2008 Woodie Awards
Our View: APSCUF's problems reveal a lack of leadership
Issue date: 10/5/07 Section: Opinion
In case you hadn't noticed, or haven't been paying attention, the faculty union is still working without a contract, although that will probably change in the near future.
Those who cast a "yes" vote to recommend the proposed contract earlier this week more than likely will cite how a strike seven weeks into the semester would jeopardize the integrity and reputation of state-system faculty. Meanwhile, those opposed to the new deal list among their various complaints the idea that "settling" for an agreement just to get it over with will no doubt set a poor precedent for future bargaining sessions.
But this is not to determine whether the contract is fair or whether faculty should support it. It is, rather, to point out the ways in which this mess could have been avoided to begin with, and could have avoided pitting players on the same team against each other.
The fact that a contract has not been hammered out yet-more than three months after the expiration of the last contract on June 30 and more than two months after agreeing in principle to what was laid before them-shows that the faculty union is suffering from poor organizational skills.
In looking back at what has unfolded in the last few months and at last week's APSCUF Legislative Assembly vote that resulted in a 61-43 recommendation of the proposed contract, and which also revealed a serious divide among the state's professors, it's clear that APSCUF's leadership, both at the university and state levels, has come up short on a number of occasions.
For instance, those in charge of looking over the contract's wording-which the state system apparently changed in an effort to snooker the union out of a few previously-agreed upon stipulations-failed to do an adequate job of making sure the paperwork was in proper order. Further, because of a lack of communication between the higher-ups and union members, most in APSCUF are still unsure of who is to blame for the oversight. This kind of miscommunication, be it deliberate or otherwise, has only added fuel to the fire for the members whose dues help pay for the legal counsel and negotiating team, both of which are charged with preventing such lapses.
Those who cast a "yes" vote to recommend the proposed contract earlier this week more than likely will cite how a strike seven weeks into the semester would jeopardize the integrity and reputation of state-system faculty. Meanwhile, those opposed to the new deal list among their various complaints the idea that "settling" for an agreement just to get it over with will no doubt set a poor precedent for future bargaining sessions.
But this is not to determine whether the contract is fair or whether faculty should support it. It is, rather, to point out the ways in which this mess could have been avoided to begin with, and could have avoided pitting players on the same team against each other.
The fact that a contract has not been hammered out yet-more than three months after the expiration of the last contract on June 30 and more than two months after agreeing in principle to what was laid before them-shows that the faculty union is suffering from poor organizational skills.
In looking back at what has unfolded in the last few months and at last week's APSCUF Legislative Assembly vote that resulted in a 61-43 recommendation of the proposed contract, and which also revealed a serious divide among the state's professors, it's clear that APSCUF's leadership, both at the university and state levels, has come up short on a number of occasions.
For instance, those in charge of looking over the contract's wording-which the state system apparently changed in an effort to snooker the union out of a few previously-agreed upon stipulations-failed to do an adequate job of making sure the paperwork was in proper order. Further, because of a lack of communication between the higher-ups and union members, most in APSCUF are still unsure of who is to blame for the oversight. This kind of miscommunication, be it deliberate or otherwise, has only added fuel to the fire for the members whose dues help pay for the legal counsel and negotiating team, both of which are charged with preventing such lapses.
