Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Yet another lede change
I've finally decided to adopt a more pithy, if still unimaginative, lede for this blog: "A dissenting view on the UIC United Faculty Union."
New blog lede
As of today, I have changed the blog's lede quote. It used to be
For the civil discussion about unionism and university practice at UICIt is now
This blog presents an alternate, questioning view of the UIC United Faculty Union, and it hopes to foster intelligent, civil discussion about it.The new lede might be more wordy, but I think it more accurately reflects the orientation of this blog. I still welcome comments from people who disagree.
Scott, and rumors of Scott
The union's latest announcement, "Debunking the Myths," argues against recent statements and offers from the administration. I have little to say about most of their points, except that at first blush, the university's offer to tenure-track professors of a raise for the first two years of the contract (last year and this year), with no raise for the third year (next year), seem to me reasonable. Read the administration's update here to see if you agree.
There are other points that may or may not have merit. I'm skeptical. And there's seems to be a little sleight of hand when it comes to equating the university's multi-year contracts with vendors to the union's proposed multi-year contracts for non-tenured track people. Their jab at comparing UIC to Walmart, while not new, is disappointing. I do feel for those who are full-time instructors and make only $30,000, and for the record, I make about 30% more than that. I would like to know how many full-time instructors actually make that lower figure. The union, to my knowledge, hasn't stated the number or percentage of such workers. I'd also like to know whether there are some workers whom the university would decline to keep on if the minimum salary were raised. Let's say the university can afford to pay 10 full-time instructors at $30,000, but can afford to pay only 9 full-time instructors at, say, $40,000. Maybe the math doesn't add up, and maybe the university's surplus "profits" could well cover the spread at any rate. Still, I wouldn't want to be the tenth person in that group.
In this post, however, I am much more concerned about the following statement made by the union:
I don't in principle oppose fair share provisions. In principle, I would go even further and support "agency shop" provisions, in which all covered employees pay union dues and not merely "fair share" dues. (My understanding is that "fair share" dues are smaller than actual union dues. If I'm correct, the "fair share" dues go to the parent union whereas the full union dues go to both the parent union and the local. On this issue especially I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.) I also believe the union is right when it says the proposal is "unnecessary and acrimonious." The administration ought to know how the proposal would be received. And even though I have my doubts that no such contract exists in all of Illinois, it is certainly out of the norm. If the administration is really concerned about the shadow group of people in the bargaining unit who disagree with the union, then a decertification election is the right way to go. As a member of that shadow group, even I believe that.
But it is wrong to compare the administration's proposal to Scottwalkerism. Mr. Walker's reform, as I understand it, outlawed fair share provisions entirely. In fact, my understanding is that it outlawed most public unions. And truth be told, if the union is indeed as strong as its proponents say it is, then the "fair share" proposal, while indeed unnecessary, is not the death knell of the union. I can even imagine a scenario where the administration's proposal might strengthen the union. If people looking at their paychecks feel distraught over the charges, the union can claim it is always accountable to its membership in a way that few unions are.
I don't want to be too sanguine about the way this proposal might help the union. But I do urge the union not to make this proposal an issue that makes the university's contract proposal a non-starter. It's not Scottwalkerism, and by itself it's not worth striking over.
There are other points that may or may not have merit. I'm skeptical. And there's seems to be a little sleight of hand when it comes to equating the university's multi-year contracts with vendors to the union's proposed multi-year contracts for non-tenured track people. Their jab at comparing UIC to Walmart, while not new, is disappointing. I do feel for those who are full-time instructors and make only $30,000, and for the record, I make about 30% more than that. I would like to know how many full-time instructors actually make that lower figure. The union, to my knowledge, hasn't stated the number or percentage of such workers. I'd also like to know whether there are some workers whom the university would decline to keep on if the minimum salary were raised. Let's say the university can afford to pay 10 full-time instructors at $30,000, but can afford to pay only 9 full-time instructors at, say, $40,000. Maybe the math doesn't add up, and maybe the university's surplus "profits" could well cover the spread at any rate. Still, I wouldn't want to be the tenth person in that group.
In this post, however, I am much more concerned about the following statement made by the union:
UIC Admin demands Scott Walker “fair share” proposal that is unlike language in any other contract they have, or that exists in Illinois. They propose a monthly membership check. While we have a good majority, the Admin’s proposal serves no legitimate purpose, and is anti-union, plain and simple. If the union were ever to lose majority status, the law allows the faculty to vote the union out. The Admin’s proposal is unnecessary and acrimonious.This "Scott Walker 'fair share' proposal" is, I understand both from this statement and the administration's recent message cited above, a provision in the contract that says if the union's membership at any point falls below 50% of the bargaining unit, then the fair share provision will not apply. This all would take away the automatic dues checkoff from those who choose not to join the union (again, provided that the union's membership falls below 50% of the bargaining unit). This provision could also have the collateral effect of permitting the university to in practice de-fund and de-certify the union by, say, hiring more contingent faculty whom the union would then need to recruit, or requiring the union to re-recruit members if the membership expires. (I have no idea if membership expires, but it wouldn't surprise me if cards might have to be re-signed periodically.)
I don't in principle oppose fair share provisions. In principle, I would go even further and support "agency shop" provisions, in which all covered employees pay union dues and not merely "fair share" dues. (My understanding is that "fair share" dues are smaller than actual union dues. If I'm correct, the "fair share" dues go to the parent union whereas the full union dues go to both the parent union and the local. On this issue especially I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.) I also believe the union is right when it says the proposal is "unnecessary and acrimonious." The administration ought to know how the proposal would be received. And even though I have my doubts that no such contract exists in all of Illinois, it is certainly out of the norm. If the administration is really concerned about the shadow group of people in the bargaining unit who disagree with the union, then a decertification election is the right way to go. As a member of that shadow group, even I believe that.
But it is wrong to compare the administration's proposal to Scottwalkerism. Mr. Walker's reform, as I understand it, outlawed fair share provisions entirely. In fact, my understanding is that it outlawed most public unions. And truth be told, if the union is indeed as strong as its proponents say it is, then the "fair share" proposal, while indeed unnecessary, is not the death knell of the union. I can even imagine a scenario where the administration's proposal might strengthen the union. If people looking at their paychecks feel distraught over the charges, the union can claim it is always accountable to its membership in a way that few unions are.
I don't want to be too sanguine about the way this proposal might help the union. But I do urge the union not to make this proposal an issue that makes the university's contract proposal a non-starter. It's not Scottwalkerism, and by itself it's not worth striking over.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Where I differ from the authors of the "nofacultyunion" blog
One of the very few other voices I've found that dissent publicly from the unionization drive in the University of Illinois system is at the blog "No Faculty Union at Illinois." That blog is written by two professors based at Urbana, and unlike me they blog under their own names and not a pseudonym. I share with them a skepticism of some of the claims that are made on behalf of the union and I share with them an overall ambivalence about the union. But I do see things very differently from the way they do.
First, the authors are based in Urbana and as far as I can tell, are tenured professors there. Their perspective is that of people who are not contingent and who are most concerned with the way things work in Urbana. That's not a bad thing. But the concerns of tenured professors in my view are not always the same concerns of non-tenured or non-tenure track faculty. And what is true of Urbana is not necessarily true of Chicago.
Still, they comment occasionally on UIC's unionization drive or on issues of concern shared throughout the U of I system, including, for example, the claim about the alleged one-billion dollar surplus. For examples of their commentary on UIC, see here, here, here, and here. For their commentary on the alleged surplus, see here. The tone of the latter post concerns me. They call discussion of the surplus a "hoax." And they do in fact provide evidence that the surplus isn't all the union says it is. Still, to call it a "hoax" is a bit too strong and worse, serves in my opinion to foreclose reasoned discussion. And as I said in my last post, it's not unheard of to ask the university to reconsider its spending priorities.
Second, they appear to be skeptical about the union for different reasons from mine. They seem to be very confident that faculty governance, what they call "shared governance," is a good thing and that unionization will weaken this good thing by making it more adversarial. I, however, suspect that faculty governance as it exists now contributes to many of the problems we are experiencing and that unionization might strengthen its worst aspects.
Take their view on what they call call "shared governance." See, for example, their answer to "myth 6" in their takedown of "Myths about Faculty Unions." They state that while the faculty senate and its leadership "do not engage in collective bargaining, we have frequent discussions in committee meetings and other venues with campus and university officers, advocating for tenure track and non-tenure track faculty." They also fear that unionization will interject an unnecessarily adversarial element to faculty governance. See here:
Third and finally, the authors seem to discount the very real degree to which many faculty, primarily the contingent ones, are in fact "workers" who are proper candidates for unionization. They seem to insist on an idealized version of worker when they say, for example,
But their view here leaves unanswered the questions of whether contingent faculty ought to be unionized and whether they might in some ways be subject to something approaching the living "from paycheck to paycheck," to not knowing "whether the doctor’s bills will be covered," and to coming "home bone-tired from a day of" if not physical labor, then mental labor. (And let's not discount the latter. Physical labor is probably indisputably more exhausting than mental labor. But anyone who has worked, for example, at an inbound call-center, or at a bank, or as a "data entry specialist" might very well attest to exhaustion after hours of handling numbers and other minutiae.)
