faculty unions

While I cannot comment on the specific situation in New York, I feel I have to respond to this vicious anti-union piece in today’s Inside Higher Ed. I have been teaching at my university for 36 years, and I am the author, translator, and editor of seven books, hardly at the edges of the professorate. I am also a member of the Board of Directors my union, the Massachusetts Teachers Association (NEA) and the grievance officer on my campus. My experience with the union is that it offers real protections to faculty at the hands of power hungry, arbitrary administrators who routinely punish faculty for their skin color, gender, sexual preference, ideas, and even ethnicity (yes, white people who don’t practice the preferred religion or belong to the preferred ethnic group are punished too!). While not all administrators are like this, this type is hardly rare. Beyond that unions increase wages and benefits. What I’ve learned is that if you work, you need a union whether you are blue collar or a professor. Those who disagree are sometimes well intentioned and also extraordinarily inexperienced and naive.

Levon Chorbajian, Professor of Sociology at University of Massachusetts Lowell, at 8:20 am EST on February 24, 2006

The Right to Unionize?

I won’t try here to argue with KC Johnson about whether unions are a good thing (I generally think they are). Before we can get to that question, though, we need to ask a prior question: do faculty and graduate students have the right to unionize? This is what is denied at NYU, and many other campuses. If administrators have the right to ban unions, it suggests that they can deny faculty and students almost any other rights. I hope that KC will defend the right to unionize as strongly as he critiques the decision to unionize.

John K. Wilson, at 9:30 am EST on February 24, 2006

Responses

Many thanks to those who read the piece and took time to comment.

To respond to John Wilson’s question: I don’t think anyone seriously contends that faculty don’t have the right to unionize. (I certainly don’t contend it.) As to graduate students, I think that the NLRB’s decision on NYU was correct: federal labor law, for very good reasons, does not confer a legal right on students to form unions.

To respond to Prof. Chorbajian’s comments: I was born in Massachusetts; my parents were public school teachers and longtime members of the MTA. I think the union has done great work for K-12 teachers. I’m puzzled, however, by the comment that higher-ed unions are necessary to battle against “arbitrary administrators who routinely punish faculty for their skin color, gender, sexual preference, ideas, and even ethnicity.” Is the argument here that, for instance, white males are somehow uniquely endangered at Brown because the institution’s president happens to be an African-American female? And if such racism, sexism, and heterosexism is, in fact, so pervasive in the academy, why would unions be any less likely to suffer from such views than administrators, given that both draw their ranks primarily from current or former members of the faculty.

KC Johnson, Professor of History at Brooklyn College, at 11:30 am EST on February 24, 2006

Not all collectives are equal

While the protest at Harvard U to oust its President was not a union activity, it did require a large consensus of faculty and students who were able to pressure an administration quite effectively. Why? Professors and students at Harvard are at little risk of ending up jobless or penniless. Their Harvard ‘reputation’ would no doubt be entrees to other university posts or programs. Not so most faculty at other institutions. When it’s a buyer’s market, the common consumer is expendable and replaceable; this is not true of the consumer and representatives of luxury items. The fear factor, unfortunately, runs the lives of many Americans—both inside and outside academia

Alan Gerstle, at 4:20 pm EST on February 24, 2006

KC Johnson wants to know “Is the argument that...white males are somehow uniquely endangered at Brown because the institution’s president happens to be an African-American female?” The answer is no, it is not. I never made such a statement nor any statement remotely similar, nor was such a view implied anywhere in my post. There is not much connection between a person’s demographic characteristics and their policies, and such essentialist arguments are unsubstantiated by fact.

As to why there is any reason to believe that unions would be better than administrators on issues of civil and human rights, and a commitment to fairness and equality given that both are mainly drawn from the faculty, I would say that’s a terrific question, and here is my answer. While the record of unions is not unblemished, unions are a response to injustice in the workplace, and they have fought long and hard to empower workers. Some unions in the past made it part of their program to admit and value minority members and to promote them to positions of leadership. If you ask if it was unions or management that offered support to the Civil Rights movement, you find that it was unions. And if you ask if it is unions or management that fights for decent wages, job security, health and pension benefits, and a living wage, again it is unions. The national president of my union, the NEA, is Reg Weaver, a Black man who does a terrific job. Is there any professional association of college and university presidents or upper level administrators that has ever been able to make that claim? I don’t think so. Most college and university administrators and faculty union leaders may be drawn from the same pool of faculty as KC Johnson asserts, but they are not the same sorts of people, nor do they enter the same kinds of worlds governed by the same values and commitments.

I’ll end by saying that I’ve enjoyed reading the posts by the other contributors. Thank you for your contributions. It’s been heartening to learn that people are not having much trouble figuring out which end is up.

levon chorbajian, To KC Johnson at U. of Massachusetts Lowell, at 6:30 pm EST on February 24, 2006

anti-union

Unions are not for professional people, right? So lawyers and doctors et al have professional organizations that insist on the proper treatment that ought to be accorded those within their ranks.

This anti-union piece suggests we might as well go back to the time, not all that long ago, when the president of a college simply hired and fired as he saw fit, without any concern or direction from faculty. That would simplify things.

A friend, a former vice president for one of the biggest corporations in Aemrica, had as his job making sure that unions did not come into the many plants scattered across America. He told me that basically he had to find out what would prompt the need for a union and then fix things so that the workers would feel no need for a union.

The artice above ought to distinguish beteeen faculty, full-time, with a vested interest in their college and grad students, at an institution for a short time and then moving on.

