Striking
Today my thoughts are turned towards colleagues at the institution I've left, who are now on strike. I wish I had the morning to really reflect about this, but instead I'm thinking as I go and using this post to sort out (or perhaps make muddier!) some of the mixed emotions I have about this practice in the context of universities.
Take one: unions can do good things. I've seen the ways in which a union can advocate on behalf of a group of workers. Being originally from the west and less unionized states, I was taken aback when we moved to Former City and, before I'd even drawn my first paycheck from that university, I was asked to walk a picket line with my colleagues. Our union meant that we had incredibly clear tenure guidelines (something that is frustratingly murky and idiosyncratic at far too many places); great health benefits; and a living wage (believe me, profs don't make much. At least humanities profs. And that's okay with me--I went into this eyes wide open. But in this Former City, it was common that secondary teachers made more than us. Just so you know...)
Take two: unions for faculty--a professional-type group--seem odd. I always felt profoundly uncomfortable to be striking, or threatening to strike, over what % of raise we should get, or what % of increase in retirement set-asides we should get. I mean, aren't unions to protect folks who do the *real* labor of our nation--those who cut steel, or dig ore, or assemble cars? Mind you: I never felt like the "demands" of our union/faculty were unreasonable. I just felt odd about the public discussions of why we should have a 4% raise rather than a 3.5% raise. While we didn't make anything mind-blowing, we *did* make more than many of our students' families.
Take three: unions cause deep divisions between faculty and administration who, at least for the duration of bargaining talks, must posture as embattled enemies who mistrust everything the "other" side does. Sadly, at my Former U, this is occuring as I write. On the "admin" side are at least two people I've worked closely with and whose integrity I admired. Right now, though, they're seen as evildoers by many faculty. I'm not exaggerating. Once the bargaining/strike is over, it takes a *long* time for those wounds to heal and those misconceptions to be readjusted. Which means that it's really hard to get other kinds of work done.
Take four: all of this is dependent on situation and context, which may be obvious. It's been fascinating to me, over and over again, how similar and how vastly different the two Us I've worked at as a tenure-track faculty member have been. Here, there's no chance of a union. Our salaries, our raises--shoot, even the test score cut-offs for *our* writing classes--is controlled by the state (ironic, isn't it, in a Mountain West State with a supposedly deep distrust of government control.) This means that there's a different kind of vulnerability--and almost a sense of hopelessness, really (ie, "they --the state legislators--didn't give us a raise").
Anyway, this is probably extremely dull for our readership, but as I think about my former colleagues and good friends having to walk picket lines today, knowing that they feel many of the ambivalencies I do, I had to write a line or two about it.
Take one: unions can do good things. I've seen the ways in which a union can advocate on behalf of a group of workers. Being originally from the west and less unionized states, I was taken aback when we moved to Former City and, before I'd even drawn my first paycheck from that university, I was asked to walk a picket line with my colleagues. Our union meant that we had incredibly clear tenure guidelines (something that is frustratingly murky and idiosyncratic at far too many places); great health benefits; and a living wage (believe me, profs don't make much. At least humanities profs. And that's okay with me--I went into this eyes wide open. But in this Former City, it was common that secondary teachers made more than us. Just so you know...)
Take two: unions for faculty--a professional-type group--seem odd. I always felt profoundly uncomfortable to be striking, or threatening to strike, over what % of raise we should get, or what % of increase in retirement set-asides we should get. I mean, aren't unions to protect folks who do the *real* labor of our nation--those who cut steel, or dig ore, or assemble cars? Mind you: I never felt like the "demands" of our union/faculty were unreasonable. I just felt odd about the public discussions of why we should have a 4% raise rather than a 3.5% raise. While we didn't make anything mind-blowing, we *did* make more than many of our students' families.
