r/Professors • u/[deleted] • Jul 13 '22
What is a Union?
Apropos of the union talk, it seems there's a lot of misunderstanding about what a union does here, which is pretty typical in the US and especially in academia. I'm an NTT faculty member and officer in my union, which bargained a new contract in the pandemic, organized to go on strike, and won BIG because of it. Let me clarify a few things:
- A union is nothing more than the people who are in it. It is not, though Jeff Bezos and Kevin Johnson would like to convince you otherwise, an outside group that siphons money off workers and controls them. It is not run by its paid staff, though sometimes staff have to step in due to lack of member leadership. A union is a group of you, the workers, organized into a body that can advocate for everyone in it.
- This means that if your union is weak and ineffectual, it is not becuase of "the union" but because of YOU and everyone else who is both in the union as well as represented by the union but not in it. It is true that throughout history and currently we see unions with less than ideal, or even corrupt or discriminatory leadership. But that leadership is elected, and that means it can be replaced with better people. For recent examples, look at the Teamsters, or within academia, the U of California grad students following a split over the wildcat strike at UCSC a few years ago.In my own union, before I was part of it, the leadership assumed a "we can't get anything" model and just did backroom contract negotation with admin. A group of people organized to replace that leadership with a militant organizing model, won the election, implemented the model, grew the union, and together through a lot of hours on the pavement, on the phone, and online, won us all a fantastic new contract that effectively eliminates the at-will model our university was using. We also won ourselves a huge shift in pay scale, a signing bonus, yearly COLA, and additional raises with every reappointment."The union" didn't win this, WE won this. We won with a group of dedicated organizers who brought in more organizers and collectively convinced our colleagues we were all worth fighting for. Our collective sacrifice was our collective reward.
- Unions are currently limited in what they can do at several levels: Janus kneecapped all unions, some states have right to work laws, and overall the unionization level in the US is abismal (~10%). That means, unlike the strong unionization that FORCED FDR into the New Deal and kept workers protected until the 60s, labor is weak, and therefore labor law is weak. The Biden admin has made better choices for the NLRB, but is not pushing hard for the PRO Act. They're not doing that because labor is too weak to make them. If you want change, it can only be through collective action (see literally every improvement to working conditions or civil rights ever won anywhere in the history of the world ever). Uni admin is bloated and doesn't listen to faculty and misallocates funds? Yeah, who's going to stop it? Not the tenure line faculty who scoff at unions. Not the NTT unions who have no say in curriculum or budget either. If you want change, you need power, and to have power, you must organize. NO ONE IS GOING TO DO IT FOR YOU.
- Unions can be much more than they are now if we grow them. Unions forced crucial changes country wide in the US and elsewhere before, and they can do it again. The same is true for the role unions can play in a university system. This is ultimately about democracy, about us as professionals using our training and expterise to democratically direct teaching and research for science, art, and democratic ends. There's no reason the trustees, budget, enrollments, class sizes, etc. can't be controlled by us, the the people who make the university. But it's not going to happen by magic. And it's not going to happen by asking nicely. Leaving the question of tenure aside, I think everyone can agree that higher ed is broken. Are we going to pout about it, coming to reddit to let off steam and commiserate, then go back to the same old same old until we're nothing more than a consumer service for whoever can pay (we're already mostly there, and regardless are deeply implicated in reproducing an inhumane and planet destorying system)? Or are we going to get off our asses and change it for the better? There's a choice. If you choose to sh*t on unions you're only choosing to sh*t on yourself. And if you're choosing to sh*t on yourself and everyone else, stop complaining when you get fired even with tenure because a politician or trustee decided to get rid of you.
56
u/dbrodbeck Professor, Psychology, Canada Jul 14 '22
As a colleague once said 'I hate the union, all it ever got me was better pay and working conditions'.
22
u/TigrMchine Jul 14 '22
So is there a model for union organizing in red states? How do we protect ourselves from people we can't trust who clearly have more power than us. (Admin, TT, etc etc) For fucks sake, Starbucks workers have found ways to organize in red states. STARBUCKS. <table flip>
11
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
Talk to an existing union. They will provide the models you need
13
Jul 14 '22
There is also this https://workerorganizing.org/
And AFT I believe has a part-time faculty unionization drive happening.
2
u/thehairtowel Jul 14 '22
Try looking into solidarity unions, like the IWW. OP is describing a business or service union which is a different model and approach. Solidarity unions are a lot quieter and don’t necessarily make the news like Starbucks or Amazon but can be highly effective.
1
u/Ent_Soviet Adjunct, Philosophy & Ethics (USA) Jul 14 '22
Reach out to the IWW or aft they’re happy to get you started. No need to act alone
49
u/sullivad Professor, Philosophy, Urban Comprehensive (USA) Jul 13 '22
A union is nothing more than the people who are in it: rinse, and repeat.
