Unionization Merits Consideration

I recently visited the FutureOU.org Web site and found an intelligent, well-written editorial by Dr. Dave Drabold, Distinguished Professor of Physics. Dr. Drabold has given me permission to repost his original editorial on this site.

Recent experience shows that the Ohio University administration (Trustees, President, Provost) does not share faculty priorities. This is evident in allocations to intercollegiate athletics, hiring of administrators and consultants, limited faculty hiring, Senate resolutions going unsigned, and cuts to academic staff who help to deliver education and facilitate research. Repeated attempts of Faculty Senate, Distinguished Professors, other groups and individuals, have failed to bridge the faculty-administrator divide. The current grim budget scenarios make our need for meaningful influence urgent, and Collective Bargaining (CB) has the potential to advance faculty interests on salary, job security and medical care, all of which are at risk. Since CB is worth a close look, I advocate signing a card. By the way, I am perfectly convinced that arguments circulating about “signing a card is a vote to unionize” are specious for Ohio University.

This is not the same as an endorsement of CB. Indeed, there are downsides to a union. The greatest weakness is that CB does not dictate a change in priorities: there is no guarantee that CB will suppress further enrichment of intercollegiate sports or the hiring of several additional six-figure administrators. CB leads to an additional bureaucracy, and requires hard work, discussion, and consensus building to function effectively. I believe that the faculty was correct not to endorse CB under President Ping.

It is clear that the administration will express interest in meeting faculty concerns to avoid CB. I suspect that fear of CB is what led to the presence of two faculty senators attending some Trustee meetings. Whether we ultimately unionize or not, I want to publicly thank our AAUP colleagues for their efforts, which I believe have already advanced the interests of Ohio University faculty.

My vote on CB will be determined by answers to the following questions: Does intercollegiate athletics take a substantial hit? On what basis are decisions made about academic and administrative cuts? Do academic support staff in the departments receive some consideration after years of cuts? Do we make attempts to make “one time” savings by selling suitable assets? Will the composition of the Provost search committee conform to the specific guidelines of the Faculty Handbook for academic positions, or will the administration attempt to redefine the provost as a non-academic position? Does the administration publicly and officially acknowledge the Faculty Handbook as a legally binding document? Will OU continue to identify itself as a teaching institution that requires business functions, or will the administration redefine OU as a business whose revenues happen to come from education? These are some of the questions that confront us.

The administration’s response to questions like these will make my choice clear, one way or the other.

Dave Drabold

Defining Shared Governance

Campus Officials Discuss Shared Governance (The Post)

Scholars Trade Ideas for Shared Governance (The Post)

OU, National Teaching Staffs Define Shared Governance (The Post)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most faculty would agree that our problems with the administration focus on shared governance. The three articles above discuss various ideas for defining what shared governance is. Although most academics have a sense of what shared governance is, or what they think it should be, the basic concept proves to be quite difficult to nail down. I wondered what the Faculty Handbook has to say about shared governance, so I visited the Faculty Senate Web site and searched for the phrase electronically--no hits! According to the search engine, the word "shared" doesn't exist in the Handbook, and the word "governance" produces just 4 hits. The most relevant is an elegant but vague sentence stating that "Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution" (Section I-A-2-C). Exactly what that means is unclear.

In my opinion, we need to define shared governance both conceptually and (perhaps more importantly) operationally. Although a mutually-agreed-upon, conceptual definition will help put shared governance into perspective, an operational definition that identifies recommended procedures, guidelines, and examples will help us put shared governance into practice.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In Article 27 of the University of Cincinnati's collective bargaining agreement, shared governance is defined conceptually. Part of the conceptual definition includes the following statements, "Joint effort and shared responsibility for governance will take a variety of forms, as situations require....Shared responsibility for governance is based upon mutual trust and respect for diverse interests and perspectives and is an iterative and consultative process." That sounds good, but the definition is too vague to do much good, and the language of the contract seems to recognize this problem. The conceptual definition continues by stating, "To be effective, shared governance clearly defines roles, scope of authority, and responsibility for decision-making among faculty governance bodies and university administrators." Then, in the sections that follow, shared governance is defined in more operational terms.

For example, the agreement states that the faculty shall make their own regulations governing the admission and exclusion of students, the courses of instruction to be offered, grading policy, recommendations for degrees, honors and prizes, other fundamental areas of curriculum, and such other matters as may be within their jurisdiction. They shall also be entitled to share significantly in the responsibilities for program development, program review, department review, and department and college reorganization.