Take three: unions cause deep divisions between faculty and administration who, at least for the duration of bargaining talks, must posture as embattled enemies who mistrust everything the "other" side does. Sadly, at my Former U, this is occuring as I write. On the "admin" side are at least two people I've worked closely with and whose integrity I admired. Right now, though, they're seen as evildoers by many faculty. I'm not exaggerating. Once the bargaining/strike is over, it takes a *long* time for those wounds to heal and those misconceptions to be readjusted. Which means that it's really hard to get other kinds of work done.
Take four: all of this is dependent on situation and context, which may be obvious. It's been fascinating to me, over and over again, how similar and how vastly different the two Us I've worked at as a tenure-track faculty member have been. Here, there's no chance of a union. Our salaries, our raises--shoot, even the test score cut-offs for *our* writing classes--is controlled by the state (ironic, isn't it, in a Mountain West State with a supposedly deep distrust of government control.) This means that there's a different kind of vulnerability--and almost a sense of hopelessness, really (ie, "they --the state legislators--didn't give us a raise").
Anyway, this is probably extremely dull for our readership, but as I think about my former colleagues and good friends having to walk picket lines today, knowing that they feel many of the ambivalencies I do, I had to write a line or two about it.
posted by Anonymous at 8:47 AM
7 Comments:
Couldn't agree more. I don't think I like professional unions. I didn't think my work-life was better as a result of having one and it is a great divider. For certain professions (such as you mentioned) I think they are valuable institutions. For other proessionals, I don't see the purpose they serve. Except to make certain professionals feel "down with the people". Although this is bringing back fond memories that I'll share on another post. PS If I never post again, assume the Teamster boss found this and didn't like what it said. I'll miss you all.
OK, so shortly after this comment posted, I saw a video on msn.com about a fellow who could use a little union protection. The Moroccan tannery worker who softens the newly butchered-animal's skin by tromping around on it in a vat of water and pigeon excrement. For $2 a day. After he's tenured he'll get $5 a day. He and the Mexico City sewer diver should definitely contact the Teamsters.
uck, left coast!
and interesting post, prof. So much is greek to me, but it's interesting to get a perspective that's a bit more unbiased than what you sometimes read in the paper or hear on the radio.
Prrrof, thanks for your post. I also have mixed feelings about unions, having been raised not to like them. But then I worked for the FAA, where Congress was our boss and you can't just walk in and work something out in your boss' office. My husband is going through the mill right now with imposed work rules the FAA has laid on the workers...they reached an impasse, so the FAA just did what they wanted... as we all know from 1981, air traffic controllers CANT strike or they'll get fired. So the choices are pretty much quit, die or retire. :)
I'd like to just think that most people wake up in the morning and want to treat their employees well. Unfortunately, I know from my first hand experience (and discrimination suit that followed) that this is not true. I continuously wonder how some people live with themselves.
Looks like I could start a whole other blog on this subject, eh??
Thanks for all your comments. Unfortunately, the more I knew/was involved with a union, the more I saw the good-and-bad-at-the-same-time of them. They're *not* all-evil, like some folks seem to think. It's healthy and good to have a way to bargain. But locally, some of the harm caused by things like strike negotation is really significant.
And I hope your next post demonstrates you're still with us, LCS--you haven't been given the ol' cement shoes treatment, have ya??
i really appreciate the 40-hr work week, the health benefits, the retirement, workers' comp, etc etc that we have because of unions. i'm happy that if i get my arm nipped off in a loom, they can't just fire me and bring in the next desperate sucker to take my place.
i thank unions, and people who bled and died to form them, for all of that.
on the other hand, i deplore the common union mind-set that every employer has bottomless pockets and is out to screw the workers. it's especially frustrating in a public setting (where i usually work), since there are no greedy owners/shareholders and it's not even management's money.
union featherbedding, obstructionism, gratuitous power-wielding, ties to organized crime, occasional strong-arm tactics, disconnection from and exploitation of membership, top-heavy and sinecure-ish admin/organization, and union-uber-alles attitude all make me very regretful that something so valuable has so often been corrupted into something so counterproductive.
Post a Comment
<< Home