Let’s consider some things that were said during the
University of Minnesota faculty (UMF) organizing drive that implied something
was inevitable:
A lengthy process will
continue to drag on. Yes, union organizing drives are typically lengthy
affairs. The UMF organizing drive started back to 2014, and the union filed for
an election in January 2016. The parties disagreed over the definition of the
bargaining unit (in particular, should contract faculty be together in the same
unit as tenured and tenure-track faculty), and the state Bureau of Mediation
Services (BMS) finally issued a ruling in September 2016. The following month,
the University appealed this ruling to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which
then took a year to overrule the BMS ruling. Shortly afterwards (October 2017),
the union withdrew the petition seeking an election. So after three years, the
drive was formally over and an election was never even held.
So yes, organizing drives are often lengthy affairs. But
does a drive have to drag on? Is this inevitable? No. The ball is essentially
in the employer’s court. In the UMF case, an election could have been scheduled
quickly if the university had agreed to the definition proposed by the union. Employers
like the university may feel that they have good reasons for challenging and
appealing the unit determination process. But then administrators or corporate
leaders need to recognize that they are making the choice to lengthen the
process. [As a footnote, in the UMF case, we also have the Minnesota state
legislature from several decades ago to thank for unnecessarily limiting
flexibility and creating additional legal controversy by oddly trying to write
the bargaining units into state law.] Bottom line: a lengthy process is likely,
but it’s a choice, not an inevitability.
A rigid,
one-size-fits-all collective bargaining agreement will be negotiated. It is
common to stereotypically associate labor unions with rigid contracts that
spell out specific outcomes in great detail. In the UMF case, this translated
into a fear that unionization would take autonomy away from colleges or
departments and mandate one-size-fits-all compensation structures, evaluation
procedures, and the like. This certainly could happen. But it’s not inevitable.
Professional athletes and Hollywood movie stars are represented by unions, and
have collective bargaining agreements that allow for individual variation in
compensation and other terms. Policies rather than outcomes could certainly be
negotiated that empowered employees while allowing colleges to tailor practices
and outcomes to their unique cultures, market conditions, and priorities. It
all depends on who gets involved on both sides of the table and the choices
they make. Bottom line: rigid collective bargaining agreements are possible,
but not inevitable.
Everyone will have to
pay union dues. In the United States, if a union is voted in, it is true
that it must represent everyone, and if negotiated, a collective bargaining
agreement must apply to everyone. So individuals can’t opt out of being
covered. But can they opt out of paying dues? In right-to-work states, they
can. In the UMF case, Minnesota is a fair share state which means that unions
are allowed to collect a fair share fee to cover the cost of representation,
not to exceed 85 percent of regular dues. It’s likely that the Supreme Court
will rule that this is unconstitutional and that no public sector employee can
be forced to pay even a fair share fee (Janus v. AFSCME). In the meantime, it
is true that public sector employees in Minnesota can be forced to pay at least
the fair share fee, and the same is true to private and public sector employees
in other non-right-to-work states. But a union does not have to force this
issue; rather it’s something that is negotiated into contracts. In reality,
unions likely do prioritize this (after all, they have expenses representing
all workers). But once again, this is a choice. Bottom line: mandatory dues
requirements are highly likely in non-right-to-work states or sectors, but are
not inevitable.
Better off employees
and colleges will lose out to worse off employees and colleges. Unions
commonly try to benefit the worst off. After all, that’s what social justice is
about. But whether this comes at the expense at employees and colleges who are
currently better off depends on where the resources come from. It typically
seems that university budgets are a zero sum game. If that’s accurate and
unchangeable, then winning greater gains for the worse off will likely
represent a redistribution away from the better off. But if new resources are
created (for example, by stronger lobbying at the legislature) or found
elsewhere (for example, administrative expenses), then it’s this doesn’t have
to be a zero sum gain. Moreover, the extent to which this is a priority in the
union, and how it is pursued, depends on who gets involved and how the agenda
is shaped. Similar dynamics occur in any heterogeneous bargaining unit (for
example, skilled crafts and assembly line workers; RNs and LPNs; etc.). Bottom
line: uncertain.
The best faculty (workers)
will leave and it will be harder to recruit new faculty (workers). There
isn’t any direct evidence on this. If the faculty unionize and the relationship
becomes adversarial, and rigid, one-size-fits-all policies and high levels of
redistribution are negotiated, then yes, the university could become less attractive
to certain faculty (and more attractive to those who have less power otherwise).
If the relationship is productive and things are negotiated that further
support and empower faculty in flexible ways, then unionization might be
attractive to some people and a non-issue for others. There are many things
that determine whether a job is attractive. Bottom line: Possible, but
certainly not inevitable.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that there is much at stake
in any organizing drive. Unionization could possibly transform important
policies, procedures, and relationships. It’s certainly reasonable to debate
whether these changes would be for the good, or not. But it’s better to debate
them in the context of what might happen and by recognizing that this depends
on the choices that many people will make. Not much is inevitable.
No comments:
Post a Comment