It is probably also true that there is little risk of physical injury at these job (unless, I suppose, it is a lab situation, or in a few other rare cases), and bathroom breaks and chat-time with co-workers are not monitored. But I suspect that the contingent faculty has to show a certain kind of respect to his or her superiors in the department. After all their contract may be up for renewal.
My main objection to their argument, then, is that they appear to insist on some idealized view of "worker." That view neglects the situations that approximate being a worker who can benefit from a union.
Why, then, do I, like these authors, have reservations about the union? As I tried to argue in my letter of February 8, I believe that the current unionization drive involves an inherent conflict of interest and that the contingent faculty's interests are not fully represented therein. If this were a union of only the contingent faculty, I would still have some reservations but the "inherent conflict of interest" concern would not be one of them.
There is room for discussion here. And although I object to the tone and substance of some of what the authors at "No Faculty Union at Illinois" write, their ideas are worth engaging, if only because they may very well represent a view of others whose support the union needs.
First, the authors are based in Urbana and as far as I can tell, are tenured professors there. Their perspective is that of people who are not contingent and who are most concerned with the way things work in Urbana. That's not a bad thing. But the concerns of tenured professors in my view are not always the same concerns of non-tenured or non-tenure track faculty. And what is true of Urbana is not necessarily true of Chicago.
Still, they comment occasionally on UIC's unionization drive or on issues of concern shared throughout the U of I system, including, for example, the claim about the alleged one-billion dollar surplus. For examples of their commentary on UIC, see here, here, here, and here. For their commentary on the alleged surplus, see here. The tone of the latter post concerns me. They call discussion of the surplus a "hoax." And they do in fact provide evidence that the surplus isn't all the union says it is. Still, to call it a "hoax" is a bit too strong and worse, serves in my opinion to foreclose reasoned discussion. And as I said in my last post, it's not unheard of to ask the university to reconsider its spending priorities.
Second, they appear to be skeptical about the union for different reasons from mine. They seem to be very confident that faculty governance, what they call "shared governance," is a good thing and that unionization will weaken this good thing by making it more adversarial. I, however, suspect that faculty governance as it exists now contributes to many of the problems we are experiencing and that unionization might strengthen its worst aspects.
Take their view on what they call call "shared governance." See, for example, their answer to "myth 6" in their takedown of "Myths about Faculty Unions." They state that while the faculty senate and its leadership "do not engage in collective bargaining, we have frequent discussions in committee meetings and other venues with campus and university officers, advocating for tenure track and non-tenure track faculty." They also fear that unionization will interject an unnecessarily adversarial element to faculty governance. See here:
There are differing views here about which comes first: Does an adversarial state already exist between faculty and administration, thus justifying the response of unionization – or does a decision to unionize create adversarial relations? It is unlikely that this chicken-and-egg debate can ever be settled, but our stance is clearly the latter,The authors do not, to my knowledge, discuss governance at the departmental level. (I have, however, not read every one of their posts.) And I don't know the contours of the "shared governance" they talk about. In fact, I don't even know if UIUC and UIC have the same senate or if each campus has its own senate.
Third and finally, the authors seem to discount the very real degree to which many faculty, primarily the contingent ones, are in fact "workers" who are proper candidates for unionization. They seem to insist on an idealized version of worker when they say, for example,
...it is precisely BECAUSE we are progressive academics from the working class that we oppose unionization for UIUC tenure-track faculty members. We know through experience what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck, to not know whether the doctor’s bills will be covered, and to come home bone-tired from a day of physical labor. We have worked in jobs where talking back to the boss meant getting fired, where the time we spent in bathroom breaks was carefully monitored, where there was serious risk of physical injury, where we were grateful for those days when there was time to chat with co-workers. We know what it is like to work in a job where workers really do need a union to fight for fair wages, to make sure overtime work is paid, and to promote safe working conditions.To be fair, in the same post they acknowledge things might be different for non-tenured-track faculty. And in another post, they discuss the situation of such contingent faculty. That discussion focuses much more on the Urbana campus and does not seem to address the situation at UIC. This is all understandable, both because the authors are based in Urbana and because their primary concern seems to be unionization among tenure-track faculty and not contingent faculty.
It is because we have had those experiences that we understand and appreciate the contributions made by labor unions in the history of this country. As minimum-wage workers, we benefited directly from many of those advances. And because we have had those experiences, we know that tenure-track professors are very far indeed from being exploited workers who need a collective bargaining unit to provide “voice” for them. The simple fact is that the life of a tenured faculty member, especially at an elite university like this one, is one of the most privileged jobs imaginable: extremely flexible hours, little to no supervision, an almost entirely self-directed work load, and a nine-month salary that, even at the lower ends, is well above the national average.