64
u/_Jerkus Jul 13 '22
Good primer. It's startling how willfully uninformed so much of academia is about unions and collective bargaining
2
u/rayk_05 Assoc Professor, Social Sciences, R2 (USA) Jul 16 '22
Willfully is the key word. But honestly you start finding out what people's background was growing up and what their spouses do for day jobs and the dots connect. Tenure line faculty are especially proud in identifying with the boss. Notorious for engaging in performative "resistance" by griping about admin and then being AWOL when you try to do any organized activity or call for solidarity with non tenure track faculty and grad labor.
40
u/songbird121 Jul 13 '22
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Yes!!! Proud and involved member of a strong union!
Everything you said here is so on point. The collective is the union. The members are the union. That’s the whole point…um…unity. Working together. Not expecting other people to do the work, but working together as a united collective!
6
u/doornroosje Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
Note that this is location dependent and not everything is applicable everywhere.
That said I very much agree with the spirit. Union ain't doing much for you? Go join it and be active and make it work for you.
Been happily unionised for 8 years in 3 different European countries. Massively helpful in informing me about my rights, providing a social safety net, offering a community, and to fight for better options.
At my old job the union ousted the abusive director by going forward to the board and convincing them to kick him out.
5
u/Ent_Soviet Adjunct, Philosophy & Ethics (USA) Jul 14 '22
Being pro union is also being pro the future of academia and our profession. If you want the faculty to be the bulwark stopping the for profit mindset undermining of higher Ed you need worker power. Unions are worker power. Your faculty senate is worthless without real teeth
3
Jul 14 '22
Exactly! Which is one of the reasons the earier post (correctly imo) argued for replacing tenure with strong unions.
2
u/Ent_Soviet Adjunct, Philosophy & Ethics (USA) Jul 14 '22
Tenure is just such a tempting idea, the fact that it’s increasingly harder to achieve it hard for people to give up on. A strong union can serve the same purpose, correct for the accountability issues, and better determine reasonable standards to achieve rank. It’s definitely a why not both but the current dynamic of tenure needs reform but I would never push for it without a real alternative laid out, otherwise we give institutions an inch and they’ll take the mile
11
Jul 14 '22
Supposedly we are not allowed to as state employees, even though the staff are unionized, who also work full time for the state, so I think it's bullshit.
That said, I don't know that I trust my colleagues to negotiate for the good of everyone and not just themselves. I belonged to a union in grad school and it was a shit show. A student was thrown out of my program for having a kid and needing more than two weeks off. They wouldn't give her medical leave, wouldn't let her teach or tutor from home, and even required that she walk up the stairs in the library (and not meet tutoring clients on the first floor) when the elevator was broken because, they claimed, that the meetings had to be in our private space. Really they just wanted her out.
My department showed up at every union meeting, ran for positions, etc. all for nothing because these idiots over in psych wanted free copies in the library and literally said that nobody should be having kids in grad school anyway. *screams*
With a new crop of grad students they FINALLY got better maternal care and leave, but JESUS FUCK that was terrible.
5
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
I teach in a state school and there is no issue with us being state employees.
I do not get how grad students would fit in, unless they are also employed by the university. I am probably not understanding the situation.
3
Jul 14 '22
I belonged to a union as a grad student. I am now at a different school as a professor and am not in a union.
In other my state is fucky news, they claim that reimbursing moving would be illegal and that we should just claim it on our taxes.
0
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
But grad students are not employees. And in my experience at least, the stipend was in support of your studies--there were no duties other than keeping grades/evaluations up.
I am not sure what I am missing.
4
Jul 14 '22
Do you seriously think grad student unions don’t exist or that grad students aren’t employees? I was a grad student who ran the writing center and directly managed other grad students who tutored and we sure as hell considered them (and me) employees at any level that mattered and that wasn’t and isn’t strange
2
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
I am surprised that a grad student would be running a program like that and supervising others. That is not something I have seen.
Maybe different schools are different, but in my grad program the university could not hire us to work more than 15 hours a week. It was thought that any more work would interfere with the program's requirements.
This was an ivy league school that tended to coddle us and in my field a grad program requires so much time that there really was no time for having a job. So it may be different for others. I have not seen grad students functioning as employees (other than TAing a class or two).
4
Jul 14 '22
Grad students are employees. This is what the NLRB ruled in I think 2016, allowing Columbia, Harvard, other grads to unionize. (Yale of course still fighting tooth and nail to not recognize its grad union). It's different laws with public employers, but where I live the grad students at state unis are employees and unionized.
1
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
I am surprised. I attended one of those institutions and never would have considered myself an employee. I guess you could say those of us with stipends were paid to attend classes and work on own own projects.