The agreement also states that the faculty shall have the right to consider matters affecting the university and shall be given sufficient time to make available to the administration, to the board, and the AAUP, its aid, advice, and counsel in such matters.

The agreement also states that faculty shall have a voice through faculty representatives elected for that purpose at the unit, college, and university level in the formulation of long-range plans and in decisions relating to their implementation. Similarly, faculty representatives elected for that purpose shall have a voice at the unit, college, and university level where decisions relating to the use and creation of existing or prospective physical resources are being made.

The agreement also states that with respect to faculty priorities in those areas not specifically dealt with through the collective bargaining process, both parties to the agreement recognize the Faculty Senate as the primary governance body representing the faculty which shall have the right to advise the President and the Vice Presidents.

In some cases, the agreement is detailed enough to include timelines. For example, "Well in advance, but at least ninety (90) days before the final budget recommendation of the President to the Board, procedures shall be established by the administration in consultation with the Faculty Senate, for reviewing the existing budget and for reviewing requests of the individual Vice Presidents for changes in their budgets. Upon written request the Faculty Senate shall have access to financial information which is relevant and necessary and can reasonably be made available, including monthly budget summaries."

In general, the more we can define shared governance in detail, the better our relationship with the administration will be. The University of Cincinnati's contract proves that shared governance can be defined (at least partially) in some detail. If the OU faculty vote to unionize, we should define governance as clearly as possible in our collective bargaining agreement.

Faculty Handbook Attacked, Again

Faculty Reacts to McDavis’ Concessions on Provost Search (Athens NEWS)

Faculty Should Decline Joining Illegitimate Search Committee (The Post)

According to the Faculty Handbook, academic search committees must have between 6 and 14 members, the majority of the members must be faculty, and the committee must be chaired by a faculty member. Although this sounds very straightforward, President McDavis has argued that the Executive Vice President and Provost is an administrative position, so the search committee need not conform to the standards of the Faculty Handbook. To their credit, Faculty Senate passed a resolution on January 12th criticizing the composition of the committee, stating that it violates the Faculty Handbook. Although President McDavis offered to revise the structure of the committee, it is not yet clear if the Senate will accept the revisions, as the proposed changes do not meet all the conditions set forth in the Senate's resolution.

Most Senators seem to agree that it is important to defend the Faculty Handbook and the principles on which it is based. As the administration continues to chip away at policies long established in the Handbook, some faculty worry that the Handbook could become irrelevant. Several times on this blog I've mentioned that one benefit of collective bargaining is that our agreements with the administration become backed by state law. Because the Faculty Handbook is not protected in this way, the administration seems quite willing to challenge it as they see fit. Although Faculty Senate will continue to fight the good fight, I'd prefer that they have the law on their side.

As I mentioned previously, President McDavis has argued that the Executive Vice President and Provost position is an administrative position, so the search committee need not conform to the standards of the Faculty Handbook. I wonder if he would have made the same argument with the Handbook protected under a collective bargaining agreement? I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect Faculty Senate would have a more manageable fight on its hands if the Handbook was indeed backed by law.

Keep fighting Senators!

AAUP-OU Responds to CIF

As I noted on January 20th (see below), the CIF once again is using unrealistic claims to scare faculty away from signing union cards, even though their arguments have been discredited (see the CIF's most recent letter). In the following letters to the editor, Kevin Uhalde, president of AAUP-OU, responded to the CIF and set the record straight. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the CIF is interested in setting the record straight. Reasonable people who have followed this discussion understand that Ohio University will not unionize without an election. Others who perpetuate myths seem more interested in spreading lies to scare faculty away from signing cards.

CIF Once Again Spreading Fallacies (Athens NEWS)

Fear That Staff Will be Tricked Into Unionization Irrational (The Post)

Faculty on Board Committees

Measure Would Add Faculty Reps to Committee

According to Outlook, the Board of Trustees’ Governance Committee will forward to the full board a resolution that would allow two non-voting faculty representatives to participate on board committees. However, the faculty members would not participate on the full board.

Specifically, the Governance Committee is recommending a resolution that extends ex-officio, non-voting board-committee representation to two Faculty Senate members. The Senate's Finance and Facilities Committee chair would serve on the board’s Resources Committee and the Senate’s University Curriculum Council chair would serve on the Academics Committee.

Although faculty need to be represented on the full board (as opposed to just a few committees) for meaningful shared governance to work, this is a step in the right direction. It seems as though the threat of unionization is making the Board of Trustees at least somewhat more responsive to faculty concerns. A unionized faculty would have even more clout.

Board May Gag Its Members

Post Editorial: Trustees Consider Free Speech Issue

The Board of Trustees will review a "Statement of Expectations" this week. If adopted, the policy would gag individual trustees from voicing dissent about board decisions. According to The Post, the policy suggests "The Board must speak with a single voice...Board Members should refrain from publicly criticizing actions of the Board, the President or other members of the University Community." As you might expect, the proposed policy has been widely criticized as an assault to transparency, sound decision-making, and meaningful shared governance.

Most people would agree that meaningful shared governance is built upon cooperation, mutual trust, and respect between the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Trustees. It's difficult to see how gagging individual trustees would benefit relations between the faculty and the administration, particularly when you consider that FACULTY ARE NOT REPRESENTED on the Board.

Would a collective bargaining agreement change things? It might. The following language can be found in the agreement between the University of Cincinnati and the AAUP:

Faculty representation on the Board...shall include the chairperson of the University Faculty Senate and two elected representatives of the University Faculty. They shall have the right to suggest proposals for consideration by the Board and the President, and to attend with voice, all meetings of the Board, except executive sessions, and Board committees including academic affairs and finance. (Section M.2)

Discredited CIF at it Again

Faculty Union’s Not Such a Great Idea (Athens NEWS)
This letter to the editor was written by Rebecca Thacker, from the College of Business and the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF). The CIF distributed similar information to several faculty today via email.

Even though their arguments have been discredited, the CIF once again is using unrealistic claims to scare faculty away from signing union cards. Their argument is essentially the same as it was before. According to the CIF, "signing a card is in fact a vote for unionization." As I (and others) have stated previously, it is possible to circumvent an election only if the union initiates it (which it would never do), and only if Ohio University also agrees to recognize the union without an election (and Ohio University would NEVER agree to do this).

According to Rebecca Watts, who is Chief of Staff to President McDavis, the administration would indeed request an election before recognizing a faculty union. In other words, the card drive is completely legitimate, faculty should not hesitate to sign cards if they support unionization, and the Committee for an Independent Faculty should stop trying to scare their colleagues.

If you need more evidence that the CIF is making disingenuous claims, consider reading the following Post article or the following blog written by Kevin Uhalde, President of the AAUP-OU

Claim That AAUP Could Bypass Union Election is Unrealistic (11/24/08, The Post)

Cards Really Aren't Scary -- Part 2 (1/20/09, AAUP-OU)

Unionization Locks-in Benefits

When times are tight, it's reasonable to consider budgetary adjustments. For example, as health-care costs continue to rise, the university community must make tough decisions regarding who should shoulder additional financial burdens. Based on recent news, it's clear that faculty will be required to dig deeper into their pockets. According to Outlook, several health-plan adjustments are being explored, including higher premiums, higher copays, and for the first time ever at OU, a deductible that would need to be reached before insurance benefits would kick in. And although the administration has not yet decided if they will implement a pay freeze (OU Budget Group Delays Decision on Pay Freeze, Athens NEWS), it's unlikely that faculty salaries will keep pace with the cost of living next year.

One key strength of unionization is that employee benefits are locked into collective bargaining agreements, and then they become fixed costs that administrators are unable to alter unilaterally. According to Ken Brown, "All unionized campuses in Ohio have kept raises intact for next year," and I assume that's true for their health benefits as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting our salaries and benefits to be locked-in for the coming years. The administration clearly understands the benefits of that sort of security, as some of the university's highest paid officials (i.e., President McDavis and Coach Solich) have recently locked-in their salaries and benefits for several years.

Union is Taking Over Senate?

So Much for Shared Governance; The Union is Taking Over (Athens NEWS)

In this letter to the editor, Don Flournoy (Professor in the School of Media Arts and Studies) claimed that Faculty Senate is being taken over by the union. He stated that he sees a small group of faculty "wanting to be the ultimate decider on everything that goes on at OU, showing not the slightest concern for its effect on collegiality and shared participation of students, deans, civil service and administrative staff, community, and yes, trustees."

