A group of faculty and staff met last Saturday afternoon to discuss these questions. The individuals represented a reasonable cross-section of academic staff and faculty (in length of service) and most of the employee organizations such as PROFS, UFAS and academic staff governance groups. The meeting was organized by Wisconsin University Union (WUU) for the purpose of assessing interest in a campus-wide organization and figuring out what that organization would do.

There was a unanimous opinion that an employee organization is needed. Many of the discussion participants were members/leaders of the staff and faculty governance organizations and spoke to the limitations of those organizations. Academic staff discussed the inability of the Academic Staff Assembly to address most of the major issues facing the staff e.g. layoffs, promotions, pay inequities. And noted the low level of participation and interaction with those they purport to represent. Faculty noted that the Senate failed to take a strong position on the Public Authority proposal until it was effectively dead. Given the structural ties between the Faculty Senate and PROFS, that organization is often hamstrung from positions that most members of PROFS endorse.

Both governing institutions and their related lobbying arms, PROFS and ASPRO, have low revenue. ASPRO also has a very low percentage of the academic staff as members which limits their capacity.  Also, neither organization has played a role in representing individual employees in job-related disputes and as a result has little experience with some of the major issues facing employees.

If there was agreement on the need for such an organization, there was less agreement on what it would do. The discussion focused on two elements, internal objectives (employee-based, campus policy development) and external directed objectives (legislative, public information).

The main points raised in the discussion of campus objectives were:

• Participating in/ monitoring the development of a new personnel system. Most people don’t know UW employees lost civil service protections in the new budget or what it might mean. A new personnel system is being created over the next year and we should be engaged in that process.
• Whistleblower protections. This was a statutory protection that was lost with the civil service law.
• Advocating for institutional integrity. This includes being “budget watchdog.” We’re watching the action so you don’t have to.
• Protecting rights of individual employees. The grievance committee process is weak and at best deeply flawed. Most people don’t know what to do. Effective employee representation can serve an important function.
• Improve rights of academic staff in regard to layoffs, transfers, etc.
• Advise employees. Many employees don’t know where to go for reliable information on important personnel decisions such as retirement. Having a practical and immediate function builds membership support too.

Some of the external roles and objectives were:

• Positive public information on UW. Our problems in compensation go beyond the immediate budget shortfall. Popular opinion of UW-Madison is low.
• Support the lobbying effort. Given the number of affected employees, the lobbying effort is low and can benefit from additional support.
• Working with other UW campuses. We are not alone in this mess and need to work with other faculty and staff on other campuses. It appears that the current inter-campus faculty committee has been disbanded by the UWS.

Obviously, more ideas were brought up. But the discussion turned to how do we do this? It was suggested that we do a survey of staff and faculty to directly determine their interests and priorities. It was agreed that we could do that in the next few weeks. Following the completion of the survey we will meet again, hopefully bring more people into the discussion and continue the process. If you would like to participate or be kept in the loop let me know at dmahrens@gmail.com.

DMA

Save the date!

Saturday, Sept 24 — 10 AM- 3 PM

Building an Effective Organization for Faculty and Staff

If you read Sifting and Winnowing then you recognize that the events of last semester underscore the need for a viable organization of University staff and faculty. The Wisconsin University Union (WUU) invites you to a planning discussion about what that might look like. We’d like to hear from campus employees what they’d like that organization to focus on and do.

What issues should this organization prioritize?

• Improve compensation?
• Protect academic freedoms?
• Secure employee protections on layoffs, promotion, etc?
• Re-gain right to collectively bargain?
• Retain rights of self-governing institutions?
• Other?

What function/activity should this organization prioritize?

• Provide accurate and timely information on issues affecting employees?
• Advocate for individual employees in workplace disputes?
• Conduit information to decision-makers at state and campus level?
• Develop political capacity to advocate for campus interests such as lobbying or organizing a PAC?
• Work with similar grassroots groups on other UW campuses?
• Other?

