Skip to main content

The news arrived that the proposed unit structure will not move forward as planned. I am honestly stunned by this result and I owe this entire outcome to the 256 of you who spoke up when it felt like a long shot. Please keep a watchful eye on what happens …

April 21, 2012

Objection to proposed bargaining unit

Objection to proposed bargaining unit

🏆 Won — 329 supporters Verified

Final supporters

S
Someone
S
Someone
D
Diane H.
E
Edward H.
C
Charlene L.
N
Neil B.
S
Someone
J
John B.
W
William R.
S
Someone
+319 more
Started by Anonymous 14 years, 5 months ago
We object to the inclusion of tenure-track faculty (TTF) in the proposed bargaining unit set forth by United Academics of University of Oregon, AAUP/AFT, AFL-CIO, on the following grounds:

(I) The proposed unit of employees is very broad, with different roles and functions within the University. These include full-time, part-time, and retired faculty, as well as faculty primarily engaged in research, others engaged in instruction, and some engaged in both. It is difficult to envision a single entity effectively representing the needs of all of these heterogeneous constituents.  Moreover, the plan to include Officers of Research requires exclusion of TTF members who supervise ORs, but the mobility of faculty in and out of "supervisory" status, such as rotating terms as department heads, makes the composition of the proposed union unworkable.

(II) Employment decisions within the TTF are peer reviewed and are therefore fundamentally different from other proposed members of the bargaining unit.  For example, TTF members make hiring, promotion and retention decisions about their peer TTF members.  Non-TTF members are not typically involved in this type of decision making process, and in fact are commonly reviewed by TTF members.

(III) The proposed unit excludes Principal Investigators with supervisory authority and faculty in the School of Law. The basis for excluding these groups is unclear and inconsistent. Principal Investigators and faculty in the Law School have both a research and instructive role in their employment that is almost identical to other active tenure-track faculty members. Tenure track faculty included in the bargaining unit are more comparable to this excluded group than they are to other members included in the proposed unit such as Non-TTF faculty.

(IV) The manner in which TTF members are compensated is heterogeneous and not conducive to collective bargaining.  Many TTF members trade-off salary with research and lab funding, so a one-size-fits-all collective agreement will limit TTF members' ability to make these decisions individually.  Any attempt to standardize compensation contracts through a collective process will reduce the valuable flexibility that is built into the current system.


PLEASE NOTE: After signing this petition you will be directed to a page requesting a donation to ipetitions.com.  This donation is not required to sign the petition.  When you see this page your signature has been recorded.

Updates

Reached 250 supporters

March 25, 2012

Reached 100 supporters

March 23, 2012

March 23, 2012

I am honestly overwhelmed by how many of you have joined this effort so far. If you know a colleague who hasn't seen this yet, please reach out to them today so we can push past the hundred mark.

6 Comments

D
David Bauer
14 years ago Featured

THEY ARENT LISTENING TO US! This unit plan is completely unworkable.

E
Elena Salazar
14 years ago Featured

Why are the law school and PIs just being left out? Seems totally random and not well thought out at all.

S
Sarah Pierce
14 years ago Featured

This really feels like a one size fits all mess. Our roles are just too different for one union to cover everyone fairly.

M
Mark Bailey
14 years ago Featured

The peer review process is unique to TTF and mixing it with non-TTF roles is going to create a nightmare for department heads. No thanks.

L
Lisa Fisher
14 years ago Featured

Bad idea. Faculty needs are way too diverse for this.

J
James Griffin
14 years ago Featured

Keep our governance separate. The current proposal just ignores how we actually do our work day to day.