OPINION & EDITORIAL
Editorial: Union busting
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- 1 strike and you're out (March 7, 2005)
- New Era not "union-busters" (April 15, 2002)
- Arresting Development (September 12, 2007)
- Editorial Board wrong on unions (February 1, 2006)
- Editorial: Improving our faculty (March 8, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
If University of Wisconsin professors were to take the reins of a collective-bargaining process and talks with the state were to stall out, leading to a strike, you have to wonder if the chancellor and provost might look to the Madison Area Technical College for a healthy batch of scabs.
Absurd? Absolutely.
But no less absurd than the proposal put forth by a state Republican — yes, Republican — that would allow UW professors to take the first step toward this happy marriage between a young lady named Alice, a place called Wonderland and enough opium to transform a GOP leader into Jimmy Hoffa's most unlikely disciple.
Specifically, Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Dale Schultz is backing legislation that would allow UW System professors to form unions. The rationale behind such a bill is “Looking Glass”-esque and clearly refuted by common sense.
Unions were created as tools to instigate collective bargaining for those unable to garner the attention of their supervisors on matters of salary, health care and workplace safety. The trend of unionization has long been blue collar in nature, though notable exceptions do exist. Still, it would seem there is no cause for one here.
Professors negotiate the terms of their work based on a commonly accepted tenure system and process of offers, counter-offers and competitive bidding. In fact, many tenured UW professors actually sit on the executive committees charged with overseeing this process within their corresponding departments.
With unionization inherently comes standardization. Professors are too brilliant and unique to be forced into the cookie-cutter molds of salary and benefit classes. The beauty of the current system is that nuance may be factored into every scenario, as union representatives and state delegates are never the ones doing the primary negotiating.
Moreover, this would seem an opportune occasion to remind everyone that this campus' best known union — the Teaching Assistants Association — is a not-so-gentle reminder of collective bargaining run amok. Should professors turn out to be anything like their Ph.D.-seeking assistants, that far-fetched scab scenario may just be coming to a lecture hall near you.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 7:29am):
To those who have followed his legislative history, it really comes as little surprise that Dale Schultz is once again acting like the RINO Republican that he is.
Great editorial, especially the last three paragraphs.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 10:31am):
It is true that professors are brilliant people and that a union, although not its intent, would allow inferior professors into our teaching institutions. But, wait! High school teachers have a union, as do our very own TAs, and as much as I would like to beleive that this brilliant Phd is the person who is actually teaching me what I need to learn in any given class, it simply is not the case. I think that we need to revamp teacher's unions and the Teaching Assistants union in addition to not allowing a professor's union. I have had some horrendous high school teachers as well as terrible TAs and the union defends them wholeheartedly because they pay their dues. When is the future of education and the future of our young people going to overcome lazy unions that allow anyone who pays dues a career in teaching? Teachers of all levels should be a select elite who can convey knowledge clearly and accurately to young minds. That simply is not the case with a fair (although not majority) amount of high school teachers, TAs, and even our fabled UW (and other institutions) professors. That being said, some of the teachers I have had on all levels deserve much higher wages and more job security. Obviously the problem is that we see these men and women as a group of people rather than by judging them on their individual merits. Some deserve more, some deserve less; unions should learn to differentiate between the two.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 1:03pm):
first, the proposal is designed mainly to get back at Wiley because of a personal vendetta on the part of some state reps/senators.
second, the university won't risk its reputation and hire scabs who aren't qualified to teach UW classes.
third, if they do start hiring scabs, expect all hell to break loose, and don't expect classes to still continue. students and ta's will go to bat for their profs, and the major unions in the state will come in by the busload to protest such a reprehensible practice. ta's won't hold classes, many students just won't go (on principles, not laziness), and there will be solid picket lines around every building where classes are still being held.
the badger herald has never been a supporter of the working class, and pretending to be one now is just an excuse for their ill-informed anti-union rhetoric.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 2:15pm):
If, as the editorial states, "there is no cause for one here...", then what is the worry? The last time I checked, decisions whether or not to form a union were democratically decided upon by the employees. If there is no need for a union to represent the interests of UW faculty, then why would they vote to give up part of their wages and autonomy? Unless somehow there is more to the situation than presented in the editorial?