But their view here leaves unanswered the questions of whether contingent faculty ought to be unionized and whether they might in some ways be subject to something approaching the living "from paycheck to paycheck," to not knowing "whether the doctor’s bills will be covered," and to coming "home bone-tired from a day of" if not physical labor, then mental labor. (And let's not discount the latter. Physical labor is probably indisputably more exhausting than mental labor. But anyone who has worked, for example, at an inbound call-center, or at a bank, or as a "data entry specialist" might very well attest to exhaustion after hours of handling numbers and other minutiae.)
It is probably also true that there is little risk of physical injury at these job (unless, I suppose, it is a lab situation, or in a few other rare cases), and bathroom breaks and chat-time with co-workers are not monitored. But I suspect that the contingent faculty has to show a certain kind of respect to his or her superiors in the department. After all their contract may be up for renewal.
My main objection to their argument, then, is that they appear to insist on some idealized view of "worker." That view neglects the situations that approximate being a worker who can benefit from a union.
Why, then, do I, like these authors, have reservations about the union? As I tried to argue in my letter of February 8, I believe that the current unionization drive involves an inherent conflict of interest and that the contingent faculty's interests are not fully represented therein. If this were a union of only the contingent faculty, I would still have some reservations but the "inherent conflict of interest" concern would not be one of them.
There is room for discussion here. And although I object to the tone and substance of some of what the authors at "No Faculty Union at Illinois" write, their ideas are worth engaging, if only because they may very well represent a view of others whose support the union needs.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
The "Chicago is different" quip: another view
A few months ago, someone on behalf of the university administration was asked why the salaries of faculty at UIC lagged behind those at Urbana-Champaign. This person responded, "Chicago is different."
That's the story as it has come down to me, and I first heard it around December 2013 or so. I don't know the context and I don't even know if it really happened. If someone can point me to more documentation about the context and what was actually said, I'd be much obliged. But that's all I know about it.
I have heard union supporters complain about the attitude supposedly expressed in the "Chicago is different" quip. They seem to interpret it as meaning the following:
I do not wish to deny that racism or ethnic (or gender) discrimination might somehow be involved in the way the university compensates its service workers or its faculty. I do suggest, however, that if it's an issue of several administrators getting together and coldly calculating the wages along exactly those lines, the simplest solution is not necessarily unionization. The simplest solution would be a few well-placed firings, lawsuits, and civil rights prosecutions. The "bad apple" theory of discrimination calls for removing bad apples.
But back to the "Chicago is different" quip. Depending on what exactly was said and what the context was, the quip could actually mean something different. It could have meant that UIC, for a host of reasons, is less competitive than Urbana and that the faculty who teach there just don't command the labor-market power of the types of faculty who sign on with Urbana.
Here are some possible reasons that UIC might be less competitive. One, the market-value of UIC faculty scholarship just hasn't been as impressive as Urbana's. Two, UIC is a newer school, and newer schools might need to pay less. They don't have the brand-name quality that older schools do, and they probably have fewer money-donating alumni, too. Three, UIC's departments have until recently been geared toward undergraduate education. My knowledge of UIC's history is murky, but I understand that before sometime in the late 1990s, the graduate programs the College of Liberal Arts were not as robustly funded and promoted as they are now. And rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly), it is the important-sounding graduate programs, with enhanced stipends, etc., that attract and demand higher-paid professors.
I could be wrong on these points, and it's always debatable how we ought to value the quality of scholarship, the newness or oldness of an institution, and the degree to which grad and research programs sound important. I'm just throwing out there some possible reasons that Chicago might be different. And these reasons do not directly have anything to do with racial and ethnic diversity.
Now, "directly" in the preceding sentence does a lot of work. It is quite possible that all my reasons above can be true and that they are still somehow implicated in UIC's oft-remarked diversity. So let's work from the assumption that those offended by the "Chicago is different" quip are correct that it bespeaks a reference to UIC's diversity.
"Diversity" can mean a lot of things. I think it does mean, or ought to mean, something more than merely recruiting affluent people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. It also means, or ought to mean, recruiting people from underserved populations or from less affluent backgrounds. That means more first-generation college students and more students from economically challenged circumstances. These students can less afford to pay high tuition. And if they have more academic challenges--say, if they require more instruction in writing or in pre-college-level math--then that's a cost the university must meet somehow. I do agree, by the way, that UIC tuition has risen a lot and is high enough already, but let's keep in mind that the sticker price of tuition at local private universities, such as De Paul, Loyola, or the Illinois Institute of Technology is higher. (I do need to acknowledge, however, that those schools probably offer more generous grants-in-aid and scholarships, so perhaps the actual price paid by a given student is lower.)
