Without intending to write for a large audience which may not have much interest in this, I feel you should have a reply.
Please read the words carefully: I (1) expressed concern that it might appear that you were working with lawyers hired to likely oppose unionization, and that would not be helpful; (2) that raises not be offered conditional on a "no" vote as both the president and myself would like to see raises be paid out as soon as possible (promotions right away if possible) with (in our case proper bargaining over method of distribution); and (3) that market conditions be addressed as soon as possible.
I am not sure what is so objectionable or why you feel compelled to include university counsel in your conversations.
You might also be interested to know that I was not at the meeting at the labor board as I was in a meeting in Hartford regarding economic development, an aspect of which I believe that the Health Center has an important role to play. Preserving an independent and high quality medical and dental school is an important part of that. And, I also believe that a faculty with an independent voice is a part of that.
Of course I am involved by invitation in the current debate, and I don't know what is not accurate in what we have said. Feel free to send this to anyone as you have been doing, and judge whether many others disagree with the priorities I have stated in regard to compensation and restated in the first paragraph above.
I m glad you have a spy who has no compunctions about divulging what might have been intended as not for the public, but I always write for the light of day, and would be disappointed to go unnoticed.
Sincerely,
Ed
No comments:
Post a Comment