continued willingness to engage its opposition, an opposition that in my case and so far, is a contingent, "loyal opposition." I won't guarantee that expanding the exemption will seal my support for the union during the next round of negotiations. And it may not win new supporters. But it may make me, and other dissenters, less ill-disposed toward the union.
In this "addendum" to those posts, I wish to address a possible objection my readers might have. I have in this blog gone on record as believing the UICUF and its contract are on balance more harmful than good. And if the issue of re-certification ever comes up, I'm not now certain I would vote to re-certify. And yet, one of my arguments for expanding the exemption is that doing so could help the union more than hurt it. Am I not being a bit of a hypocrite or what on the blogosphere is called a "concern troll"? (A "concern troll" is someone in blog forums who raises a concern--in this case, perhaps the survival of the union--only for purposes of contravening that concern.)
First, I'll point out that that objection is not logically relevant to my argument. Expanding the exemption can be beneficial to the union. Or not. But any ulterior motivations I have do not affect that question.
Second, I don't see what I am doing as "concern trolling." As I've also argued in these posts, I believe expanding the exemption to be the right thing to do and if I am to be represented by a union, I'd prefer it be by a union that tries to do the right thing. Also, I realize those who support the union have fought long and hard for it. They want it to work. On this issue by itself and notwithstanding my all-too-human failing of wanting to be proved right in my predictions even if that means something bad will happen, I see us as sharing common ground. We can co-exist in an atmosphere of mutual respect and not one of acrimony.
Elsewhere on this blog, I have mentioned that most members of the union with whom I have raised my concerns have treated those concerns and the concerns of other faculty members with respect. At least one supporter has gone out of his way to listen to me and although he or she does not necessarily agree with most of what I say, he or she relayed , my concerns on to others in the union and for all I know, those concerns may have informed some of the union's decisions. And while I owe my own decision to keep my membership card to my sense that I ought to pay for the upkeep of the organization from which I benefit, I could resign the membership in protest and with a clear conscience because I'd be paying anyway through fair-share requirements. (As an aside, I'll note that under the conscience exemption plan, one can resign one's membership and yet not elect the exemption.). And one reason I haven't resigned is in part because the unions' supporters have been so willing to engage.
Finally, does the union want to create active opponents? I can understand why the union would not want to go out of its way to appease the likely very small number of dissenters and thereby compromise the support it enjoys from the overwhelming majority of its bargaining unit. But the union might want to consider how many of those who support it support enthusiastically and how many support it only reluctantly. And it might also want to consider whether, among those who don't support it, it wants to alienate them and encourage them to take stances actively opposed to it. It's one thing to have dissenters. It's another to have opponents who might, for example, speak to local media as the voice of internal opposition. In my opinion, expanding the conscience exemption will prevent alienating dissenters in that way.
If the union expands the exemption, that would be a sign to me of its continued willingness to engage its opposition, an opposition that in my case and so far, is a contingent, "loyal opposition." I won't guarantee that expanding the exemption will seal my support for the union during the next round of negotiations. And it may not win new supporters. But it may make me, and other dissenters, less ill-disposed toward the union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)