I can see a way someone could use the "Chicago is different" argument to suggest that the faculty who serve this population might need to accept lower salaries, that part of the satisfaction from helping other is not to gain the larger stipends one might gain elsewhere. Higher salaries do increase the cost of running the university. And those costs have to be met somehow. The union, in its most recent statement, from April 3, 2014, seems to imply that those costs can be met by the "hundreds of millions in profits" the university has taken in over recent years. And if it is true that that money really represents something like "profits" and not, say, dedicated funding streams or well-thought-out hedges against future risks, then the union has a strong case. But if the "profits" are indeed dedicated to certain funding streams and if the risk they hedge against are not overly conservative, then the issue is a closer one.
I am pointing out a possible argument that can be made. And I do agree, as a general proposition, that salaries in service of the public might sometimes have to be lower in order to meet the needs of more members of the public. But I also must admit that by itself, that proposition is not dispositive as an argument against a wage increase.
I can in fact imagine an argument for a wage increase that reflects a commitment to UIC's diversity. Better pay and longer term contracts enable UIC faculty to be even more committed to serving their students. It's not that they're not committed already, but with higher pay and greater job security, instructors would be able to act in the longer term interests of their students. They would have a greater incentive to continue to be a resource to former students. In the years after I received my BA and again after I received my MA, I had occasion several times to visit former professors, to get their advice, and in some cases to secure letters of recommendation. That's hard to do if a faculty member is so contingent that he or she might not have a job the next year or if that instructor is so ill-paid that he or she might have to look for work elsewhere or be less available because of having a second job.
But let's not make the same mistake that the administrator responsible for the "Chicago is different" quip is presumed to have made. Let's not assume that a pay increase, however well deserved and however beneficent in the long run, comes with no negative consequences for the students. Inflation happens. Costs creep up and up. Surpluses and "profits" are sometimes quickly and unexpectedly depleted. Tuition rates rise higher. And the rise is not always the result of a cynical, money-grabbing administration.
One need not be an anti-union scold or share my reservations about the union to see some merit in what I am saying. I think a strongly pro-union person could take this post to heart and learn from it. Some people will hear "Chicago is different" and react in a way similar to that of some of my pro-union colleagues. And for the record, I think, as a pro-union friend argued, that it's an altogether good thing for the union to question the university's spending priorities. But other people's reactions might be similar to my own. I think both sides have a case.
That's the story as it has come down to me, and I first heard it around December 2013 or so. I don't know the context and I don't even know if it really happened. If someone can point me to more documentation about the context and what was actually said, I'd be much obliged. But that's all I know about it.
I have heard union supporters complain about the attitude supposedly expressed in the "Chicago is different" quip. They seem to interpret it as meaning the following:
the student faculty at UIC is more racially and ethnically diverse than the student body at Urbana, and people who teach a more racially and ethnically diverse deserve to be paid less than people who teach the relatively more privileged student body at Urbana.Sometimes this interpretation evokes conspiracy-minded tone. At one of the rallies during the two-day strike, a speaker explained that sometime during the 1960s, when UIC was just getting started, a bunch of administrators got together and decided that because many of the new university's service staff (janitors, etc.) were minorities, they could pay these staff persons less. And now that the service workers have unionized, they were able to win the pay and respect they deserve. The moral was that faculty were in a similar boat and suffering from the condescending association of "Chicago" with ethnic and racial minorities and that the faculty, too, needs to unionize.
I do not wish to deny that racism or ethnic (or gender) discrimination might somehow be involved in the way the university compensates its service workers or its faculty. I do suggest, however, that if it's an issue of several administrators getting together and coldly calculating the wages along exactly those lines, the simplest solution is not necessarily unionization. The simplest solution would be a few well-placed firings, lawsuits, and civil rights prosecutions. The "bad apple" theory of discrimination calls for removing bad apples.
But back to the "Chicago is different" quip. Depending on what exactly was said and what the context was, the quip could actually mean something different. It could have meant that UIC, for a host of reasons, is less competitive than Urbana and that the faculty who teach there just don't command the labor-market power of the types of faculty who sign on with Urbana.