Does the editorial board think unions are not needed, and therefore, the faculty should not have the option of forming a union? The purpose of a union has very little to do with wages, and everything to do with respect and gaining a voice in the workplace. If faculty feel the need for a union to increase the respect and voice when dealing with the administration, then they should be free to choose to join a union.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 2:28pm):
Unions are about taking pride in your work and, in this case, one's institution. After all, the professor's working conditions are the students' learning conditions. Current "shared governance" isn't anything more than advise without consent. Why not empower the workforce at your institution to take the reins in the fight against shrinking state aids, rising tuition, and privatization? It takes organization to put up a real fight. What else do you have to lose?
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 2:49pm):
As a member of the faculty and graduate employee union at Rutgers University, I am distrubed by the ill-informed editorial "Union Busting." A few minutes on Google could have taken the author to information on hundreds of faculty unions across the nation -- many at institutions as prestigious and complex as the University of Wisconsin-Madison. A few more minutes of reading would have garnered the author the knowledge that faculty unions have improved and protected the working conditions of faculty and protected faculty governance rights. Far from homogenizing the professoriate, unions have proven a bulwark to the corporatizing trend in higher education in the United States. For comparison, look at the dearth of faculty governance at the virulently anti-union Ivy League schools. If one wants to find Alice-in-Wonderland logic, then look to the author's assertion that every individual faculty member can do better for themselves by negotiating alone with the university as compared to bargaining collectively. If the author had read any faculty union contracts, he or she would have learned that their fear mongering is baseless. "White collar" and "intellectual" workers across the our country are realizing that their class bias against unions has hurt their own interests -- doctors and professors are just as prone to being manipulated, disenfranchised, and cheated by management as a janitor or mine worker. If you doubt this last point, then take a look into how many full-time, tenure track professors there are at Madison as compared to twenty or thirty years ago; take a look at the salaries and job security of the part-time instructors who teach the majority of higher-ed classes in the United States. To the author, I ask, how can the current tenure system prevent the loss of full-time, tenure track jobs at Madison? Given the value the author gives to full-time, tenured faculty, an anti-union stance seems to be Alice-in-Wonderland logic since it serves to continue the degradation of tenure system.
Scott Bruton
Rutgers University
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 2:54pm):
If the quality of your editorial writing is going to be such that I want to use the BH for toilet paper, could you please switch to softer paper and non-smudge ink.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 4:08pm):
this article is the most absurd drivel it has ever been my misfortune to read. this uninformed, dopey, knee jerk, clichéd, hack is like reading rush meets hannity meets o'reilley in some sort of bizzaro world gene splicing accident. so, from that perspective the wonderland analogy holds. welcome to the rabbit hole...
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 4:09pm):
"It is true that a union would allow inferior professors into our teaching institutions."
The BH must be unionized then, because it allows inferior writers into its editorial board.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 5:39pm):
I think that Mac Verstandig should put his name on articles instead of hiding behind the moniker as he now does.
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 8:15pm):
It's hard to post a "respectful" comment to this editorial, as its offensive disrespect of unions -- and of the truth -- invites invective rather that reasoned argument.
Nevertheless, here are a few corrections to the facts and logic therein:
The opening question of the editorial would pack more of a punch if it the authors were not obviously unaware of the fact that Madison Area Technical College faculty are unionized and therefore unlikely to scab for UW. (They're members of American Federation of Teachers [AFT] locals 243 and 6100)
Moreover, the authors clearly have limited (zero?) knowledge of faculty unions outside their limited purview. Thousands of professors at hundreds of universities and colleges across the country (not to mention those around the world) have been forming unions and negotiating with campus administrations since the mid-1960's. Faculty unionization is not a new phenomenon that needs to be addressed speculatively; it's an established fact of higher education that can be judged on its historical record. The websites of the AFT, the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) would be good places to start.
If the authors *had* done their homework on faculty unions, they might have been able to muster an actual argument. As it stands, the editorial is mostly a string of mixed metaphors and unsupported insults. I do see one actual claim -- that professors are "too brilliant" for the "standardization" of union contracts -- but this, once again, makes no sense in light of the hundreds of faculty contracts that are the result of *faculty* proposing and negotiating salary structures with campus managements. Should the brilliant professors at UW form a union, I'm confident they will negotiate a brilliant contract that provides both the standardization and flexibility in salaries that they think necessary.