Furthermore, he suggested that "faculty have more important things to do" rather than spend their time running the university, and that our university can't afford a unionized Faculty Senate that is at odds with the rest of the community.

I'd love to read your comments...

In Old Days, Faculty Had Clout

In The Old Days, OU Faculty Had Much More Clout Than Now (Athens NEWS)

In this letter to the editor, Chuck Overby (OU Emeritus Engineering Professor) takes issue with The Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) for "suggesting that a faculty union might reduce the Faculty Senate's clout within the university, compared to what it had enjoyed during Charles Ping's 1975-1994 presidency."

Overby reminded us that in 1978, the Ping administration "finessed" the Faculty Senate out of considerable clout when it stripped faculty of the right to remove college deans by a democratic vote. According to Overby, "A faculty removal vote required the President and Provost to comply with the faculty's wishes." Overby stated that this right was exercised a couple of times in his early years at OU. According to Overby, our right to vote was replaced with the current dean's evaluation procedure, which transferred removal rights to the Provost and President.

Perhaps a faculty union could help us regain the right to vote on the deans?

FutureOU.org

http://www.FutureOU.org/

Today I received an email announcing a new Web site, FutureOU.org, that "aspires to provide a neutral venue for thoughtful, serious discussions that will lead to a brighter future for Ohio University."

Question: Is the site designed to promote the AAUP collective bargaining drive?

Answer: From the FutureOU.org FAQ page..."No. We are not a one-issue site. Collective bargaining is, of course, an important current issue, and we welcome discussion of it on this site. The editors, however, urge contributors not to let their stance on this one current topic become a lens through which to view the larger questions about OU's future. Instead, our broad sense of institutional values and direction should inform our thinking and attitudes to specific issues--including collective bargaining."

Because the editors welcome discussions of collective bargaining, I wanted to make sure you're all aware of its existence. Below is a welcome message from Steve Hays, who is one of the Web site's editors.

Wage Freeze?

In yesterday's blog, I wondered if faculty would receive a raise next year, and I suggested that without a bargaining agent, we really have no say in the matter. According to The Post, ("Emergency Meeting Held to Discuss Wage Freeze"), "The Budget Planning Council is considering a recommendation for a university-wide raise freeze for next year to help ease budget woes."

I guess we all saw this coming, including the administration (of course). That's probably why over the last few months we've heard that President McDavis received an $85,000 raise, the new Executive Director of Communications and Marketing will receive $157,500, Coach Solich will receive $400,000 through 2013, and the new VP for Diversity will receive $137,000. It's no wonder we have budget woes!

Money Available For Admin (II)

Again I ask, When times are so tight, why is the university continuing to spend so much money on administrative costs?

Today's Post was kind enough to remind us that in addition to his base salary of about $380,000, President McDavis enjoys several lavish benefits ("Finalized Contract Raises Salary by $85,000").

$45,600 in deferred compensation, to be awarded at the completion or termination of his contract

A home at 29 Park Place and a residence budget of $78,242

A car allowance of $12,000, with insurance provided by the university

One quarter/semester of paid professional leave during his contract

Up to 25 days of paid vacation each year

Full access to the university's airplane

$2,200 cell phone allowance

I wonder if faculty will receive a raise this year? I guess we'll simply accept whatever the administration offers. We have no other choice without a union.

Defending Handbook/Health Care

According Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth, Faculty Senate will discuss several resolutions Monday night (1/12), one of which will focus on employee contributions to health care. According to the resolution, the Faculty Handbook states that changes to employee contributions must be submitted to the Faculty Senate for approval. However, in violation of the Handbook, employee contributions were raised on July 1, 2007 without consideration nor approval by the Senate. The resolution demands that contributions roll back to the prior rate and that excess contributions be returned via a premium holiday.

Several months ago, I posted a blog that asked, Is the Faculty Handbook legally binding? Back in the days when faculty physically signed contracts, it was clear that our employment was based on the terms and conditions set forth in the Handbook. But things are much less clear nowadays, and according to John Biancamano, OU's Director of Legal Affairs, the Faculty Handbook is "in a general sense" still part of the faculty contract. We should all be deeply concerned when our legal rights are only "generally" protected by a "contract" we no longer have a right to sign, particularly when we realize that the administration has failed to honor the procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook.

By negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the university, faculty will no longer need to worry about these matters. The agreement will list our benefits plainly, and because the agreement will be backed by state law, the administration will be unable to force unilateral changes.

Union Help Wanted!

A colleague forwarded the following email to me. I've edited it to remove the sender's identity.

Dear Colleagues,

I ...have also been involved with OU's chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in the effort to establish collective bargaining (unionization) at our campus. Our chapter president, Kevin Uhalde, supplied me with your names and contact information.

I write because in one form or another, perhaps on the card you signed and submitted stating your desire to decide through secret ballot whether or not we should have collective bargaining at OU, you indicated a willingness to get involved in the campaign. We now need your help.

We are laying the groundwork for a sustained communications and outreach effort to the wider faculty in the lead up to a mass distribution of cards. Our goal is to produce a series of "white papers" (around 500 words each) that address issues and grievances of central concern to the faculty. These white papers will provide serious and documented analyses of the issues and explain how collective bargaining can help resolve them. The white papers will be placed on our website and distributed in other ways, as well. We also wish to develop a series of flyers that we will begin distributing weekly as soon as possible. We want to accomplish all this by the end of this month.

We need your help in researching and writing this material. If we have enough people involved, the work required will be manageable. We are all extremely busy people. But, we also have an opportunity now, at this moment, to restore an effective faculty voice through the instrument of collective bargaining. We need your help, whatever you can give, and we need it especially this month.

If enough of you write back saying you want to pitch in, then I will call a meeting to discuss the range of issues we need to address and divvy up the work. Again, if enough of us are on board, we can make quick and relatively easy work of this task. Along the way, you will learn what it is involved with collective bargaining and become important resources for your friends and colleagues as we move forward.

Please let me know as soon as you can if you'd like to get involved. We need you.

(For more info, contact aaupou@gmail.com)

Money Available For Administrators

During lean times, we expect to see belt-tightening. For example, as I mentioned below, administrative workgroups are exploring a variety of options for reducing costs, including "savings that could be realized through...changes to employee and dependent benefits." That's right, the university might decide to contribute less to our health care.

When times are so tight, why is the university continuing to spend so much money on administrative costs? According to The Post ("New Director No Stranger to Business"), the university recently hired a new Executive Director of Communications and Marketing. She'll earn $157,500 per year, more than twice the salary of a typical faculty member.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL...According to The Post ("Semester Transition Budget Rises with More Costs Expected"), the university's transition to semesters is $324,000 over budget and still rising. But it's unlikely the extra money will help alleviate the burden the transition will have on most faculty, as only a select few who lead the transition will receive "buyout" funding. According to Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth, all faculty should be compensated, as all faculty will be forced to convert their courses to a semester format. I assume most faculty would agree, but without a bargaining agent, the faculty is in no position to negotiate a fair deal. We'll be forced to accept whatever the administration offers, which for most faculty will be absolutely nothing.

Without a union, the faculty will continue to get steamrolled by the administration.

Students Dissatisfied w/Admin

Today's Athens NEWS contained two articles describing student dissatisfaction with OU's administration. It's interesting that many students share the same concerns as faculty, and that many students support faculty unionization.

Student Activists Meet at OU (Athens NEWS)

This article reported that OU's chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) hosted a national retreat over the weekend. During the spring 2007 Student Senate elections, the OU SDS chapter organized a "no-confidence" vote against OU President Roderick McDavis. In that election, 78 percent of student voters said they had "no confidence" in the President's ability to run OU. According to the article,

SDS members at OU have recently leaked plans of a new 'student union' being formed among a coalition of student groups seeking to challenge the OU administration, and to ally with university faculty members who are pushing for a faculty union.

Many Students Know Little About OU’s Board of Trustees (Athens NEWS)

This article provides some basic information about OU's Board of Trustees. It reminds us that faculty have no representation on the Board and that students are represented by two non-voting members. According to the article, both of the student trustees are in favor of voting rights. One student trustee stated that full enfranchisement is necessary to lend true legitimacy to the Board. That's a great idea, but OU's Board of Trustees cannot even approach true legitimacy until faculty are represented as well. But don't hold your breath. According to Board Secretary Tom Davis, "higher education is comparable to a major corporation." Unfortunately for us, most high-ranking corporate officers treat faculty as pawns.