The issue of collective bargaining rights for Wisconsin academics — from graduate research assistants to tenured faculty — percolated for years (at least partly “under the radar” for many campus citizens) and finally came to a head over the summer. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which has been a major force behind the push, summarized the situation (as they see it) in this article that appeared very shortly after the legislation was signed on June 29, 2009.
There are stories within stories here, and most readers are blissfully unaware of how a very few individuals on both sides of the issue played a disproportionate role in shaping the outcome, especially for UW RAs, who came within a hair’s breadth of being absorbed into an existing union without their knowledge or consent. These are stories for another time.
The important point is that every affected group now has the choice (a) whether to unionize and (b) if so, who should represent them. The decision to unionize is not unlike the decision to get a tattoo — once it has been made, it is very difficult to revoke. I urge readers to pay extremely close attention to this issue and to look out not only for their own best interests but also the interests of future faculty, staff, and students (all students, not just RAs) at UW.
That said, it is probably fair to say that academics tend to be suspicious of the push to unionize. I believe there are three major reasons for this:
- It is not at all obvious that the 19th-century model of labor-management relations that apparently still serves as the raison d’etre for most traditional unions is even applicable to academia.
- The tactics of many prominent unions have sometimes, even recently, come across as decidedly undemocratic, depending on backroom deals and shrewd legal maneuvering for success rather than on the informed participation of those they purport to represent.
- Rightly or wrongly, the leadership of at least some unions is perceived as driven more by ideology and/or self-aggrandizement than by the true interests of the rank-and-file workers.
For most academics, I daresay, the principle of enlightened self-determination trumps any purported benefits of unionization. Therefore, if unions are to have any hope of gaining traction at UW in the months or years to come, they will have to persuade their audience that
- what they offer has provable benefits not only to individual faculty and staff but to the whole enterprise of scholarship and education at UW, and
- they are prepared to let the outcome be determined by the evidence and an informed debate and not by pressure tactics, sloganeering, subterfuge, or backroom maneuvering.
As we move into the next chapter of the collective bargaining story, I hope that this forum will be able to play host to informed opinions on all sides of the issue.
- GWP
Thanks for opening up discussion on this topic.
I would stress that your second and third reasons to be wary of unions do NOT apply to the faculty and academic staff union on campus, United Faculty and Academic Staff. Notably, UFAS (http://www.ufas.org/) has very vigorously opposed efforts at ‘unit clarification’ — moving people into unions without a choice, in this case large numbers of academic staff. To me and others, that greatly eases those concerns.
We’ve been watching the dismantling of higher education in this country and this state for years and decades. Along the way, we have lost many of the tools we once had to protect ourselves and our institutions. A smart and democratic move to collective bargaining could help us begin to reverse that.
Like you, I hope for informed and constructive discussion on bargaining.
It’s good to know that UFAS follows a different playbook, and I hope very much that that continues.
I wonder whether similar reassurances can be offered concerning the TAA, which is known to be going after the RAs. The evidence to date (that I’ve seen) is not encouraging.
I agree that it’s good that UFAS has opposed unit clarification. However, given their parent’s (AFT) support of it, I wonder why they continue to be affiliated with AFT.
I have no firsthand knowledge, but people who do have told me that UFAS and AFT have sometimes had a stormy relationship. If true, that simply underscores the question raised by uwh. I hope someone can clarify the relationship for the rest of us. Indeed, it would be helpful if someone posted an article on roles, relationships, and stated objectives of UFAS, AFT, TAA, PROFS and any other relevant organizations. After many years here, I still can’t keep them all straight. Since June of this year, it matters more than ever.
Quite coincidentally, I just found UFAS’s October newsletter in my physical mailbox. It specifically addresses UFAS’s opposition to unit clarification on the top of p.2 . There is also an article (p. 3) on how union elections work. Here is the electronic link: http://www.ufas.org/images/newsletter10.09.pdf
If AFT continues to push unit clarification, I would not be surprised to see UFAS break from AFT. It would be a huge thing, and very bad for all concerned, but uwh’s question is popping up among UFAS members. UFAS is a determined group, and is taking the right approach on this. Let’s hope AFT gets smart.
Another older article, reposted here for additional context:
New right to unionize bothers many in University of Wisconsin System (http://www.madison.com/wsj/topstories/456806)
Excerpt from today’s Cap Times (http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/campus_connection/article_588372b4-b233-11de-b6ac-001cc4c03286.html)
—–
** Somewhat surprisingly, few faculty senators appeared to have a burning desire to openly discuss the pros and cons of unionizing.
UW System faculty and academic staff were given the right to form unions under the state budget signed by Gov. Jim Doyle in late June. This provision doesn’t mean unions must be formed — simply that both faculty and staff at each UW System institution can vote to form bargaining units if they so choose.
Bill Tracy, chair of the University Committee (the executive committee of the Faculty Senate), set aside 45 minutes to preside over a “Committee of the Whole Discussion of Collective Bargaining.” According to UW-Madison’s Faculty Policies and Procedures, “at any meeting of the faculty, time may be set aside for the faculty to meet as a committee of the whole for discussion of matters of general interest.”
But instead of a heated or informative debate on the topic, only a handful of people spoke before the discussion quickly fizzled.
“I was a little surprised,” said UW-Madison Chancellor Biddy Martin. “It seemed like some didn’t think this was the place to discuss this topic. Maybe this just isn’t the forum in which they want to voice their opinions. I think this is an issue people really want time and space to think about and maybe to discuss outside a formal setting.”
Interesting issues raised by GWP that I think will be heard repeatedly in various formulations as the effort to organize unions on campus grows.
A few responses:
While I agree that the “principle of enlightened self-determination” is the personal motive force for much of the academic workforce, the reality that “good works” in research or teaching are not only insufficient attaining a just and reasonable reward but that larger social forces may make the quality of research and teaching fade over time while at the same time deteriorate our social and economic conditions.
I don’t think there is evidence to assume that funding for any major function within the university (other than building construction?) is likely to increase in the forseeable future. Indeed it will likely decline substantially at least in the next four years.
Which brings me to the second response to the issue of whether these unions are modeled after the 19th C or 20th C (for that matter) model of Labor v. Employer in pitched battle over Truth and Coffee Breaks. If the unions organized on campus do not take up the central missions of the UW as their mission I doubt they would be successful in organizing and winning and if by some chance they do win they will fail even in their most traditional and narrow focus of improving the salary, benefits and working conditions of their members. They must, broadly, defend and promote all of the facets of public higher education.