We intend this to be a wide-open/no-preconceptions meeting — a frank (and fun) discussion of what’s really needed and how best to organize getting it. Please join other individual and organizational activists to discuss and plan an effective organization designed to meet our real challenges.

• On-campus location
• Ample food and drink available throughout!
• (More precise agenda to follow shortly)
• RSVP: dmahrens@wisc.edu / 334-1156

In the past week, I have attempted to make a list of the immediate and long-term implications of this new law for the employees of UW-Madison.  We need to keep track of all the effects of this law so that we can literally show the members of the legislature who supported this bill exactly WHY we were screaming back in February “This bill does not repair the budget!  And this bill does not help the people of Wisconsin!”

As a TA at UW-Madison, I am concerned about what this means for me when I return to work in August — I have no idea how this law will affect my life in the near or distant future.  But I do know that my union no longer has the right to bargain with the State of Wisconsin about anything other than my salary (which by law can now only be raised to match the rate of inflation, meaning that although we haven’t been bargaining for a pay raise in years, now we legally can’t even ask for one).  Other questions I have about the implications of this law for me as a UW employee include:

1. What does this mean for my healthcare coverage?
2. What does this mean for the grievance procedures, workload limits, sick leave, and emergency family leave policies that were granted to me in my contract?  Do I even have a “contract” now?
3. How can we as graduate student workers make our needs and desires known and recognized?  And who should we be trying to make our needs and desires known to (i.e. the administration, politicians, lobbyists, etc.)?
4. What does it mean now that the TAA can no longer charge non-members for the cost of representation (i.e. the TAA can no longer collect dues from non-members even though they will be representing them in salary negotiations) — this surely means that the TAA will struggle in raising funds, which makes me wonder how the staff and volunteers for the TAA  will be able to work towards protecting things like my salary, healthcare, workload limits, etc. when there is no money – but who will they be “bargaining” with now that they won’t be “bargaining” with the state?
5. What does this mean for my tuition waiver?

I am also concerned that people may not realize how MANY people working for the UW are affected by this law – in addition to graduate student workers, this law will affect the lives of classified staff, academic staff, non-reps, and the faculty.

Additionally, I am concerned that the effects will not all be felt at the same time (unlike in February, when we all felt attacked at the same time with the introduction of the bill).  Many things will change as a result of Wisconsin Act 10, and these changes will not all happen at once, making it difficult to keep count of all the impacts of this new law, and difficult to support each other when we’re all being attacked from different sides at different times. Two already-observable implications of this law include the revoking of academic staff and faculty members’ right to unionize (which they just won) and the decision by UW system to prohibit all UW employee organizations (unionized or otherwise) from collecting dues as of August (as discussed in the S&W article).  But it’s only July.  Who knows what changes in working conditions will occur for UW employees between now and the start of fall semester.

Wisconsin has not lost, however.  Wisconsin is still very much in this battle, and we need to do more than just look back to the protests of February and remember the feelings of solidarity — we need to vote, we need to stay united, we need to ask questions, and we need to keep turning to each other for support and help — Please share the ways in which this law impacts you, your friends and family, and please continue to speak out and up and QUESTION those who make decisions with inconceivable ramifications so that we can combat these attacks on our rights and livelihoods with empirical purpose and unrelenting solidarity.

- Alyson S.
Graduate student teaching assistant

In that vein, we’d like to look back and regard the events of last semester as an aberration and not indicative of the life we live now or how we will live in the future. We’d rather not consider all of the facts and face the new reality: that we no longer know what life will be like in the future other than that it will probably be worse in some distinct but as of yet, unknown, ways. But “the facts get in the way” of our attempts to ignore our new and discomforting reality.

The fact is that as of August when the new health and WRS deductions go into effect, we will have a cumulative 20% loss in real income over the last 10 years (21% increase in cost-of-living and a 1% increase in compensation). And except for a small fraction of the faculty that might receive a retention award, no increase is in sight for the next two years regardless of inflation.

Or that Walker’s attempted putsch to control UW-Madison will not deter him from his goal of controlling the University. If the Democrats do not win control in the Senate as a result of the recalls, it is likely that Walker will attempt to change (through statute) the terms of the Regents to give him immediate control of a majority of the Board. A deeply conservative ideological Board will then appoint the new Chancellor for our campus.

Whether a “public authority” was or was not created may make little difference in the balance of power between the State and University. (As UW Regent Walsh mused, “What’s a public authority? It’s anything you want it to be.”) The UW Hospital is a “public authority” but unlike the University, it receives no funding from the state. Nonetheless, new law inserted into the budget prohibits Gyn-Ob residents from performing abortions despite the fact that the training is conducted off-premises of the Hospital with no public funds. (See Wisconsin State Journal: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_803d71f6-9c51-11e0-b739-001cc4c002e0.html) The Governor declined to veto this budget item explaining disingenuously that he believed the state should “not fund abortions.”

Abortion politics aside, the political power at the other end of State St. feels empowered to decide what is taught and probably not far off, the content of our research. Clearly, that’s the motive behind their attacks against the Havens Center, the Extension’s School for Workers and most recently, the Center on Wisconsin Strategy.

The political leadership has sought to implement policies to control the university with as little opposition as possible. The administration’s move to defund (and in the process “de-fang”) all of the campus employee organizations by terminating automatic dues deduction is an unabashed tactic to quash organized opposition. While the administration previously argued that it would not deduct dues for organizations that engage in collective bargaining, it has now extended the same prohibition against any employee association or advocacy.

Yet despite these concerted attacks, tumultuous protests and likely challenges in the future, the vast majority of faculty and staff remain unorganized and thus, relatively incapable of responding to on-going challenges. With the exception of the TAA, no organization was capable of mounting a response to the loss of state funding or collective bargaining rights. Though a petition was circulated among faculty in support of collective bargaining, a concerted campaign in conjunction with other campuses could not be conducted. (In fact, the major organization for academic staff, ASPRO, remained opposed to collective bargaining.)

I raise these issues as means of setting the discussion of some fundamental questions:

• How can we respond to these formidable current and future challenges?
• Is the current mix of organizations appropriate to the tasks ahead?
• Should the traditional divide of faculty/academic staff/ classified staff continue or does the new reality (classified staff will be unrepresented) require new forms of organization?
• What would an organization(s) do that is different from what is happening now?
• What should be the relationship of these organizations with the existing shared governance institutions? Should they be part of, aligned with or separate from them?
• What should our relationship be with organizations of faculty/staff on other UW campuses? Should these relationships be a primary goal of a “Madison” organization?

While it had been anticipated that the state would end the deduction for the unions, the end of the deduction for organizations that do not engage in collective bargaining comes as a surprise. In Walker’s initial budget, the prohibiting language was limited to “labor organizations” which are defined as “an organization that engages in collective bargaining.”  However, when the bill was amended in Joint Finance a more expansive amendment was added that prohibited dues deduction for any employee organization other than those representing public safety employees.

The unions have been preparing for the end of their dues deduction for some time. Their response has been to ask their members for monthly bank or credit card deductions. (Bank deductions are preferable because of fewer problems of changes in credit card numbers.) It is too early to tell their level of success but predictably, many members are not enthusiastic about signing an authorization for a 1% reduction in pay at the same time they are suffering a 10% reduction in pay.

In contrast, the voluntary organizations such as PROFS, WUU , ASPRO charge only nominal fees of one-tenth of 1% or in some cases only $5. Additionally, their memberships, as a whole, have significantly higher incomes.

The real issue here, however, is organization. We need it, and our employer, the State of Wisconsin, is doing everything possible to prevent organization or even effective participation of an opponent. Whether it requires photo ID of voters, defunding potentially oppositional non-profits or stripping the rights of employee organizations- the tactics change but the strategy is consistent.

If it hasn’t been clear yet to faculty and academic staff that we are in the same boat as our campus colleagues with blue and pink collars, this should be the final piece of evidence. The end of the dues deduction for non-bargaining employee organization is another message that from the perspective of the new rulers at the other end of State St. we are a single indistinguishable mass. We are the enemy that must be disenfranchised by whatever means are at hand.