Here are some possible reasons that UIC might be less competitive. One, the market-value of UIC faculty scholarship just hasn't been as impressive as Urbana's. Two, UIC is a newer school, and newer schools might need to pay less. They don't have the brand-name quality that older schools do, and they probably have fewer money-donating alumni, too. Three, UIC's departments have until recently been geared toward undergraduate education. My knowledge of UIC's history is murky, but I understand that before sometime in the late 1990s, the graduate programs the College of Liberal Arts were not as robustly funded and promoted as they are now. And rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly), it is the important-sounding graduate programs, with enhanced stipends, etc., that attract and demand higher-paid professors.
I could be wrong on these points, and it's always debatable how we ought to value the quality of scholarship, the newness or oldness of an institution, and the degree to which grad and research programs sound important. I'm just throwing out there some possible reasons that Chicago might be different. And these reasons do not directly have anything to do with racial and ethnic diversity.
Now, "directly" in the preceding sentence does a lot of work. It is quite possible that all my reasons above can be true and that they are still somehow implicated in UIC's oft-remarked diversity. So let's work from the assumption that those offended by the "Chicago is different" quip are correct that it bespeaks a reference to UIC's diversity.
"Diversity" can mean a lot of things. I think it does mean, or ought to mean, something more than merely recruiting affluent people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds. It also means, or ought to mean, recruiting people from underserved populations or from less affluent backgrounds. That means more first-generation college students and more students from economically challenged circumstances. These students can less afford to pay high tuition. And if they have more academic challenges--say, if they require more instruction in writing or in pre-college-level math--then that's a cost the university must meet somehow. I do agree, by the way, that UIC tuition has risen a lot and is high enough already, but let's keep in mind that the sticker price of tuition at local private universities, such as De Paul, Loyola, or the Illinois Institute of Technology is higher. (I do need to acknowledge, however, that those schools probably offer more generous grants-in-aid and scholarships, so perhaps the actual price paid by a given student is lower.)
I can see a way someone could use the "Chicago is different" argument to suggest that the faculty who serve this population might need to accept lower salaries, that part of the satisfaction from helping other is not to gain the larger stipends one might gain elsewhere. Higher salaries do increase the cost of running the university. And those costs have to be met somehow. The union, in its most recent statement, from April 3, 2014, seems to imply that those costs can be met by the "hundreds of millions in profits" the university has taken in over recent years. And if it is true that that money really represents something like "profits" and not, say, dedicated funding streams or well-thought-out hedges against future risks, then the union has a strong case. But if the "profits" are indeed dedicated to certain funding streams and if the risk they hedge against are not overly conservative, then the issue is a closer one.
I am pointing out a possible argument that can be made. And I do agree, as a general proposition, that salaries in service of the public might sometimes have to be lower in order to meet the needs of more members of the public. But I also must admit that by itself, that proposition is not dispositive as an argument against a wage increase.
I can in fact imagine an argument for a wage increase that reflects a commitment to UIC's diversity. Better pay and longer term contracts enable UIC faculty to be even more committed to serving their students. It's not that they're not committed already, but with higher pay and greater job security, instructors would be able to act in the longer term interests of their students. They would have a greater incentive to continue to be a resource to former students. In the years after I received my BA and again after I received my MA, I had occasion several times to visit former professors, to get their advice, and in some cases to secure letters of recommendation. That's hard to do if a faculty member is so contingent that he or she might not have a job the next year or if that instructor is so ill-paid that he or she might have to look for work elsewhere or be less available because of having a second job.
But let's not make the same mistake that the administrator responsible for the "Chicago is different" quip is presumed to have made. Let's not assume that a pay increase, however well deserved and however beneficent in the long run, comes with no negative consequences for the students. Inflation happens. Costs creep up and up. Surpluses and "profits" are sometimes quickly and unexpectedly depleted. Tuition rates rise higher. And the rise is not always the result of a cynical, money-grabbing administration.
One need not be an anti-union scold or share my reservations about the union to see some merit in what I am saying. I think a strongly pro-union person could take this post to heart and learn from it. Some people will hear "Chicago is different" and react in a way similar to that of some of my pro-union colleagues. And for the record, I think, as a pro-union friend argued, that it's an altogether good thing for the union to question the university's spending priorities. But other people's reactions might be similar to my own. I think both sides have a case.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Clarifications on my letter of February 8, 2014 [UPDATED]
In my post below [click here to read it], I explain some of my original reservations about the union, its demands and the then impending two-day strike. The date on that letter is February 8, 2014, but I wrote the bulk of the first draft by the end of January 2014. In this post, I am going over where I've changed my mind on some points.