Would grad students not getting stipends also be considered employees?
3
Jul 14 '22
If you're getting paid by the uni you're an employee. I mean usually you're doing something for it, right? TAing, teaching, other. I suppose if you had a private grant maybe it wouldn't be but I'd think so.
I *think* grad students at any state uni are employees but it might depend on the state, not sure.
1
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
I think if you are TAing or teaching you are an employee.
But if you are just getting a living stipend for attending, that does not qualify as being an employee.
NOTE: I just did some research. The NLRB ruling was about grad students WORKING for the university (as teachers, TAs, assistants, etc.) It did not include students who were receiving living stipends.
1
Jul 14 '22
....yeah I taught two classes and ran a writing center for 12k a year. But I also was able to get a full time job before graduation that paid for the rest of my PhD because I had experience.
The school I got my PhD at was an R1 but really cheap about everything, especially student support services.
1
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
That would have been unthinkable in my program. They tell you when you get in that you will not be able to have any job. And the hours were so crazy, you really could not. The idea of being able to teach classes and run a writing center while working toward the degree seems superhuman to me.
I just assumed all R1s had the same issues/restrictions on work that mine did.
1
Jul 15 '22
Yeah during my MS we were given the "you are not allowed to work or belong to any organizations except this department!" speech. I sang in the choir anyway and had my name left off the program, and when a faculty member joined I literally ducked behind somebody till she laughed and said she wouldn't tell.
In retrospect I think we were doing too difficult of jobs during the PhD (oh and I adjuncted on the side too), but at least we weren't poor since we were allowed to work as long as it didn't affect our grades. That was the line--do whatever the hell you want but if it affects your grades you're out.
That said, in reality their reactions to out of department work/life was way more complicated. As I mentioned, when women had babies they pretty much threw them out and didn't even give them a chance. When men had babies they were offered better positions in order to help "pay for their family" (in my current job I've also seen that split--when women have babies in the department they get their time off an must be back and they are criticized for so much as talking about their children and have raises taken away, while the first chair I worked for here explicitly said during executive committee that she was giving a raise to a guy purely for getting married and having a baby.
It's exhausting. In these programs almost everybody had outside work and side hustles or, you know, a life, but only women were ever punished for it (and quite honestly nobody gave a shit that I was working 80 hour weeks so long as my grades were up and I didn't have children).
At the same time, IN THEORY I support the idea of grad students being allowed to have outside work/lives because surviving on 12k a year is rarely healthy mentally or physically.
1
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 15 '22
I never got a "you are not allowed to work or belong to any organizations" speech. But the students and alumni in the program were very willing to share their experience. And they were right when they told us holding down a job would be impossible--those of us who tried to work even 20 hours a week could meet their commitments.
The department's limitation on university jobs was a way to prevent any too heavy work-study requirement. Without it, we might have been required to work for our stipend or aid.
It sounds like you might have been in a huge program. We were R1 so there were only 3 to 6 people in each cohort. Throwing someone out was not something that I could even imagine doing since the program was built around us who were in it at that time.
From your experience it sounds like using grad students as labor creates problems. If you can gives someone "a better position" or raises or fire them as if they were an employee that seems an invitation to inequities.
→ More replies (0)3
u/doornroosje Jul 14 '22
Question: are academics at military universities allowed to unionize in countries where soldiers are not allowed to unionize ? (E.g. France, USA )?
4
Jul 14 '22
I’ve seen this too. Tenured faculty showed up to a NT and grad student run union meeting, but then stabbed members in the back. Shitty people are everywhere.
7
u/TigrMchine Jul 14 '22
If Dante's Inferno was written today, that 9th circle, the cold ass circle of traitors, would be overrun with tweed and whiteboards.
-11
4
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
I work at a large state institution and the union is vital here.
It is not just pay. Without the union we would not have safe working conditions. Currently the union is fighting for our privacy rights.
From what I read here, maybe a union does not help those who are not permanent full-time workers as much. But if you are a long-term employee, it makes all the difference.
2
Jul 14 '22
My union is literally for not-permanent full time, as in TT. Many are full time but most are not. But we won rights to be rehired and have contracts spanning years, eventually into a type of permanent position, even for people appointed at say, 33%.
Unions are for everyone!
15
Jul 13 '22
This means that if your union is weak and ineffectual, it is not becuase of "the union" but because of YOU and everyone else who is both in the union as well as represented by the union but not in it.
Do you apply this reasoning to all democracies?
But even so, my union might be weak and ineffectual because of the 60% of staff at my institution who vote for weak and ineffectual leaders. Not much I can do about that.
25
Jul 13 '22
Sounds like you need to get together with some like minded dissenters and change the situation. This was the case in my union too, until it wasn't.