Is it obvious that our response to this attack must be to join every available organization and pay the dues? What are less clear are the strategies of campus organizations. How shall we organize? What shall we do?

Let us not forget that while excellence and scholarship among our stars is beyond question, there is large segment among us who are silently sifting and winnowing for truth outside the limelight, working on unpopular ideas. It is the freedom to pursue such efforts that our tenure is supposed to guarantee.

Tenure guaranteed, even in the absence of flexibilities that we don’t have now, from my humble perch, I only see administration policies marginalizing the value of our diamonds in the rough. Will the new flexibilities lead to even further marginalization? Will the pressures eventually lead to their compensation being reduced to bare living wages?

The partnership between our stars and the administration may appear to be a win-win proposition. But in the view of many, it is a lose-lose proposition for the students and the public.  If our constituency loses its crown jewel, there will be no university left for the stars to shine over. When will we stop pumping up the bubble, and start deflating our pump?

- Jeevee

What I am questioning is whether raising faculty salaries is the most cost-effective way to achieve the goal of retaining talent and whether efforts to raise faculty salaries should be a driving force behind the New Badger Partnership.

She then goes on to examine in some detail the role of absolute salary relative to other factors in faculty retention:

What other factors are affecting [retention] decisions– and how important are they, relative to absolute salary? For example, what role does the quality of life in Madison play? How about salary inequity (among UW-Madison professors)? The shared governance system? Campus climate? The tenure and promotion system? Gender and/or racial bias in that system? The presence or absence of unions?

I think Sara’s questions are good ones, but I also think there is there is an extremely important aspect to the salary question that is being overlooked, and not just by Sara.

I’ll set the stage with the following confession: I’m reasonably content with my overall level of compensation while being very dissatisfied with the chronic pattern of negligible raises.

Does this sound contradictory?  It’s not, and here’s why.   Every year we have a merit exercise in which each member of our department gets ranked by his/her peers in the areas of research, teaching, and service.   The effort involved in this assessment is substantial, entailing the preparation of 3-year activity reports and in-person interviews.  And of course there is the exposure factor — it can be nerve-wracking for otherwise independent scholars and teachers to open up their entire professional life to review and ranking by their immediate colleagues.

There used to be a tangible point to this exercise — to determine the apportionment of the department’s overall raise pool.  Those who demonstrated sustained excellence and high productivity received a significantly larger raise (typically a couple percent more) than those ranked lower.  Over time, these differential raises accumulated, leading to significantly higher overall salaries for those who contributed on a consistently high level.  In short, one was recognized and rewarded for excellence even without having to disrupt one’s own life — and others’ — with insincere applications for faculty positions elsewhere.

For most of the ten years I have been on the faculty at UW-Madison, the merit review, when it occurs at all, has been a hollow exercise.  It now serves only to draw stinging attention to the unwillingness of the State of Wisconsin to reward faculty for continuing to do their job well.   The most highly ranked colleagues in my department  have been receiving approximately the same raise  as those ranked near the bottom — that is, next to nothing.   To put it another way, at most a few hundred dollars in raises per year, on average, separate those who put in 60 hours per week, who spend considerable time on the road traveling to conferences, working late grading papers and reading theses, and serving on advisory committees, from those who understandably opt instead to devote more time to their long-suffering families and/or to non-academic pursuits.

More recently, we have not only had no raises, we’ve had furloughs.  Again, these pay cuts strike everyone equally, regardless of merit.

A few days ago, I did the calculation and discovered that my inflation-adjusted salary today is within a few hundred dollars of what it was in 2000, despite a promotion to full professor in the interim, and despite having been ranked solidly in the upper half of my department for most of those years.  And that tiny improvement in real pay over ten years may soon be completely erased by Governor Walker’s Budget Repair Bill.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, the realization that my efforts over the years have not had a measurable impact on my net compensation is vastly more demoralizing to me than the knowledge that my salary is some modest percentage below that of my peers at other universities.  It honestly makes me reassess the point of ever again staying past 5pm, which has been the norm for all of my career.

Absolute salary does matter on some level, but as Sara says, it may not be the most important factor in recruitment and retention.   My point here is that pay raises are important for reasons that may have little to do with retention and everything to do with rewarding continued high productivity and excellent scholarship by the many tenured UW-Madison faculty who, for whatever personal reasons, choose not to apply for jobs elsewhere.

Still, this deal is a monster and monsters don’t die so easy. Let me hand you a silver bullet for your pistol in case you meet this one in a dark alley:  This deal with Walker has been sold by appeal to vague flexibilities. The details we do know, in fact, are mostly serious downsides, and many people aren’t even aware of them. Consider the budget implications of these two tidbits that I’ve picked up talking to people in the know:

• In previous budget cuts, we’ve taken 40% of the total cut to UW-System,  but this cut is 50-50 between us and System. That’s an extra $30 million base cut annually. No proposal for gains from ‘flexibilities’ shows any hint of how that could be made up. The projections shown at the Faculty Senate and elsewhere basically conceal this fact: They project our budget as if it were starting from where we are now, not from $30 million less. How long would it take to recoup that amount in the base budget, if we can?
• We would no longer have a state pay plan. That means that our block grant would not include any money for future pay increases. Any. Ever. As salaries increase, we’d have to cover that from our own new monies. I’m told that a 1% raise for the whole campus costs about $5 million right now, including benefits. So, a modest 3% raise would mean generating an extra $15 million per year in perpetuity. Chart out a set of small raises over 10 years on a spreadsheet!

Bottom line: the current proposal guarantees us cuts, far deeper than if we stay with System. And nobody has been able to say how the proposal would give us significantly more money, now or in the future. Far worse, there is not a whispered promise of no future cuts. The Virginia model contained the kinds of guarantees that Wisconsin’s proposal lacks. And the legislature still came back and sliced them to ribbons.

There’s a way forward here, one probably workable for the legislature and System: Much of the flexibility that the chancellor wants — most of which would be uncontroversial — can be achieved without public authority, without the devastating consequences outlined above.  We need a concrete set of flexibilities we can agree on, within System and acceptable to the legislature.

(For the author of this article, who is not even in a union, the immediate reduction in household income will apparently be over $800 per month.)

The obvious severity of these measures, especially for lower-income families of public workers,  and the lack of opportunity to debate them or even to broach alternative ways to patch the shortfall famously prompted 14 Democratic senators to flee the state to stall its passage.  And the massive demonstrations for which Madison has now gained the national spotlight began ramping up on February 14, with no signs of letting up as of this writing.

Governor Walker boasted to the fake “David Koch” that he would never negotiate or compromise, apparently no matter what the consequences for the State of Wisconsin.  By now it’s of course clear that the state has been polarized as never before, and it’s safe to say that the damage to mutual trust and civil discourse will take years to heal under the best conditions.

So what is this problem that the budget repair bill purportedly fixes?   According to the governor’s own website, the shortfall that must be addressed by July 1 is $137 million.

Now, according to the 2010 census, the adult population of Wisconsin is 4.5 million, and the median income is about $47,000 per year.

In other words, if every Wisconsin adult simply ponied up $31 between now and July 1 — that’s $8 per month — then the entire rationale for this extremely divisive and destructive bill would vanish in a puff of sulphurous smoke.

Where do I send my check?

And yes, I realize that the $3.6 billion deficit for the next biennium needs work too.   That’s $33 per month per adult.  Pro rate by income and I’m sure everyone who really cares about the things that make Wisconsin great (important caveat!) — accessible and high-quality public education, support for the arts, a forward-looking vision for transportation and urban planning, protection for the environment, etc. — would agree that it’s a reasonable shared sacrifice.

So whose budget plan would you choose, this one or Governor Walker’s?  Or something in between?

- GP