|
American Association of University Professors
|
|
March/April 2001
|
Published by PSU-AAUP
|
Table of Contents
Contingent Labor Activism is on
the Rise!!
President's Message
Lobbyist Report
PSU & Mobbing
Collective Bargaining Update
Welcome New Members!
Targeted Workers Form Support Group
Write to Your Legislator Urging Them to Support Higher
Ed!!!
Are You Really a Member of PSU-AAUP??
Fair Share vs. Full Membership: The Difference
Explained
Contingent Labor Activism is on the Rise!!
PSU-AAUP Councilor
Academic labor unions are thriving today. In fact, technology workers and teachers are the only groups whose union ranks are growing in both the U.S. and Canada. A primary reason for this growth is the American and Canadian higher education systems’ continued and increasing exploitation of contingent labor. In an environment which encourages the corporatization of the university, it is an easy and not even subtle practice to "outsource" different kinds of labor, including teachers. This practice results in the erosion of tenure, the loss of academic freedom, and the dismantling of faculty governance.
Contingent Labor? Yes; International unions now refer to non-tenured academic labor as "contingent." We are supposedly contingent on market forces, a condition which often translates as contingent upon the whims of an administration which no longer rises from the faculty ranks and understands teachers as "labor”—a small bit of energy in the growth of capital.
In the Oregon University System, despite assurances to the contrary, administrations have steadily increased the ratio of tenured to contingent positions since 1985. Here at PSU, our instructional faculty, not including graduate teaching assistants, is 50% contingent labor (see table at the end of this article); if student credit hours are considered, we generate far more than the "regular" faculty because we often teach large lower-division courses. A close look at the make-up of our ranks reveals that a majority of us are women. It is rare to find the "adjunct" who is truly adjunctive—the professional who is asked to teach one class a year to supplement a department's curriculum. Many of us are "freeway fliers" who spend our days driving from one campus to another, piecing together a full-time job teaching 30%-50% more courses than tenured faculty for 30% less pay and few, if any, health and retirement benefits. Not surprisingly, our numbers are highest in areas which produce the most revenue for the University—at PSU, in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, for example.
In an attempt to learn more about the organizing efforts on behalf of contingent academic labor, I recently attended the fourth U.S.-Canada COCAL conference at San Jose City College. COCAL is Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor. It is a network of activists seeking to improve the work lives of the growing (and now, majority) ranks of contingent faculty. COCAL began as a movement to unite the part-time faculty of 58 institutions of higher education in the Boston area. This regional coalition had gained, by 1998, full medical/dental benefits, and a floor of $4,000/course for "part-time" faculty in the coalition. By 1999, the California Part-Time Faculty Association, the California Faculty Association, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers had joined COCAL. These professional organizations, often, though not always, represented by traditional unions as collective bargaining agents, have made impressive gains for contingent faculty in their ranks. Many are now being paid at market minimums, work in a "steps-within-rank" promotion system, enjoy full benefit packages, and have extensive rehire rights. These organizations demand tenure for "temporary" faculty hired more than 10 consecutive years, and in western Canada, for example, full-time non-tenure track faculty must be fully employed before new tenure lines are created.
PSU-AAUP is now an affiliate sponsor of COCAL. We will participate in the 2001 Conference on Contingent Labor in Quebec and will support the planning of the 2002 Conference in Mexico City. From COCAL we have learned a great deal about the power inherent in regional coalitions and organizing which forces legislative and funding changes to support contingent faculty. We have learned that none of us have to be "freeway fliers" or "temporary" teachers of more than 10 years of service to the University. We recognize that our welfare cannot be separate from the welfare of all workers in the University community, and we will strive to negotiate an end to contingent labor.
|
Boston
COCAL's Program
|
|
taken
from the Boston COCAL website: http://omega.cc.umb.edu/~cocal/stmt.htm
|
|
On the basis of the
principles of equality and democracy, we have adopted the following
program to improve the condition of the part-time faculty in the
Greater Boston Area:
|
|
1.