But for starters, I want to repeat what I said in that post. I had given the letter to a pro-union acquaintance, and that person distributed the letter, or parts of it, to some of his or her fellow supporters in the union. I state this because that acquaintance was doing so as a way to foster a conversation among the members of the union, even though he or she probably disagreed with most of what I said. All this is to point out that that person had no role in writing that letter and has no role in authoring this blog. If you have seen the letter or parts of it before the letter was posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, then whoever showed it to you likely disagrees with the statements made in this blog and should not bear any criticism for anything I say here.
Now, here are the points I have changed my mind about.
First, in the letter, I had said I plan on staying away, but not doing the picket lines. But as my earlier posts attest, I actually did man the picket lines. Similarly, in that letter, I said I would not honor a longer, indefinite strike. I now plan--tentatively--to honor such a strike if it happens, although I am more reluctant to join the pickets.
Second, I criticized what I saw as some union members' cavalier attitude toward the docking of pay. In the letter, I suggested that those persons' attitude did not really account for the realities of those of us who have to report our absences. The union and the university partially resolved that issue with a voluntary reporting scheme. Because I joined the pickets and the university did not have the benefit of two days of my labor, I reported that I did not work those days. That's the right thing to do.
Third, I criticized the union's protest against being paid less than managers make at McDonald's. I stand by my criticism. But I think I was a bit too dismissive of the challenges facing some of the instructor faculty, especially the lesser paid ones. One thing manning the picket lines and talking to or listening to some of the instructors reminded me of was how hard it is to grade papers and teach writing. The ability, as I said in the letter, to grade papers with music in the background while reading coffee might make the job somewhat easier. But it is a hard job. Still, I stand by my criticism. One shouldn't protest against being paid merely the same wages as a food service worker.
Fourth, I should be a little more upfront about my interests here. I won't go into too much detail because I don't want to ruin my anonymity, but my position with the university is such that I really do believe I am more likely to be priced out if the union wins a contract. In other words, if the wage minimum is increased and multi-year contracts are provided for, it will probably not be worth the university's while to keep me on. An instructor in writing, for example, is doing something the university values more highly--or at least sees as more necessary even if it doesn't pay salaries accordingly--than it values my position.
I believe that's fair. Things are as they are and even though I work hard and believe I do a good job at what I do, writing instruction is more important. But I write this to say that I believe I have a definite interest in the union failing to secure a contract. My calculation of my interest in the matter might be wrong. But I am working from that assumption, and those who probably compose the majority of the union's bargaining unit ought to be aware that my objections are not based purely on principle.
Fifth and finally, I would like to clarify something about my objection to the union. I believe the union would be bad for UIC and I believe most of what the union wishes to obtain will be bad for the faculty. But I still think UIC would be a great place to work for. If the union wins a contract (and if I can keep my job), then I will look at the union and the contract not as the bane of my working existence, but just as one element of a job that I find less pleasant. And frankly, I've never had a job that came without drawbacks. And for all I know, I could be wrong on my prediction about whether the union and what it wants are bad. Maybe it would turn out to be a positive good despite my fears.
UPDATE, April 2, 2014: When I originally wrote this post, I had failed at one point to use the "his or her" phrasing when speaking of my pro-union acquaintance. I have since revised that one instance where I failed to do so.
But for starters, I want to repeat what I said in that post. I had given the letter to a pro-union acquaintance, and that person distributed the letter, or parts of it, to some of his or her fellow supporters in the union. I state this because that acquaintance was doing so as a way to foster a conversation among the members of the union, even though he or she probably disagreed with most of what I said. All this is to point out that that person had no role in writing that letter and has no role in authoring this blog. If you have seen the letter or parts of it before the letter was posted on Tuesday, April 1, 2014, then whoever showed it to you likely disagrees with the statements made in this blog and should not bear any criticism for anything I say here.
Now, here are the points I have changed my mind about.
First, in the letter, I had said I plan on staying away, but not doing the picket lines. But as my earlier posts attest, I actually did man the picket lines. Similarly, in that letter, I said I would not honor a longer, indefinite strike. I now plan--tentatively--to honor such a strike if it happens, although I am more reluctant to join the pickets.
Second, I criticized what I saw as some union members' cavalier attitude toward the docking of pay. In the letter, I suggested that those persons' attitude did not really account for the realities of those of us who have to report our absences. The union and the university partially resolved that issue with a voluntary reporting scheme. Because I joined the pickets and the university did not have the benefit of two days of my labor, I reported that I did not work those days. That's the right thing to do.
Third, I criticized the union's protest against being paid less than managers make at McDonald's. I stand by my criticism. But I think I was a bit too dismissive of the challenges facing some of the instructor faculty, especially the lesser paid ones. One thing manning the picket lines and talking to or listening to some of the instructors reminded me of was how hard it is to grade papers and teach writing. The ability, as I said in the letter, to grade papers with music in the background while reading coffee might make the job somewhat easier. But it is a hard job. Still, I stand by my criticism. One shouldn't protest against being paid merely the same wages as a food service worker.
Fourth, I should be a little more upfront about my interests here. I won't go into too much detail because I don't want to ruin my anonymity, but my position with the university is such that I really do believe I am more likely to be priced out if the union wins a contract. In other words, if the wage minimum is increased and multi-year contracts are provided for, it will probably not be worth the university's while to keep me on. An instructor in writing, for example, is doing something the university values more highly--or at least sees as more necessary even if it doesn't pay salaries accordingly--than it values my position.
I believe that's fair. Things are as they are and even though I work hard and believe I do a good job at what I do, writing instruction is more important. But I write this to say that I believe I have a definite interest in the union failing to secure a contract. My calculation of my interest in the matter might be wrong. But I am working from that assumption, and those who probably compose the majority of the union's bargaining unit ought to be aware that my objections are not based purely on principle.
Fifth and finally, I would like to clarify something about my objection to the union. I believe the union would be bad for UIC and I believe most of what the union wishes to obtain will be bad for the faculty. But I still think UIC would be a great place to work for. If the union wins a contract (and if I can keep my job), then I will look at the union and the contract not as the bane of my working existence, but just as one element of a job that I find less pleasant. And frankly, I've never had a job that came without drawbacks. And for all I know, I could be wrong on my prediction about whether the union and what it wants are bad. Maybe it would turn out to be a positive good despite my fears.
UPDATE, April 2, 2014: When I originally wrote this post, I had failed at one point to use the "his or her" phrasing when speaking of my pro-union acquaintance. I have since revised that one instance where I failed to do so.
My original reservations from before the two-day strike
Unlike my prior posts, which were comments mostly on atmospherics and tactics, this post goes into some of the particular points where I disagree with the union.
Back in February, before the two-day strike happened. I wrote a wordy letter describing my objections to the union, its demands, and the strikes. I am reprinting it here. I apologize about the clunky format: I haven't figured out how to embed links to PDF documents. If anyone wishes to have a more readable, PDF file of the same thing, please email me at uicufdissenter@gmail.com ( uicufdissenter at gmail dot com )
I have changed my mind on some of the things I've said in that letter, and I am probably slightly more sympathetic to the union now than I was then. In a subsequent post, I will go over where and how I have changed my mind. But in this post and as a preface, I will point out the following. I had originally intended the letter to serve as part of an intra-union conversation and not a public conversation. I had given it to an acquaintance in the union, and he or she distributed part of it (or perhaps all of it) to some of his or her fellow union members. If any of my readers recognize some of what I write here, it is because they may have seen the part forwarded by my acquaintance.
I am obviously going back on my then provisional pledge, stated at the end of the letter, not to make the letter public at that time. But I want to dispel any suspicion that my acquaintance is responsible for or endorses this blog. I have informed him or her that I am writing this blog, but I do not speak for that person and he or she probably disagrees with many of my points. He or she, as I understand, is a strong supporter of the union. Therefore, if you have seen this letter, or parts of it, before today, it was forwarded not by me, but by someone who is not responsible for this blog and therefore does not necessarily endorse what I say here.
Back in February, before the two-day strike happened. I wrote a wordy letter describing my objections to the union, its demands, and the strikes. I am reprinting it here. I apologize about the clunky format: I haven't figured out how to embed links to PDF documents. If anyone wishes to have a more readable, PDF file of the same thing, please email me at uicufdissenter@gmail.com ( uicufdissenter at gmail dot com )
I have changed my mind on some of the things I've said in that letter, and I am probably slightly more sympathetic to the union now than I was then. In a subsequent post, I will go over where and how I have changed my mind. But in this post and as a preface, I will point out the following. I had originally intended the letter to serve as part of an intra-union conversation and not a public conversation. I had given it to an acquaintance in the union, and he or she distributed part of it (or perhaps all of it) to some of his or her fellow union members. If any of my readers recognize some of what I write here, it is because they may have seen the part forwarded by my acquaintance.
I am obviously going back on my then provisional pledge, stated at the end of the letter, not to make the letter public at that time. But I want to dispel any suspicion that my acquaintance is responsible for or endorses this blog. I have informed him or her that I am writing this blog, but I do not speak for that person and he or she probably disagrees with many of my points. He or she, as I understand, is a strong supporter of the union. Therefore, if you have seen this letter, or parts of it, before today, it was forwarded not by me, but by someone who is not responsible for this blog and therefore does not necessarily endorse what I say here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)