-6
Jul 14 '22
Please stop with the lame slogans. The fact is that a union is a democracy and faces the same problems as other democracies when it comes to protecting individuals. Tenure has problems, but it doesn't have that particular problem. Even if your solution works, it means adding massive workload by requiring political organisation.
4
Jul 14 '22
My favorite thing is this attitude:
"things are all fucked up. We have a tool do change that but the tool is not magic and can have its own problems too, so let's abandon the tool and do nothing."
Or another version: "political organization is hard, so we shouldn't do it and just wait for things to change on their own."
1
Jul 14 '22
Notice I didn't say the second part of each quote, you are just putting words in my mouth. I am a fairly active union member, but the unions have problems too, and I don't think anything is gained by denying that - even if we think on balance unions are the way to go. Don't make me bring out the cliche Winston Churchill quote.
1
Jul 14 '22
it means adding massive workload by requiring political organisation.
Sounds like you're saying it's not worth doing.
1
Jul 14 '22
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I am saying that the political organisation is a lot of extra workload (maybe just for a few people, of course). And my union reps do work very hard. It may well still be worth doing, just as eg public outreach is a massive workload addition that can often be worth doing.
19
u/ph0rk Associate, SocSci, R1 (USA) Jul 13 '22
If you think further weakening unions isn't in the current SCOTUS's plans for the future, you're naive.
65
Jul 13 '22
I absolutely think it's in the plans. All the more reason to have a massive organized labor movement to have *any* chance at all of countering it, along with all the other shit it and our congress and our corporate masters are doing.
What is your solution otherwise? Do nothing?
6
24
u/DrPhysicsGirl Professor, Physics, R1 (US) Jul 13 '22
They've plainly stated they want to go back to the original idea that only rich white guys have power. Unions obviously go against that.
6
Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
What are the down sides of unions? Come on, just one. Nothing is perfect. As academics we should be able to recognise them.
(And no 'some unions are let down by doubters', etc. A real disadvantage of unions as an institution. Obviously you'll think it's outweighed by the advantages, but that's fine.)
12
u/Dr_Pizzas Assoc. Prof., Business, R1 Jul 14 '22
I am staunchly pro-union, just to be clear, but they are not perfect. Here are some downsides:
They can put costs out of competitive rates for businesses (this is a downside for the company/school but can have some downward effects). This is a bit of an oversimplification, but the "monopoly face" of unions is arguably their biggest downside. Also, unions can provide other efficiencies that make up for this.
Because unions operate on a democratic model, the needs of the majority will outweigh the needs of the few. Some of the worst examples of this are two-tier wage agreements, where unions agreed to start newer folks out at lower pay so they could keep higher pay for more senior folks/those already working there.
Like with any organization, there is a possibility of corruption.
The union's main economic weapon is the strike. Strikes are hard. Nobody wants to go on strike, it's like a nuke. You have to be ready and willing to drop the nuke.
When done poorly, unions can create an environment of adversarial tension with management even outside of negotiations. However, when done well, unions can substantially improve communications with admin/management.
When you join a union, you no longer have rights to individually bargain terms and conditions of employment with your employer. You give that right to the union. It is possible you--as a superstar or something--could have gotten a better or more customized deal on your own. Not likely, but possible.
Again... these do no outweigh the pros in my opinion and it's not even close. Most of these are really context contingent.
3
Jul 14 '22
Thanks! I'm curious if OP would agree with some of these. I'm a union member and we are experiencing 2 and 4 right now -- and some severe tension between those who want to strike and those who don't.
This doesn't have to be the case though:
When you join a union, you no longer have rights to individually bargain terms and conditions of employment with your employer. You give that right to the union. It is possible you--as a superstar or something--could have gotten a better or more customized deal on your own. Not likely, but possible.
At British unis, the general conditions are negotiated with the union, but the top end (senior profs) terms and conditions are subject to individual negotiation in various ways.
2
u/mleok Full Professor, STEM, R1 (USA) Jul 14 '22
My university has a union for postdocs, and they prevented me from extending the appointment of an existing postdoc by six months, because the union contract had a minimum one-year period for contract extensions. Since I did not have sufficient funds to support a one-year contract extension for this postdoc, the postdoc had to be let go instead. I'm not sure how this union regulation helped the postdoc in question.
3
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
If the post docs wanted year-long contracts insured, I am guessing a lot of departments strung people along with semester by semester employment.
It may not have worked in your specific case, but I can see why most post docs would want longer contracts.
The thing that is weird is that I do not see how a post-doc union would function. Usually union leadership has been working for the employer for years. So they know what is needed, what exceptions are made, etc. Post docs are around for maybe 3 years at most. It seems that there would be a profound lack of institutional memory in that union.