Jon Curtiss
Organizer, AFT Michigan
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 11:42pm):
I heartily disagree with the January 31st editorial on "Union-Busting." The author presumes that the uniqueness of the university system--and perhaps white collar operations in general--negates the need of unions.
In fact, the uniqueness of the system may be the very thing that merits their existence.
First, even with tenure and glowing reputations, the most senior professors have little to no control of their university salaries and health insurance. A ceremonial seat on the board doesn't guarantee higher pay or affordable health care for one's dependents.
Furthermore, the article ignores the dire situation of many adjunct professors. At many universities, adjunct professors are responsible for most of the teaching, yet have miserable pay and the least job protection.
These adjunct professors have doctorates and are entrusted with the actual education that goes on at the university, yet are paid less than high school teachers with masters degrees.
As long as trustees, presidents, and students have the right to profit from the services and reputations of professors, lecturers, and staff, these employees should have the right to collectively bargain for their own compensation.
Erica Miller
University of Michigan
Anonymous (January 31, 2006 @ 11:58pm):
While it is difficult to muster a response to this article because there are no complete arguments or evidence to debate. For instance, this article claims "With unionization inherently comes standardization." Yet, there is no evidence presented supporting such an argument. In fact, it is often corporate or university attempts to standardize healthcare, benefits, etc. that *lead to* faculty members organizing.
Furthermore, the author seems to claim that unions have no respect for the tenure system. On the contrary, unions have the utmost respect for the tenure system and seek to protect it from being replaced by contingent labor that is more "flexible." This "flexibility" is nothing more than attempts by almost all large research institutions to break the tenure system itself.
I do not feel the need to present many of the other arguments already well presented by others, I would only hope that further opinions presented in this paper present actual evidence to support claims and not make wild claims without any substantiation.
Mike Bader
University of Michigan
Anonymous (February 1, 2006 @ 7:32am):
The bill would allow each campus faculty to choose to unionize or not. There is a massive difference in pay between the faculty at Madison and the comprehensive universities, where younger/newer faculty often make less than high school teachers with master's degrees and even Pepsi delivery men! Many faculty members at the comprehensive universities feel they need to unionize because Madison has allowed a tiered system to exist. When state legislators talk about high faculty salaries, they are talking about Madison.
Having a union does not mean striking.The unionization proposed in Wisconsin deals with collective bargaining and not the right to strike.
Anonymous (February 2, 2006 @ 11:10am):
Does the writer of this article know that MATC faculty are already unionized? They are well-paid and well-organized and...generally excellent teachers. MATC's national reputation hasn't suffered because of faculty unionization.
Rodney Stevenson (February 4, 2006 @ 10:39pm):
Democracies and healthy market economies are based upon freedom of choice. In a democracy we are free to choose those to whom we entrust the responsibilities of governance. In an open market we are free to choose what we consume and how we work. In democratic markets, we are free to chose how to engage in cooperative action to enhance beneficial consumption and employment. There are systems of governance that deny choice to consumers and workers, but these system are clearly undemocratic. To deny faculty and academic staff the freedom to choose how to organize and pursue mutually beneficial conditions of employment is both undemocratic and out of keeping with open markets. I am astounded that the editorial staff of the Badger Herald would insist that undemocratic and anti-free market limitations be imposed on faculty and academic staff.
Anonymous (February 5, 2006 @ 7:10pm):
"With unionization inherently comes standardization. Professors are too brilliant and unique to be forced into the cookie-cutter molds of salary and benefit classes. The beauty of the current system is that nuance may be factored into every scenario, as union representatives and state delegates are never the ones doing the primary negotiating."
Oddly enough, you assume those very same brilliant and unique academics would form a union that forced them into some cookie cutter mold. Does some cookie cutter wielding union thug have guns to their collective heads, or have these uniquely brilliant minds come to the conclusion themselves they are more empowered through organized unity?
You assume a faculty union contract would not allow for nuance, and the negotiating of it would not be carried out by the brilliant faculty members themselves as is the case for faculty unions across the country. You take an odd paternalistic stance, wherein your brilliant faculty must somehow be protected from their right to organize. Would it not make more sense to assume they can make this decision for themselves in their own best interest? (if granted that freedom, of course)
The beauty of a union contract is that not only may nuance be factored in, but honored as promised.
Do your homework, dear. Any brilliant and unique mind can see you haven't opened a book on this one.
Nancy Jowske
adjunct faculty
Wayne State University