Equal pay for equal work at the appropriate academic rank.
|
|
2.
Full medical, dental, and retirement benefits for those teaching
two courses or more per semester. Pro-rated benefits for those
teaching fewer. Tuition remission for family members.
|
|
3.
Job security. No one should be dismissed from her or his job without
just cause and due process.
|
|
4.
Adequate office space and facilities.
|
|
5.
Full participation in department and college or university governance.
|
|
6.
Opportunities for professional development, including financial
support for research and creative work.
|
|
7.
Promotion of part-time faculty to full-time positions.
|
|
8.
Narrowing salary disparities within the faculty.
|
|
9.
Full protection of free speech rights and all other forms of academic
freedom.
|
|
10.
Recognition and respect as vital members of the academic community.
|
|
The Boston chapter
of the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor will work to see
that this program is adopted throughout the Greater Boston Area.
We recognize that each institution will need to implement the
program in ways that are appropriate to its specific situation.
But this cannot be an excuse for failing to act on all of its
provisions. The health of the academy depends upon such action.
|
President's Message
by Sarah
Andrews-Collier
PSU-AAUP President
Where Are We Going?—Episode #3
This is the third in a series of what I hope to establish as annual reports in Unities. In February 1999, I began a conversation about changes at PSU over the past decade, which I will continue here. In a similar manner to Academe's "Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession," the following material is intended to assist faculty in interpreting the changes we have undergone in our professional lives at PSU.
To review:
These are simple comparisons based on the PSU Fact Book which is now
available electronically on the OIRP web page (http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/home.htm).
This review compares fall 2000 to fall 1990, a decade of growth and
change. As I repeatedly remind readers, I never had a statistics course,
so let me know where I have erred.
The findings:
1) Budget. The total beginning budget of the university in fall
2000 was $133,361 million, up an astounding 106% from $64,674 million
in 1990 (Table 2.3: Portland State University Fall Term Fact Book,
1991, pg. 12). Aside from inflation and enrollment growth, an important
piece of that increase is, of course, the new budget model. Be reminded
that this new budget model has yet to be fully funded, but also be reminded
that budget cuts are imminent for the next biennium and we all have
to work very hard in the next few months to minimize that setback. The
total instructional budget in Fall 2000 was allocated at $66,544 million,
up 71.6% from $38,775 million in 1990 (Table 2.3). In this decade the
instructional budget as a percentage of total budget has decreased from
56.6% in 1990 to 49.9% in 2000. This is a change for us, as we have
a long record of maintaining instruction at more than 50% of our budget.
However, the instruction portion of the budget has been steadily decreasing
for the last decade. I pose the same question I asked last year, "If
student FTE/headcount continues to grow, and we are being held accountable
to enrich the educational experience, why are we appropriating less
for the instructional budget?"
2) Students. In the period 1990 to 2000, enrollment increased from 9,798 to 12,246 FTE, up 24.99%. We know about the increase in demand statewide and nationally, so this is no surprise. I think, however, that even "fuzzy math" would prove that budgets have not increased at the same rate, given inflation. Therefore we are being provided fewer resources to educate more students (Table 3.4: http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/source/factf00/3_04.htm). In the period 1990 to 2000, the student-to-faculty ratio of 17.69 increased a scant .11 students. As compared to PSU's all-time high of 20.85 in 1998, this is an improvement from an instructional, if not a fiscal, perspective (Table 3.1: http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/source/factf00/3_01.htm). The ratio of undergraduate students to graduate students decreased from 3.12 to 2.71. This figure has actually been rising, due in part to the influx of new undergraduates in the past three years (Table 3.4). Previously, I compared the ratio of student FTE to regular classified staff and found it was rising. This trend has continued, as anticipated, as a result of diminished resources and increases in "outsourcing." In 1990 the ratio of students to staff was 13.86 and it is now 20.86, not including the category of "Technical" worker which wasn't available in earlier profiles. Again, I ask the question, do we identify this as productivity gain or quality loss?