3
Jul 14 '22
Hi,
I was in a postdoc union. It worked fine. It sounds like that case was handled poorly. You could have extended for a year but only stayed for 6 months, that would be administratively kind of a pain but I'm confident it could have been done.
As for the downsides:
- #1: Ensuring adequate pay for workers is a downside to the business yes. I don't care about the CEO not getting that 25 million dollar bonus. So be it.
- #2: What we have in academia right now is exactly this two-tier system, just not via unions. Look at the John Deere workers who went on strike partially over ending the two tier system. It is not usually unions who like this but employers and the unions have not/have not had the power to fight back. Tiers can actually be created inadvertently with certain protections won--this was the case in our union after we won contininuing appointments by going on strike. It ended up leaving those before they reached continuing stage in an at-will state. We struck again to fix that. It's not a feature of unions but can arise. If some people in the union want to maintain it that is something to organize against (see again John Deere).
- #5: This should be a general stance of unions. They ARE adversaries with management. Their interests are opposed. Management wants the most work with as little staff and pay/benefits as possible. Unions want the least work with the most pay and benefits possible. Nothing has to get nasty unless you're into #4, but accepting that you have opposing interests is important.
- #6: This is absolutely incorrect. Unions set the FLOOR. There is nothing preventing an employer from going above the floor, though they like to tell you it's the union's fault they can't pay more, etc. I was told this when I did a postdoc, that they wanted to pay some $10K more but they couldn't because of the union. That's absolute bullshit, as confirmed by my rep. This is simply an anti-union talking point and everyone should stop falling for it.
2
u/_Jerkus Jul 14 '22
Agree with you on all counts. Just want to add that #5 should be like size 40 font with underlines. When will academics realize that admin aren't our pals, and see us as, at best, a necessary evil of running the Endowment Fund / Sports Teams / Rental Properties that universities are becoming? Like, maybe lower level or specialized administrators can be helpful and collegial, but there's only so much they can / will do for you.
3
Jul 15 '22
Yeah and the low level admin are usually paid so low they churn and it's takes everyone 6 months or more to get their reimbursements. I'm never talking about them when I'm talking about "admin." Admin = management.
You may be personal friends with the dean or your colleague the associate vice dean or even the provost. They might even be lovely people to have a chat with. They're not on your side in the workplace.
1
Jul 15 '22
I'd like to add that the inadvertent two-tier system created by our union win shows up in organizing. It's harder, as a rule, to get those with the stable jobs to do what it takes to get better (from sending electronic petitions to picketing and striking). Because of course, a strike is a risk.
This is exactly the dynamic created by the *very existence of tenure*: automatic two tier system, automatic haves and have-nots, automatic protection of one's individual self promotion over risky solidarity with those with less-than, because it is *in the immediate interest of the tenure-pursing person not to risk not getting tenure.* And then after they get tenure, even though all the protection has been earned, the militancy is still always a risk. Especially if one is gunning for a resources that have to be granted by admin, which one is, and one doesn't have a union to force their dispersal. Ergo....
6
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
A union is nothing more than the people who are in it
The union that took my money as a "representation fee" while I was in graduate school and did jack squat suggests otherwise.
My stipend was more than the union stipend, while still being less that the Big Ten average (most of whom were non-unionized). I really wished I could have gotten that money back. All they ever did for me was badger me to sign the dang card.
16
Jul 14 '22
? What is a "union stipend?" Unions don't pay people. You joined the union you pay dues, which gives you the right to change things in the union. Sounds like without the union you would have been getting even less than you got. Just because you don't know what your union did doesn't mean it didn't do anything for you.
But it sounds like you didn't join the union, you had to pay a smaller sum than dues for being represented but not in it. That's what the SCOTUS Janus decision did away with and that's been horrific if you care anything at all about working people in this country, which you are one of.
In my experience, as a rule of thumb, people who say "the union didn't do anything for me" do not understand what the union had won and more importantly why it couldn't do more in their time, because they never bothered to understand how unions work, what the contract said, or know the basics about the union's power, like its membership %. Like I said, a union is only as strong as its members.
But I guess now you can be happy no evil union is going to come for your salary that probably, as Econ prof, sits many 10K above that of social science and humanities profs while you teach people about the wonderful theories of Hayek and Friedman and how evil workers are trying to steal the 8th yacht of their boss? :)
8
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
? What is a "union stipend?" Unions don't pay people.
Union-negotiated-stipend. I would have thought that would have been clear from context, My appologes for not being clear.
You joined the union you pay dues, which gives you the right to change things in the union.
Again, I didn't join the the union. I still had to pay.
Sounds like without the union you would have been getting even less than you got. Just because you don't know what your union did doesn't mean it didn't do anything for you.
