Now that the outcome of unionization is unlikely to change, let's think
about what kind of people we might want to elect to represent us. I just
want to make a few points (I am not insisting on their correctness, but
just something that came to my mind):
1. Members who have been previously not in favor of union please do
stand out and give us a chance to elect you, just in the same way as
those who have been in favor of unionization, so that the union truly
represents all faculty members, not just the fraction that has been in
favor of union;
2. I hope that candidacy of anyone is not just based on how louder s/he
has been speaking and how actively s/he has been involved in the
process. Don't take it wrong -- what I mean is that how one makes
him/herself visible in the community does not really correlate
capability of getting things done -- either way. Of course, a louder
voice is easier to be heard, but it just means that, nothing beyond. I
am not saying that people would just vote for whoever being active on
the stage, but there is an unavoidable tendency that more active ones
get more attention;
3. I am sure that most candidates will campaign themselves out of care
for the Health Center, and for the faculty, but I just want ask, can we
be sure that none of the candidates may also have another motive which
no one would like to disclose. For example, if someone's academic career
is in deep trouble and there is not much hope in the foreseeable future
to turn it around, wouldn't a position as union leader be a nice way
out? How do we distinguish those with honorable motive from those just
looking for personal security?
Guo-Hua Fong, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Cell Biology
Center for Vascular Biology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment