From: Henry Kranzler [mailto:henry.kranzler@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:15 PM
Subject: Re:
My experience speaks very differently about the AAUP. The last time that unionization was seriously considered by the UCHC faculty, a development that I supported, the AAUP deserted the effort midstream due to the expense of a sustained campaign. Although at that time the faculty had no real role in governance (which is why I supported the union effort), the situation is very different now. Faculty committees now have a voice in the governance of the Health Center, so I personally see no real value in a union. If I did, though, I would have no confidence that the AAUP will be there to support the effort. Although as Dan points out, AAUP may have a role to play at Storrs, the circumstances are very different at UCHC and that union (or any other, in my view) is unlikely to play a meaningful role in the governance of the Health Center. Bottom line (in my view): governance is a do-it-yourself process.
From Sandra Hewett
ReplyDeleteI thought you all might find this to be an interesting editorial. http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-rennie-health-center-union.artaug23,0,6056042.column
I also wanted to respond to the e-mail that was initially sent from Dr. Liang…and responded to by others below.
First, there are, indeed, very few U.S. med schools where the faculty are organized. The sole freestanding unionized med school is UMDNJ, represented by AAUP. The other med schools are either part of a larger university bargaining unit (Wayne State, jointly affiliated with AAUP and AFT) or part of a statewide system (as at SUNY, represented by NYSUT/AFT, affiliated w/ AAUP.) However, one shouldn’t a priori assume that this is because those who aren’t don’t wish to do so. Indeed, there are legal barriers to doing so. In the private sector, for all intents and purposes there is no legal framework for unionization, thanks to the 1980 US Supreme Court decision in the Yeshiva case. The decision in a nut-shell indicated that all faculty were managers and therefore they could not legally unionize. So if the med faculty at Yale, for example, wished to unionize, they’d surely not prevail in any litigation they undertook in an effort to have the National Labor Board conduct an election. However, the UCHC administration years ago tried to assert Yeshiva and failed. UCHC docs have the legal right to organize. Why? Because this state has “enabling legislation”. In the public sector, more than a third of states lack enabling legislation, which grants college and university faculty the right to organize. So for example, even if the faculty at the University of Maryland Med School faculty wished to unionize, they could not legally do so. So why some are and aren’t is not so cut and dry.
Second, we should really maintain a health debate on facts. Dr. Liang asserts first that Unionization has led to the decline of schools that have chosen to do so. I, respectfully, ask that facts be provided to support this assertion. Second, he states that “Union would prevent the award of incentive to those who deserve it. “ The model at Storrs (which WE [YOU] the faculty will determine whether this will work here with the Union and the Administration under collective bargaining) is one of "minimum terms", meaning that the university can do better than, but not worse than the terms agreed upon. Indeed, at UMNDJ, incentives based on clinical practice are NOT collectively bargained. And they do indeed exist.
With respect to representation, those of us in the basic science arena know that some faculty do very well representing themselves----and apparently would prefer to do so---while others do not. Should we really be espousing an “every man or woman for themselves” attitude? And finally, with respect to self-governance…I will just point to the latest e-mail with respect to the “Faculty Tenure Salary Guarantee Policy” sent on Friday. The dean has now called for the Dean’s council to form an ad hoc faculty committee to help it formulate THIS policy. First off, you don’t get broad faculty input from ad hoc committees (my opinion). Additionally, the Dean has had broad faculty input and it occurred on May 5th during our faculty forum where we advised against the policy. At that meeting, it was suggested by the dean and agreed upon by the oversight committee that the various councils would also discuss this. It is winding its way through the committees and so far the Education council has weighed in and unanimously rejected the policy as unnecessary…and I quote from the June 8th, 2009 minutes:
“There was a motion made, seconded and there was unanimous approval to inform Dean’s Council that from the perspective of the Education Council, the proposed policy is not necessary, since the post-tenure process as outlined in the school’s bylaws (appendix C) and the associated policy on salary guarantee for faculty in effect accomplish the same thing as the proposed new policy. Moreover, the post-tenure review process is even stricter in that a non-productive faculty member could lose tenure.” [http://medicine.uchc.edu/faculty/governance/council_education.html]
ReplyDeleteIt seems our “do-it-yourself “ process just isn’t working. At some point, consultation with the faculty means listening to what we have to say.
Respectfully,
Sandra