…. and then I’m going to turn off the computer and/or go to bed: Susan Moeller sent around an interestingly short message tonight:
Unfortunately, today’s negotiations have been distressing. At several points, we thought we were on the road to an agreement, but nothing has materialized. We are meeting again tomorrow morning, and hopefully things will have improved.
It is absolutely critical that you all come to tomorrow’s meeting, noon in the Roosevelt Auditorium. At that point we can fill you in on where we stand and discuss options for how to proceed.
Oh, I’ll be there, believe-U-me. I have been and remain under the opinion that in the current negotiation climate, we as faculty would retain the high ground by agreeing to continuing negotiations while working (at least for a while) without a contract. But I will be very curious to see what the EMU-AAUP folks have to say about all this.
See you tomorrow, with both live blogging and (later on) some video of various events.
How will he “high ground” help us with anything? We don’t go on strike and what kind of hold or bargaining chip do we have exactly?
Even if we go on strike, we do have a week from contract expiration till first day of class.
Let me preface my response to Andrew here: when the union calls for a strike today at noon, I will support the will of the members and the advice of the negotiating team, and I will certainly go out on strike whenever they tell me to do so. And as I said before, I am quite certain that 90% of the faculty will follow the union out to the picket lines.
Now, having said that:
I think the “high ground” helps us in the so-called “court of public opinion.” To the extent that public opinion matters and that we want/need it on our side, it seems to me that we would be better off saying “we’ll keep negotiating and talking as long as we can keep working under the old contract rules.” In the unlikely event that the administration doesn’t agree with this, then the faculty can say “See? We tried. The administration forced us to strike!”
And just because we don’t go on strike doesn’t mean we can’t continue “labor actions.” We could still picket, still have rallies, etc., etc., and we could still go out on strike if need-be.
I just don’t think we get much for going out on strike, frankly. I have heard this “bargaining chip” argument before, but I’ve never seen any evidence that we actually “got much” as a result of a strike. We worked without a contract in 2006– admittedly for complex reasons and only after we were out on strike for 2 weeks– and it ultimately ended up being a pretty good deal for the faculty.
I also think we’d be much MUCH better off agreeing to work without a contract but then announce that we will go on strike the Monday before Thanksgiving or the last week of classes or something like that if we don’t have a deal. But that’s very unlikely because the traditional argument against this is that faculty by then are “too attached” to their students and they would therefore cross picket lines.
Steve, I think the problem is that the “work under the old contract until we agree on a new contract” option effectively isn’t on the table. The university’s current offer is what’s on the table. You’re forced to make your decision going forward on that basis.
I was reading through the latest article and round of comments in Ann Arbor.com and the most disturbing comment comes from Edward Vielmetti an AnnArbor.com Staff member. He quotes Bernard Shaw in the context of a line of logic that I do not follow: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” I can understand this coming from others, but from a moderator and employee of AnnArbor.com I find this very unprofessional. He owes educators an explanation as to why he thinks teaching is a profession made up of those who cannot.
Those who can, do. Those who think others can, TEACH!
I hadn’t seen that comment earlier, and I wish I had. Vielmetti doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. For one thing, I do not understand– have never understood– why teaching does not count as “doing.” For another, college professors do a lot more than “just teach” (which is, of course, a profession in itself). We do scholarship in our various fields, which is critical for lots of reasons, not the least of which is our scholarly work contributes in large and small ways to the economy of a rather economically sluggish state. And we do the service that keeps the university moving.
And as for the ability of members of the Board of Regents to teach classes: clearly Vielmetti is a little confused about who these people are. Our Board of Regents is not made up people who were appointed to their positions based on some kind of experience in higher education. Rather, these people are appointed as political favors, simple as that. They might be able to teach classes in “how to donate money to the right political parties” or something like that.
Good lord, Tom, get over yourself. It’s a blog, for pete’s sake. Part of faculty’s problem with the public is that you’re coming across as feeling you are “owed”. True or not, that’s the indelible impression you’re leaving.
Sometimes you are your own worst enemy.
(And the real quote, as everyone knows, is “those can, do. Those who can’t teach. Those who can’t teach, teach gym.” Woody Allen.)
I still view this as a contract dispute. At the end of the day, there are not moral implications in deciding not to accept a contract.
Often, people will attempt to tinge contract disputes with emotional overtones. “You feel you’re owed”, etc. The bottom line is really just this: Either you come to agreement over the price of a service or you don’t.
In all my years of reading comments sections I have never seen such a comment from an employee of a newspaper. So much for reporting objectively. Rimshot, if you are going to respond please respond to what I am actually saying, not something that has nothing to do with what I am saying and you want to trumpet. I am talking about an employee who is supposed to moderate a comments section of an article using well-known quotes in childish ways to dismiss ALL educators. You find this appropriate and why? And it is a comments section to an article, not a blog.
I agree Bud, people (including employees of AnnArbor.com apparently) offer all sorts of rabid opinions about professors, educators, etc. that have nothing to do with the contract negotiations. As you say, they either think we should get a raise for what we do or they firmly believe we should not.
Tom, I was specifically responding to these words that you actually typed:
“He owes educators an explanation as to why he thinks teaching is a profession made up of those who cannot.”
I then connected your over-reaction to the snarky line in a discussion (not a blog – you are correct), to the problem I perceived in the way faculty were coming across in public. No trumpeting, just looking for connections.
And while I don’t think the line was appropriate, neither do I think the offense was serious enough to warrant an apology. Context is important, and the context of an online discussion is much less “serious” than an article or op-ed piece.