BGSU is now a "union shop"...

[Flipper]

http://www.toledoblade.com/article/2010 ... /101029981

Congrats to professorjackson and others who supported this motion. I know things got a bit needlessly testy in this forum...OK, I got a bit testy...and other people did too. Anyway...I hope that this will help allay some of the concerns th faculty has had with the administration going forward.

We shall see...I suppose

[Tech83]

I taught at a CC for several years that was unionized. While I think there can be value to the union on issues of academic freedom, there are very few times this is an issue. In the case of the CC I was at, the President was always trying to push administrative duties on faculty who needed to spend more time teaching than doing what was essentially his and his staff's job. The union was needed to fight back on this.... can you say overly bloated admin that did nothing and was overpaid. However, what I saw the most was my fellow instructors just trying to figure out how to meet the minimum contract requirements than provide a true learning experience. AND being VERY UPSET when I would try something new and creative or put in extra effort and time with my students.

In short.... this is not a good thing.

[professorjackson]

I will quote myself from the Blade and the BG News here becuase I want everyone to know that the BGSU-FA is every bit as committed to BGSU's future as anyone else. Among the elected officers are two winners of the campus-wide teaching award for non-tenure track professors and a 24 year man who does more work for students than most professors or administrators. We're not out to wreck BGSU.

"This victory is the culmination of thousands of hours of hard work by dozens of volunteers over a two-year period," he said in a written statement. "Faculty are eager to take a more active role in shaping the direction of the university and helping to solve its problems."

"We're all in this together," Jackson said. "Administrators are not the enemy and we look forward to sitting down with them to continue the hard work of shared governance."

[1987alum]

In short.... this is not a good thing.

I think time will prove that you are correct.

[Rightupinthere]

In short.... this is not a good thing.

I think time will prove that you are correct.

Short term perceived gain, long term quagmire of political wrangling and selective hiring. It is, sadly, inevitable.

[Flipper]

I think the focus on "shared governance" is problematic...or it could be. I suppose one man's shared governance is another's power grab, but we'll just have to wait and see

[FalconTurf]

It can be a bad thing in two directions:

1) Poor instructors hiding behind the aprons of the union even though 95% of the membership would prefer to throw them out (of education and the union).

2) Administrators use the excuse that things cannot be done because of the union. When administrators don't do their due diligence by crossing "t's" and dotting "i's" on evaluations they blame the union for their inability to follow protocol.

So while the administration whines about the union they are ultimately protected themselves from their own inabilities by throwing out the "union issue" as an excuse for not getting things done. This happens from schools to factories and is the most unrecognized negative of unions. Ultimately management can do the same damage to effectiveness of an organization as some of the poor work ethic coming from some members of the union.

At the same time I understand why people want the support and protection of a union even with all it's negatives especially in tough times when blame runs rampid.

[1987alum]

Turf: Really insightful. This can definitely be a double-edged sword.

[pdt1081]

Don't be the least bit surprised if this isn't the last union organized on campus.

[NWLB]

I think the focus on "shared governance" is problematic...or it could be. I suppose one man's shared governance is another's power grab, but we'll just have to wait and see

Union or not, they are employees of the University. They are not employed to engage in "shared governance," nor should they be supported by alumni money, tuition funds, state money, or University funds while attempting to do so.

In the end, I suspect the union will either prove a non-factor or negative one overall (however great or small.)

[professorjackson]

The official BGSU administration position on shared governance:

http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/provost/Hea ... overn.html

A quote: "Collegial shared governance belongs to all of us at BGSU – the Trustees, the faculty, the administration, the staff, and our students. We use it to express our various perspectives in order to shape leadership’s best decisions for our future."

[NWLB]

So define what you consider to be "shared governance." The tone I take from your public comments it seems to mean running the University as an administration is supposed too.

[professorjackson]

Here is a statement about shared governance from one of our newsletters as well as a link to the 1966 statement on shared governance by the AAUP, of which we are a chapter. Also included is a statement on Adversarial Relations between administration and faculty that may be of some interest.

The BGSU-FA is committed to the principles of good shared governance as outlined in the AAUP's 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policy ... tement.htm). Interestingly, this statement was jointly produced by the AAUP, the American Council on Education and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Far from promoting an adversarial relationship among faculty, administrators and boards of trustees, the principles of joint effort, exchange of information and respect outlined in this document promote collective action for the good of the whole institution.

A major way in which collective bargaining has been shown to improve shared governance is through better communication between faculty and central administrations. Central administrators cannot take faculty concerns into consideration in decision-making if it isn't clear what faculty preferences on a particular subject are, or if they have not been communicated clearly. Likewise, faculty cannot form good judgments about university policy if key information, such as budget assumptions, are kept from them.

Adversarial Relationship?

Does collective bargaining lead to an excessively adversarial relationship between faculty and administrators? The BGSU-FA does not believe so. In fact, we would suggest that exactly the opposite is true. By reducing uncertainty, frustration and fear collective bargaining can strengthen collegiality and respect between faculty and administrators at BGSU.

Frustration and fear are significant causes of conflict. Because of lagging salaries, BGSU faculty members feel underappreciated. But, perhaps even more importantly, we feel frustrated because it seems like we can't do anything about it. For too many years our salaries have ranked near the bottom for public universities in Ohio. Committees make recommendations that administrators politely ignore (or promise to do something about before departing from BGSU), and the situation remains the same or worsens.

During our hundreds of conversations, colleagues have shared with us many fears about the future of BGSU. What is going to happen to our health care benefits? Will class sizes increase? Will departments, programs, schools and colleges be consolidated or eliminated? These (and many more) are the legitimate fears of faculty members who are committing themselves to a career at BGSU. Conflict is only increased when faculty members are made to feel like their concerns don't matter, and that our ideas are not to be taken seriously.

While we all want what is best for the university, faculty and central administrators see BGSU from different perspectives. Even with good hearts and sincere wishes to do what each believes is best for the university, because of the different places from which we view the institution, faculty and administrators are not always going to agree on exactly what is best, nor how to achieve it. These differences are only natural. So, the real question is how to manage the conflicts that arise from these differences of perspective, not how to eliminate them.

Collective bargaining provides a transparent and democratic process for solving these conflicts. Frustration dissipates as we gain actual power to negotiate our salaries, benefits and teaching conditions. Conflict based on fear of the future subsides when we all look realistically at the problems we face, and work together to solve them in an atmosphere of respect that is only achieved when our goal is to negotiate a contract, not engage in a never-ending conversation.

By reducing uncertainty, fear and frustration, collective bargaining will greatly improve the relationship between faculty and the central administration at BGSU.

[Flipper]

CMU having some labor issues...is this what future incomong freshmen have to look forward to someday?

http://www.freep.com/article/20110822/N ... |FRONTPAGE

[footballguy51]

CMU having some labor issues...is this what future incomong freshmen have to look forward to someday?

http://www.freep.com/article/20110822/N ... |FRONTPAGE

I certainly hope not. Unions are necessary in certain instances, but they also tend to get in the way. When is the last time people said, "That union sure made things better"? My guess is that it was a VERY long time ago.