3) Faculty. From 1990 to 2000, FTE increased from 557.36 to 692.43, up a stunning 24.23%. From 1990 to 2000 the proportion of fixed-term faculty to all faculty increased from 49.3% to 66.1%. Among instructional faculty,tenure-related (tenured and tenure-track) faculty now comprise only 33.9% of all faculty, and of that number tenured faculty comprise only 23.8%. The number of graduate assistants rose by almost 212 individuals to 577, equivalent to a rise from 40 FTE to 84.35 FTE (Table 4.2.1: http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/source/factf00/4_02_1.htm). From 1990 to 2000 the proportion of non-instructional faculty to all faculty increased from 26.8% to 39.5%, not a totally surprising figure given PSU's dependence on that class of employees to staff various functions of the university which are covered by classified personnel at our sister institutions (Table 4.8: http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/source/fact99/99t4_8.htm).
4) Tuition. During the period 1990 to 2000, annual undergraduate resident tuition and fees rose from $1917 to $3468, an increase of 80.91% (Table 2.5: http://www.oirp.pdx.edu/port9900/2_05.htm).
Conclusions:
Here again are the most obvious conclusions about faculty life at PSU.
As I noted last month, salaries at PSU still lag behind national averages
and those at our sister institutions, OSU and UO. Salaries also continue
to be driven by market forces, not necessarily by pedagogy, excellence
or even workload, the effect of which is that diversity remains stalled
and tenure becomes more elusive. The pattern of hiring fixed term, adjunct,
and graduate assistant instructional faculty has increased. This may
be good for flexibility, but it is not good for learning agendas. The
increased use of non-instructional faculty for services such as advising,
financial aid, etc. has continued. Some of this may be justified by
the national research, but some of it is just another strategy for reducing
tenure lines and avoiding long-term contracts.
The use of non-instructional faculty, "outsourcing," and the increased use of part-time student help have continued to rise. This latter increase is in spite of the fact that Measure 5 occurred almost a decade ago and PSU just experienced the most well-funded biennium in our history. This is not just a labor-relations issue but also a quality issue. Many faculty, tenured or not, voice various concerns about working conditions. Most obviously, the physical environment has continued to deteriorate, but in addition to increased teaching, service, and research loads, faculty are having to navigate a system in which there is less and less continuity. Faculty are doing more of the "grunt" work themselves, for example, typing, copying, answering telephones, etc. Lastly, one of the most significant influences on faculty life continues—the increase in tuition. As a result of increased costs, student demands for satisfaction has increased. Faculty, who are the "face" of the university, are the folks most impacted, for things over which they have, as time goes on, less and less control.
Lobbyist Report
by Tom Barrows
Dave Barrows & Associates
Higher Ed advocates held a rally on the steps of the Oregon State Capitol on March 6 and it was a great success. As was the case in 1999, Portland State University was very well represented. There were several speakers and the general atmosphere was highly charged. Legislators who spoke at the rally included Senate Majority Leader David Nelson (R-Pendleton), House Speaker Mark Simmons (R-Elgin), House Minority Leader Dan Gardner (D-Portland), House Majority Leader Karen Minnis (R-Fairview) and the Co-Chairs of the Higher Ed Caucus Senator Ryan Deckert (D-Beaverton) and Representative Tim Knopp (R-Bend). In the immediate aftermath of the rally, several Democratic legislators took exception to the tone and message that was presented by the organizers and the Republican speakers. They wondered why so many people were taking shots at the governor and praising the Republican Leadership when the Democrats had historically been the big supporters of Higher Ed. As time has passed, these legislators have moved from this to a position of asking how they can help.
The Higher Ed Rally may or may not have contributed to the Governor's revised budget. In his March 16 re-balance, the Governor increased funding for the Oregon University System model by $45 million and added another $7.5 million to increase funding for statewide public services by Higher Ed. In his press conference announcing this the Governor denied that the Higher Ed Rally had any influence on these increases, but most people involved believe otherwise.