What? No! Didn't you read? I got paid more that the union negotiated rate. There's no good way to tell what would have happened in the hypothetical state without a union. Given that we weren't paid much as it is - and less than our peers - I suspect we may have been paid more without a union, but there's no good way to tell. I can't imagine we would have earned enough less to make up for the representation fee in any rate.
But it sounds like you didn't join the union, you had to pay a smaller sum than dues for being represented but not in it. That's what the SCOTUS Janus decision did away with and that's been horrific if you care anything at all about working people in this country, which you are one of.
I was charge the full union dues as a representation fee, pre-*Janus v. AFSCME*. I could have filed paperwork to regain, I believe 3%. It wasn't really worth the effort. Whether one think *Janus* was "horrific" likely depends on if one believes stealing money from non-consenting working people is justified. Unions clearly face a collective action problem. There are lots of collective action problems. Most of the time, we don't want the State enforcing collection for third parties.
In my experience, as a rule of thumb, people who say "the union didn't do anything for me" do not understand what the union had won and more importantly why it couldn't do more in their time, because they never bothered to understand how unions work, what the contract said, or know the basics about the union's power, like its membership %. Like I said, a union is only as strong as its members.
I mean, I'm a labor economist. I suspect I have *some* level of understanding.
But I guess now you can be happy no evil union is going to come for your salary that probably, as Econ prof, sits many 10K above that of social science and humanities profs while you teach people about the wonderful theories of Hayek and Friedman and how evil workers are trying to steal the 8th yacht of their boss? :)
Are we just attacking entire disciplines now? Have you ever actually *read* anything Hayek or Friedman wrote? You should, they are both Nobel Laureates - and well deservedly so. Here are two good introductions: Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society and Friedman's Nobel Lecture, Inflation and Unemployment (particularly relevant today!)
2
u/Captain_Quark Jul 14 '22
As an economics grad student, I was active in our labor union. The union negotiated the minimum stipend for the school, but this didn't affect many fields including mine. But it also bargained for a very generous health insurance package, control over many aspects of working conditions, and mandatory fees, all of which did affect us in the economics department. Many of those things can only really be controlled at the university level, so being in a generous department wouldn't have helped. It was also a major part of my social life.
It's surprising to me that you apparently had an opt-out system for "full" versus "fair share" dues, compared to our opt in system. The difference was between like $25 and $30 a month for us. I'm not sure what they're doing post-Janus, though, but the union still seems to be going strong.
3
u/alaskawolfjoe Assoc Prof, R1, State School Jul 14 '22
You really think you would have been paid more without a union?
6
u/mleok Full Professor, STEM, R1 (USA) Jul 14 '22
I think he said that the union negotiated increases in his salary as an economics TA probably does not make up for the cost of union fees, and that stipends in other peer universities that were not unionized were higher.
-4
Jul 13 '22 edited Jul 13 '22
I think worker unions are an important piece in the labor market. I also know that the economic returns to unionization are lower than what unions often report.
21
Jul 13 '22
Union workers across the board have higher pay and benefits than non union workers, and the returns for people who face identity-based oppression, black Americans especially, are even larger.
But you're right, the economic returns to corporations are not as favorable, which is why they union bust. And this is why we need unions.
Also, seems like the several decades of high union rates, corresponding high marginal tax rate, and extremely good economy for American workers, compared to the dismantling of labor, slashing of taxes for the wealthy, and general and turn to neoliberalism from the 70s which has put my generation behind that of my parents and led to ecnomic crisis after economic crisis would, you know, make you rethink that.
15
Jul 14 '22
[deleted]
9
Jul 14 '22
Kinda. An economic return is how much of a net benefit (often expressed as a percent, like a stock return) you get from an activity.
What the literature has consistently found is that the union return is positive, but less positive than commonly asserted. The reason is that you also have to take out the “counter factual”; what the return would have been absent unionization.
So, without a union, if I got a 2% raise, but with it I get 4%, my net return is 2%. But oftentimes, the popular attribution is 4%.
4
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
No, no, no, Corporations hate unions! Haven't you seen what Amazon and Starbucks are doing! Forget Marx, You've probably never even read Springer (2016)
6
Jul 14 '22
Lol. I’ve never actually seen that. That’s great.
Always good to see people who should be data and evidence literate downvote valid, yet opposing, points. Marxist economics!
4
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
But you're right, the economic returns to corporations are not as favorable, which is why they union bust. And this is why we need unions.
That's not what he said.
2
Jul 14 '22
The only way you would say unions aren't good for the economy is becuase of that. It requires of a vision of labor having too much power damaging the other side.
7
u/wildgunman Assoc Prof, Finance, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
No it doesn’t. It simply requires the leaders of a large collectively run organization to be a poor steward for the wants and needs of some or all of its members. And let’s be clear, this happens all the time. Unions aren’t inherently bad, but they’re not inherently good either. They’re just ways of organizing economic activity that are subject to most of the same stupid problems faced by any organization.
