Comment by sonzohan

19 days ago

This is a very late response (I am overseas) but I do like your impassioned comments. That said, I think there might be some misunderstandings about US Labor Laws and operations as they relate to education and unionization.

> Professors are not (at least not supposed) to be a decoration in a University.

Our names and reputations are nothing more than an enticing line in a marketing pitch. A way to say "You could be taught by a Nobel prize winner!"

My college's pitch for me is "This person worked for Beyonce and made AAA games! They'll get you a job!"

As the article stated, college in the US is now transactional. Put money in, get degree out. Put lots of money in a famous-name college, get more opportunities in the US labor market. They are not students anymore, they are customers buying a product. The product they are paying for is a piece of paper that gives better access to the US labor market. The US labor market increasingly expects a college degree even for even the most asinine roles.

When you're spending 5-to-6 figures and 4 years of your life for access to the entry-level US labor market, you are a customer, and learning and integrity take a backseat. When an institution cares the most about growth and profit, they are a business focused on increasing their capital. This is not to say that capitalism is bad, just that the incentive structure shifts from educational outcomes to revenue-per-student. In fact there is an explicit term for this, Full-Time Equivalent, or FTE. More FTE = more money = institutional growth.

> You have all the leverage

I do? Are you sure it's not the person who pays my paychecks, guarantees my health insurance, and can fire me at the end of the year since contract renewals are annual? Are you sure that the leverage and 'forcing management' that you say I can do isn't dependent on union support for an action I wish to take, since being unionized means I waived my right to individual actions?

It would be appropriate to say "The union should have all the leverage." This is because the union has an exclusivity agreement with the college, such that you cannot have non-union instructors teaching at the college. However our union is extremely weak, and struggles to take even the most basic opposition stances against the college. Our collective bargaining team gets weaker at negotiating every year; IT/CS professors took a $5000 pay cut this year because the union gave up our salaries during negotiation. Also worth noting that the college is hinting that they will not longer work with the union in the next contract negotiation, and move to individual instructor negotiations. This will enable them to lay off all tenured instructors and re-hire them as part-time adjuncts with a 70% pay cut. They just fired me, and they have told me they plan to extend that exact offer if I want to continue directing the program. I have already accepted a role elsewhere.

People who aren't in education generally read that tenure means "Job for life." and "They can't fire you". Maybe in the 20th century, but tenure doesn't work the way anymore, and hasn't since the 2000s. There's also a ton of politics. In the event of a union it is the union vs the college, not you vs the college. You have no individual leverage, you are dependent on union support.

> When workers have leverage they unionize and can force management.

Force them to do what? We ARE unionized; we are members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Since we are unionized we waive our right to individual arbitration, and individual protests or strikes (Wildcat Strikes) are explicitly illegal. We must go to the union, tell them the situation, and they decide if they wish to pursue action against the school in solidarity. If the union decides to not pursue action we cannot go alone. Conversely, if the school calls a 'state of emergency' they can take actions without union approval and with the union waiving their ability to object to actions, and eliminating their leverage.

And a state of emergency is exactly what they called this year. They did it in response to this https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/09/25/s... which is going to put them $5.5 million in debt in the next 3 years. They have told the union "We don't care, sue us. If we don't do this, we shut down, and everybody loses. If you sue us or strike, we shut down, and everybody loses."

The union has stated they do not plan to take action, but have sent many strongly worded emails ending in "In Solidarity" or "Union Strong". This isn't to say that unions are bad, in fact I'm very pro union. This is to say that not all unions are equal, and leverage is actually dependent on the union's overall strength and the overall power dynamic.

Your comments suggest that I am at fault here, and not my employer nor my union for taking inaction at the issues I've raised. I am proud to say that as a unionized public employee our collectively-bargained contract is publicly available for view online. If you are curious I am happy to send a link to you. You will quickly realize that it is two groups constantly speaking for you, you have very little recourse or individual agency, and the 'leverage' you claim I have or should have as a union does actually not exist.