Now is the time to be sending letters to your legislators asking them to support the increases in Higher Ed funding that the Governor has proposed. The letters don't have to be long. It is important to just make the point that this is important to you and a brief mention of why this is the case. For a sample letter, see page 9 of this newsletter. If you need help finding your legislator’s address (or finding out who your legislator is), go to our website: http://www.teleport.com/~aaup/leg.html.
PSU Community Responds to Mobbing
by Rikki
Schoenthal
PSU-AAUP Councilor
“Workplace abuse,” “ workplace bullying,” “workplace mobbing”—the terminology is varied, but the practice is epidemic. Australia, Germany, South Africa, England, and Switzerland recognize the legitimacy of this problem and have instituted policies and laws to educate and protect their working citizens. The United States, however, has been introduced to the concept only in the last few years.
Books such as Bullying: From Backyard to Boardroom; Work Abuse: How to Recognize it and Survive It, Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, and The Bully at Work are bringing to light this “silent epidemic and national scandal.” Articles such as “The Phenomenon of Workplace Bullying and the Need for Status-Blind Hostile Work Environment Protection,” written by David Yamada, an attorney nationally active in employment law, or “Mobbing at work and the development of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” written by Heinz Leyman, the “founder” of the European anti-mobbing movement, illustrate the wide range of disciplines taking an interest in this phenomena. Mental health, education, law, human resources, management—all have a stake.
The recent increase in work and school violence incidents has intensified the interest in bullying and harassment on every level. Some may discount this particular workplace hazard and debate the impossibility of legislating values or changing human nature. Some see the workplace as an immutable Darwinian arena. But when the concept of sexual harassment was first introduced as a workplace hazard, it too was discounted. Now there are few that would not validate the need for public and legal action with regard to domestic violence, child sexual abuse, discrimination for sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Noa Davenport, a cultural anthropologist and author of the above-cited book Mobbing, was in Oregon this past February and presented her research and expertise here at PSU and OHSU. She was also interviewed on OPB radio. Dr. Davenport prefers the well-established European term “mobbing” and defines it as: “an emotional assault…. It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior… a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly or unwillingly participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace…the victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to the behavior or may plan or condone it.” She describes the five phases in the mobbing process as 1) conflict (often left unresolved); 2) aggressive acts (persistent, humiliating assaults on the credibility or competence of the target; 3) management involvement (no support but rather more acts leading to isolation; 4) branding the target as difficult, at fault, or mentally ill; and 5) expulsion through forced resignation or dismissal. With the central role that work plays for individuals in our society, the emotional injury is severe and extracts a significant economic and emotional cost on victims, families, organizations, and society.
So what does this have to do with the PSU community and AAUP? Isn’t academia, with its inherent values of academic freedom, open discourse, respect, and learning, immune? To the contrary—studies show that mobbing is most prevalent in academia, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. What can be done? Actually quite a bit and we can be proud as Oregonians that some of the trailblazing work has already begun in our state. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has an anti-harassment policy written by their Office of Civil Rights, which strives to stop harassment of all kinds. It prohibits “an intimidating, hostile or abusive work environment. It may be sexual, racial, based on national origin, age, disability, religions or a person’s sexual orientation. It may also encompass other forms of hostile, intimidating, threatening, humiliating, or violent behaviors which are not necessarily illegal discrimination, but are nonetheless prohibited by this Policy…workplace harassment can also be verbal or physical behavior which is derogatory, abusive, disparaging, ‘bullying’ threatening, or disrespectful, even if unrelated to a legally protected status.” At the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), labor (AFSCME) and management recently adopted an extensive “anti mobbing policy” to ensure that employees are provided “an emotionally safe, respectful work environment, free of intimidation, hostility, harassment, and other mobbing behaviors.”
