I work at three places, and
belong to AFT-affiliate (NYSUT) locals at two of them. Do I lose interest in
unions when I teach at the third?
Of course not, not least of
all because I believe that union successes and failures, in the long run, raise
and lower the bar for adjunct and contingent faculty working conditions.
But I have three ways of
thinking about unions: for, by, and
against.
This first is about the
struggle for unions, to maintain and
protect their current strengths, and to establish new unions, particularly
when, as at Duquesne, proposed new unions are focused clearly on the plight of
adcons. (Check here for my own latest view of that important battle—needs
updating, I know.)
Since such new unions are
doing two things I’m in favor of 1) struggling for the basic right to organize
and 2) struggling specifically to improve adcon working conditions—which are
the worst faculty working conditions in the entire system—I’m naturally a great
supporter.
The second way I have of
thinking about unions is this: the struggle by
existing unions, and here I’ll just give you a quote from the late Steve
Street—who died recently and much too soon. This is from a column he
wrote, "The Fog," for Inside Higher Education in Fall of 2009: “at 3
percent…in five years the gap between initial base salaries (for TT/T and
adjunct/contingent faculty) of $70,000 and $15,000 grows by almost $14,000,
from $55,000 to $63, 758.”
So, that represents one type
of struggle by unions. How can I
support that? It’s a struggle by unions to grow the gap between adcon and
“regular” faculty.
How is that struggle by unions any different from the sort of discrimination
you see, for instance, in a publication from the Office of the Senior Vice
Provost at Harvard, on “Faculty Development and Diversity”? Here’s the
language: “Adjunct Professors are Non-Ladder Faculty everywhere.”
So, that’s true for
Vice-Provosts and for unions too? Something wrong there, I think, and that’s where
the struggle against unions—as too
many of them now operate—comes in.
I’m not talking about a
struggle against unionization, of course, or against the ideals of a union
movement—it’s a struggle against a lot of current union behavior, and for
unions in a more idealistic and inclusive way, which brings us back to where we
started.
Now, back to my six
syllabi—I could use old ones, of course, but I do like to keep them up-to-date:
I do keep learning.
You know I am a 'union man' also, but one of my complaints about AFT is that they really do not advocate for the rights of contingent faculty.They have a very strong K-12 presence and in Higher Ed the major focus is on tenure track or tenured full time faculty and support staff. The FACE abd Just Ask campaigns did little to help us. Most of the advances we have made come from the Local level much more than the State or National levels. Are we better off with unions? No doubt, but most of the work is done in 'the pits' not up on top.
ReplyDeleteBeing a 'union man' as both you and Alan are does not mean blind to or in denial about problem areas. It's healthier for unions in the long run too. I admire both of you all the more for it. More voice for adjuncts in unions should and could have a restorative effect.
ReplyDelete