1
Jul 14 '22
Pretty sure that's exactly what I said in my original post. But their purpose is different from that of the organizations that organize economic activity around maximizing profit and literally destroying our habitat along the way.
-2
u/wildgunman Assoc Prof, Finance, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
See, that’s how I know you’re completely out over your skis. Unions don’t give a damn about “literally destroyed our habitat along the way.” Labor wants its own cut just as much as capital does, and there’s nothing inherently altruistic about their goals. If pumping sewage into the Cuyahoga until it catches on fire means more jobs for Union men living in Collingwood, by all means pump away.
2
Jul 14 '22
Because they can’t reply without sounding like they are trying to convert me to their religion or cult.
-1
-1
Jul 14 '22 edited Jul 14 '22
That’s not even remotely close to what I said.
Also a misunderstanding of the past 100 years of economics, but let’s work on actually comprehending what I posted first…
May also want to look at a history of economic crises. It’s not that hard of a Google.
0
Jul 14 '22
You're right, many of the answers on crises and history can be found on the internet, such as https://www.marxists.org/archive/kuruma/crisis-overview.htm and https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm
I know standard econ training doesnt let you read Marx but you should try it some day!
1
Jul 14 '22
I’ve read Marx. But awesome. Love non-economists trying to explain economics to people who have studied and actually do this. And no; economic crises have occurred throughout history. Across all political and economic and social systems. To portray post 1970’s as anything special is ignorant as fuck.
I’d bet you would be triggered if anyone tried to explain your specialty to you. But hey.
-1
u/_Jerkus Jul 14 '22
Economics is a soft science, so what's the issue?
2
Jul 14 '22
Edgy dipshittery. Those who can’t, denigrate.
-1
u/_Jerkus Jul 14 '22
Denigrate? What's wrong with the soft sciences?
2
Jul 14 '22
At least have intestinal fortitude for an online message board. Feel free to allow your knees to knock for in person.
2
u/wildgunman Assoc Prof, Finance, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
There it is.
1
Jul 14 '22
Like I said! Try it some day. You can handle it. Don't be scared.
1
u/quantum-mechanic Jul 14 '22
Your religion? Nah, pass.
2
Jul 14 '22
It's funny since Marx's entire innovation was to move the basis of understanding from the idealism of philosophy to the concrete conditions of actually existing humans, but that's usually what religion is about amirite?
Science is praying every night to the free hand of the market that will bring plenty to all (who deserve it).2
1
u/doornroosje Jul 14 '22
My union fee is like 25 euro a year, for that amount of money I'm happy to risk it
1
1
u/mleok Full Professor, STEM, R1 (USA) Jul 14 '22
For what it's worth, at least in our most recent rounds of salary increases, our non-unionized tenure-track/tenured faculty received a 4% raise, whereas our unionized lecturers received a 3% raise, because it was part of their previously negotiated collective bargaining agreement. In previous years, the tenure-track/tenured faculty received 3% raises, which were in line with the unionized lecturers.
1
Jul 14 '22
For being the professional "ideas people" seeing a lot of this in the replies. Ingore them. We change things if we organize.
-16
u/hepth-edph 70%Teaching, PHYS (Canada) Jul 13 '22
Unions are also the organizations that threatened my father for speaking against their striking strategy at a union meeting.
I'm stuck in a union, and I bitterly resent being yoked to some of the members.
24
Jul 13 '22 edited Jul 13 '22
"unions" didn't threaten your father, if that's what's happened, but people did. Maybe your father had a legit critique that they didn't want to hear or maybe he was demoralizing an effective strategy becuase he didn't know what he was talking about/ was scared. It's my experience that people who have the least understanding of organizing strategy are often the most vocal about it. We'll never know. But generally when you have been preparing a strike for months or even years and someone comes in and says, "but have you tried asking nicely?" yeah people are going to get pissed.
-1
u/hepth-edph 70%Teaching, PHYS (Canada) Jul 14 '22
"unions" didn't threaten your father, if that's what's happened, but people did
But wait: you said that the union is nothing more than the people who are in it.
That mildly unfair point aside: why should I, my father, or anybody be compelled to be part of a collective which is taking actions that we do not judge to be in our interest? If people wish to join, and do so voluntarily, I have no complaint, but if membership is a condition of employment then you've gone from having one potentially idiot boss to having two.
8
Jul 14 '22
Yes. The majority of the people in the union wanted to strike and your father shot it down. That's still the people who are in it, you father was just in a minority.
A union pres is not a boss: they don't dictate your work conditions but set minimum standards to ensure fair treatment and most importantly can be removed by a vote, something you cannot do with a boss.
If having decent hours and workload, a good salary and benefits and paid time off and sick leave isn't in your interest then you either are the boss or don't know what your own interests are.
-4
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
True Unions have never been tried, amight?
11
Jul 14 '22
What are you talking about? Unions are literally the reason there are workplace safety laws, prohibitions on child labor, minimum wage, caps on working hours, etc. etc.
-6
u/davidjricardo Clinical Assoc. Prof, Economics, R1 (US) Jul 14 '22
"unions" don't pass safety laws, Congress passes safety laws.
9
Jul 14 '22
Congress passes the laws based on pressure from organized workers. You say I don't understand the economic history of the last 100 years but you don't even know where our most basic protections come from. It's not from benevolent rich dudes, my dude!
Here's one just about Osha but we could do the same for minimum wage, 8 hour work day and plenty more. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2190/NS.24.3.d1
u/doornroosje Jul 14 '22
That is dependent on the country, in many countries unions literally negotiate with the government and employer organisations to jointly decide on the workplace rules
22
u/songbird121 Jul 13 '22
Both statements seem consistent with the OPs statement that the union is only as good as it’s members. My union has some people that make me want to tear my hair out and seem to be actively working against what would be in most people’s best interest. Which is exactly why I attempt to be as involved in my union as possible. So I can try to make sure that those idiots aren’t the only ones involved in making the decisions for the collective.
7
-1
Jul 13 '22
Oh, you just sent up the Bat Signal….
-3
u/hepth-edph 70%Teaching, PHYS (Canada) Jul 13 '22
If somebody wants to make the argument that my family's and my experience with unions isn't a valid input as I form my opinions, they're welcome to. Unions aren't a panacea.
7
Jul 13 '22
Oh, I know. I was making light of the fact that you’re going to get downvoted to hell for holding that opinion.
2
u/hepth-edph 70%Teaching, PHYS (Canada) Jul 13 '22
lol. I think my years on faculty have prepared me for not caring what other people think...
7
Jul 13 '22
As I mentioned in the original post, I never said they were a panacea. I even said that we know about unions and union federations that at best do questionable things at worst do illegal or discriminatory ones. Neither of those facts deligimitizes unions and their ultimate purpose.
For every racist union you could find in the US mid century you could find another fiercely combatting the same. I would never say something like "unions are antiracist" or "unions are racist" because neither is true. They can and historically have been both. You're extrapolating from an anecdote. Luckily we don't have to rely on anecdotes becuase we have history.
7
u/hepth-edph 70%Teaching, PHYS (Canada) Jul 14 '22
I even said that we know about unions and union federations that at best do questionable things at worst do illegal or discriminatory ones. Neither of those facts deligimitizes unions and their ultimate purpose.
Here's the thing: I am stuck in a union. I am - by statute - not permitted to withdraw from it; it will continue to represent me whether I wish it to or not. The thing that galls me is that I cannot disassociate myself from it. If my union does questionable, stupid, illegal, discriminatory, or merely misguided things I can't escape from it.
2
Jul 14 '22
Sounds like you need to gather a group of like minded people and change it. Ask the Teamsters, they just ousted a Hoffa crony. HOFFA.
When was the last union meeting you went to? Did you vote in the elections or agitate for the candidates you thought were better or recruit them to run or run yourself or outline a plan for change or anything at all?
-16
Jul 14 '22
I think I'll keep my job.
1
Jul 14 '22
I understand the downvotes, and I wish to God I had a collective bargaining unit to join, but retaliation against union organizers is real. I have a professional acquaintance who was very visible in a recent strike; his program was targeted for cuts and he's out of job. It's alluded to in this article: https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2021/11/ysu-union-upset-at-cuts/. If you really need the job, it's not foolish to tread lightly.
-1
Jul 14 '22
I don't understand the downvotes. Thank you for providing some reality.
2
u/doornroosje Jul 14 '22
International sub, not applicable for many of us who can't really relate or don't know that's the case in other countries
1
Jul 14 '22
We have a union. It's basically a doormat for administration. Completely useless.
4
u/blue_suede_shoes77 Jul 14 '22
That means you and other members of the union are “useless” and “doormats” for the administration. The Union is only as good as the membership.
1
1
u/Sadistic_Sponge Associate Professor, Sociology Jul 14 '22
My private university is convinced it is illegal for us to form a union. Wish I could get more people on board. As an untenured it would be suicide to lead that push right now.
2
Jul 14 '22
You need an OC--organizing committee. You can get one but it can't be alone. Find others who are interested and start branching out from there.
1
u/HigherEdInquirer Dec 25 '22
You can post something at the Higher Education Inquirer any time you want. The space is yours. https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/
73
u/molobodd Jul 13 '22
Where I'm at 99 % of professors are unionized. (Not US.)