Inspired by these policies and in response to situations here at PSU, a labor/management committee at PSU is working to develop similar policies for our community. AAUP is exploring the viability of making responses to mobbing a necessary part of the contract. The Faculty Senate is studying the establishment of an effective conflict resolution/mediation resource that may help individual employees experiencing a mobbing situation. Employee groups are approaching legislators making them aware of the need for status blind protection at work. Education, awareness, and openness can serve to identify a problem that does exist here at PSU. If we remove the shame and secrecy, it will allow us to work together to create a just workplace and be a part of this burgeoning progressive movement. If you have questions or comments about workplace harassment, please contact the AAUP office at 5-4414 or aaup@teleport.com. We want to hear from you about this issue.
Collective Bargaining Update
by Martha
Hickey
VP of Collective Bargaining
On March 15 and 16 members of the negotiating teams for the PSU administration and AAUP participated in a two-day workshop to initiate us in the practice of interest based bargaining (IBB). Interest based negotiations presume a collaborative, problem solving approach to reaching consensus and resolving differences. Both parties wish to promote a more timely and fruitful exchange of ideas on issues. The workshop helped us begin the process of articulating the guidelines that will underwrite what we hope will be a more positive working relationship. On March 22 and 23 we worked an additional four hours on the ground rules.
The Oregon State Conciliation Service facilitated the two-day workshop. This service supplied the mediator for the last two rounds of contract negotiations when PSU-AAUP requested mediation. Wendy Greenwald made an initial presentation to both teams about the advantages and disadvantages of IBB in January. She and Robert Nightengale (who mediated the conclusion of the 1999-2001 contract) facilitated the two-day orientation.
William Ury, one of the scholars who has promoted IBB, describes the approach we hope to apply to this year’s bargaining process. In Getting Past No he writes, “Joint problem solving revolves around interests instead of positions. You begin by identifying each side’s interests—the concerns, needs, fears, and desires that underlie and motivate your opposing positions. You then explore different options for meeting those interests.” The goal is a mutually satisfactory agreement reached through an amicable rather than confrontational exchange. Ury’s advice for mapping the way to agreement could be useful to any negotiation that aims to be productive: Once you have identified the issues and the interests involved, do your homework, apply to independent standards, and devise creative options that build a bridge from one side’s thinking to the other’s. The process, he says, should be "a little like creating a mural together."
Both teams realize that an interest based process can breakdown if both parties don't allocate the additional time required for research and discussion that a problem solving approach requires. PSU and AAUP are equally concerned about the continued health and vitality of the University and we both acknowledge that the issues that affect our professional lives and working conditions can’t easily be disentangled from monetary ones. These latter concerns should not obscure the fact that PSU’s faculty and the members of this AAUP bargaining unit are and will continue to be the critical asset that enables the University to fulfill its mission.
Welcome New Members!
| Jagdish Ahuja |
Mathematics
|
| Katrine Barber |
History
|
| Keith Clark |
Music
|
| Jeanne Enders |
School
of Business Administration
|
| Lindsay Hixson |
Sociology
|
| Gretchen Hoffman |
Library
|
| Cathleen Kaufmann |
School
of Social Work
|
| Janice Kettler |
Counseling
& Psychological Services
|
| Randy Murphy |
English
|
| Robin Voetterl |
Education
|
Targeted Workers Form Support Group
Reprinted with permission from OPEU, Local 089 March 2001 newsletter
Are you a PSU employee who has been bullied, harassed, verbally or emotionally injured, or the target of mobbing while on the job?
If so, campus support is now available to you. Recently, several staff and faculty members met over lunch to talk about their personal experiences with this kind of injury. They listened to each other’s personal experiences with this kind of injury. They listened to each other’s personal stories and then heard about other co-workers who have faced or continue to face this kind of treatment. They saw the need for a support group and are forming one.
Because the kind of injury described above does not fall under the categories of physical abuse, sexual harassment or discrimination, and because it isn’t addressed in any campus union contract or University policy, no administrative office on campus is adequately prepared to respond to an employee’s report of such treatment.
If you have experienced this kind of treatment and have tried to get help, chances are you were bounced from one office to another, as each referred you to the office it thought could handle your problem. You may not have been taken seriously, and you may have even been disciplined for complaining.
As a result of a classified employee grievance settlement, a committee of staff, faculty and administration has formed to study the problem, recommend policy, and ways to implement it. But that process can be lengthy.
In the meantime, employees want to offer help via a support group. The first meeting was Monday, March 12. Meetings are held the first Monday of the month at 5pm and the 3rd Wednesday at of the month at noon in the Urban Center in the Urban Center, Room 310. The group is open to all PSU employees—staff, faculty and students. It’s free and is not sponsored by any group. Its sole purpose is to provide employee-to-employee support for those who have experienced injury of the type described in this article.
For more information email annolive@yahoo.com.
The following is a sample letter to a legislator. We encourage you to write to your legislator urging them to support increasing funding for higher education. If you need help finding your legislator's address (or finding out who your legislator is), go to our website: http://www.teleport.com/~aaup/leg.html.
Senator/Representative____________
State Capitol
Salem, OR 97301
Date
Dear Senator/Representative ________________
[Begin with a paragraph that introduces you to your legislator—i.e., who you are, what you do at PSU. Also include some information about how budget cuts in the past have affected your career, your department, your students, etc.]
My colleagues and I were highly encouraged by the Legislature’s support of higher education in 1999. The funding increase for higher education appeared to finally reverse the decade-long downward spiral of Oregon universities.
I was therefore surprised and dismayed by Governor Kitzhaber’s proposed cuts to higher education in the budget he released last December. In that budget, the amount allocated to the Oregon University System was $96 million short of what is needed to run the seven state campuses at current levels of service. In addition, the Governor called for a 4% tuition hike for the next two years!
I am encouraged by the add-backs proposed by the Co-Chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee and by the Governor’s re-balanced budget. These add-backs reduce the size of the cut, but still cut millions of dollars from Oregon universities. It would put higher education squarely back on the 10-year decline that was just reversed!
I urge you to oppose the proposed cuts to higher education, and vote instead to invest in a university system that will meet the educational needs of our children and the new economic engines of this state.
Sincerely,
Are you really a member of PSU-AAUP??
Paying dues doesn’t necessarily mean that you are a member of AAUP. You must fill out a membership application in order to join AAUP. If you have dues taken out of your check but you haven’t filled out a membership application then you are a “fair share” member.
WHY YOU SHOULD JOIN AAUP EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE ALREADY PAYING FAIR SHARE DUES:
- Fair share dues can’t be used to help us fight ballot measures aimed at higher education and public employees.
- Fair share dues can’t be used for the lobbying we do at the state and national level to ensure that there is money available to bargain for.
- Fair share dues can’t be used to help AAUP fight attacks on tenure and academic freedom at the national level.
- Fair share members can’t vote for union leadership or on other important issues.
- The more support we have from full members, the stronger our bargaining efforts will be!
REMEMBER: A union is only as strong as its membership!!
If you are not an AAUP member, please join today. If you are unsure about your membership status, feel free to call or email the AAUP office (5-4414 or aaup@teleport.com).
Fair Share vs. Full Membership The Difference Explained
Fair Share: All teaching faculty and academic professionals who are .50 and above FTE are automatically fair-share members. Payroll automatically deducts fair share dues (calculated at .25% of academic salary) from your monthly paycheck.
Full Membership: You are not a full member of AAUP until you fill out a membership application (found on page 12 of this newsletter) and submit it to the AAUP office in 232 SMC. This application authorizes payroll to deduct full membership dues (calculated at .38% of academic salary) from your monthly paycheck. The best way to have a voice in important issues such as working conditions and salary is by becoming a full member of the AAUP. As a full member, you have the right to serve on AAUP committees and on the Executive Council. As a a full member, you also have the right to vote for chapter leadership and on other important chapter issues.