There is nothing inherently wrong with an organization that focuses upon the needs of those working for an instituion, but without the right of collective bargaining, such organizations remain fairly impotent.

I have been at a universitgy in which therewas a strike of the faculty. The administration then brought in scabs, dumped its striking faculty, and later, unloaded the scabs since they were hardly the sort that were credentials enough to be wanted after the strike. Only in America and in South Africa can workers be replaced by scabs permanently. It is thus in this anti-union bias that your writer presents his screed against collective bargaining. Perhaps we all might be better by hiring illegals or outsourcing our students.

fred lapides, at 6:45 am EST on February 25, 2006

More Responses

Prof. Goldman asks: “What would you have them do? How do graduate students who are mistreated defend themselves, if not by collective action?” It’s a hard question to answer in the abstract, since it’s unclear what is meant by “mistreated.” For instance, the NYU grad students receive packages totaling some $50,000 in tuition waivers, stipends, and benefits—hardly what most would consider mistreatment. Grad students who are mistreated by their advisors can, of course, complain to department chairs, or to administrators, or even file lawsuits.

Prof. Chorbajian contends, “Most college and university administrators and faculty union leaders may be drawn from the same pool of faculty as KC Johnson asserts, but they are not the same sorts of people, nor do they enter the same kinds of worlds governed by the same values and commitments.” I’m not an administrator, nor do I ever have an intention to become an administrator, but this statement seems to me a considerable exaggeration.

Prof. Lapides notes that my article “suggests we might as well go back to the time, not all that long ago, when the president of a college simply hired and fired as he saw fit, without any concern or direction from faculty.” I’m sure some IHE readers would know the percentage of colleges and universities that are unionized, but I’m unaware of many non-unionized schools (the Ivy League?, Stanford?, the Univ. of Chicago?) that operate under such principles.

Prof. Lapides adds that “I have been at a university in which therewas a strike of the faculty. The administration then brought in scabs, dumped its striking faculty, and later, unloaded the scabs since they were hardly the sort that were credentials enough to be wanted after the strike.” It would help in commenting on this claim if Prof. Lapides identified the university, since the story apparently has been totally overlooked by the higher-education media.

I’m struck by the fact that few commenters seem to defend the specific practices of either the GSOC or the PSC. Regardless of one’s general perspective on whether academic unions are overall healthy or not, I suppose this consensus is a positive point.

KC Johnson, Professor of History at Brooklyn Coll., at 2:10 pm EST on February 25, 2006

Response to Lobell

I find John Lobell’s claims about the salary structure at the Pratt Institute difficult to believe. All union contracts I know of give raises to professors who have received promotions to higher ranks. At the University of Massachusetts Lowell, thanks to our union, these increases are quite generous. For example, all professors promoted from associate professor to full professor receive a salary increase of $13,000 a year. If indeed professors at Pratt receive no increases with promotions then I would have to conclude that Prof. Lobell, his colleagues, and the union leadership have been asleep at the wheel.

As for merit raises, there is no satisfactory solution to this issue. Merit raises whether allocated by faculty or administration are distributed to friends. The union is accurate in its claim here. However, it is not accurate to say that all faculty are equally accomplished and equally meritorious. That is obviously not true. My union fights hard against merit and profesionally accomplished persons like myself are hurt by this, but there is simply no way to assess and reward merit that does not quickly veer off into corruption. I have come to accept my union’s position on this because I think the other benefits are greater than this one disadvantage.

Levon Chorbajian, Professoer of Sociology at University of Massachusetts Lowell, at 12:05 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Response to Chorbajian

It is interesting to see that certain people, when they do not like what is being said, do not rebut the facts, but attack the person making the statement.

Chorbajian writes: “I find Lobell’s claim about the salary structure at Pratt Institute difficult to believe.”

I wonder why Chorbajian does not say, “I find Lobell’s statements … unusual”, or “different from the situation at my institution”? What is being said here? That my statements are untrue?

My union has chosen not to put our contract online, so I cannot refer you to it, but I assure you that I am not mistaken about the circumstances under which I have been working for 25+ years.

Chorbajian writes: “I would have to conclude the Prof. Lobell … have been asleep at the wheel.”

I do not know if Chorbajian has ever tried to deal with union leadership, but I assure him that the union leadership at Pratt will attest to the fact that I have not been asleep.

Chorbajian then writes: “there is simply no way to assess and reward merit that does not quickly veer off into corruption.”

Hmmm. So 2,500 colleges in the US, including the entire Ivy League and most elite science institutions are corrupt? Wow, those socialists at University of Massachusetts Lowell must have done extensive research. Are those findings posted anywhere?

PS, thanks, Bad English :-).

John Lobell, Professor at Pratt Institute, at 2:00 pm EST on February 27, 2006

Unions/Merit

I strongly endorse faculty unions. However, I was at my last campus in an abusive situation where the union president was also my chair. The union, which was good about economistic issues (raises) was unhelpful about conflicts between union members. For this reason, I think faculty/staff unions should come under NLRB so that Taft-Hartley (normally considered a conservative measure), where supervisors and workers cannot be in the same union, would apply.

It’s possibly even desirable that non-tenured and tenured people be in different unions— since the vast bulk of unfavorable actions against junior faculty come from senior colleagues, not administrators.

I firmly support merit. On a campus where it’s allocated by committees that range across ranks and units, with objective criteria, it’s a fair system. If deans award it, it becomes a way of rewarding cronies.

Henry Vandenburgh, at 5:00 pm EST on February 28, 2006