Is a Union For You?

"Unit Clarification" or Undemocratic Union Organizing

2009-07-07T11:20:00.012-05:00

In an earlier post, we outlined the newest challenge facing academic staff of the UW System - "unit clarification". Unions currently representing other State employees are anxious to fold as many as 4000 academic staff positions into their ranks without having to spend any time on campus "organizing", that is, persuading you and your colleagues to form a collective bargaining unit. In the earlier post, we referred to a copy of the letter some Category A (non-instructional) academic staff received from WPEC, an AFT local.

Who Has Standing?
The academic staff, and ASPRO as an organization, are used to challenge. The difficulty with "unit clarification" is that neither you as an individual nor ASPRO as an organization has standing before the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC). Only the UW System and/or the Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) can formally oppose a "unit clarification" petition from a union.

All signs are that the UW System will not "roll over" and allow academic staff positions to be folded into the ranks of existing unions representing other State employees. And ASPRO has reached out to President Kevin Reilly suggesting that our organization collaborate with him and his staff to mount an effective challenge to the unions' petitions.

What Can You Do
ASPRO members have contacted us and asked what they can do as individuals to express their unhappiness with the unions' "back-door" attempt at organizing the academic staff. The first step would be to let your State Senator and State Representative know how you feel.

Legislators passed the budget bill that included language granting collective bargaining rights to faculty and academic staff of the UW System. Those advocating for collective bargaining repeatedly referred to their efforts as granting you the "right to choose" to be represented by a union. "Unit clarification" denies some Category A academic staff and researchers a vote, a choice. Under "unit clarification", you (and/or you colleagues) could be assigned to a union (and pay union dues) without a vote.

ASPRO members thought they would have the option of forming a collective bargaining unit comprised of all of the academic staff on their campus or a unit comprised of both academic staff and faculty. "Unit clarification" divides the academic staff by assigning some to a variety of State employee unions and, thereby, separates them from their faculty colleagues.

For more information about "unit clarification", go the http://www.isaunionforu.com/.

Governor vetoes "unit clarification" language BUT the Unions continue to pursue a back-door organizing effort

2009-07-07T09:15:00.006-05:00

ASPRO formally asked Governor Jim Doyle for a veto of the "unit clarification" language added to the State Budget Bill by the Legislature. This language directed the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) to assign some academic staff positions to existing unions that represent other State employees.

ASPRO also asked members to contact Governor Doyle to express their personal opposition to the language in the budget. It was noted that the language would essentially remove their "right to choose" a union by folding their positions into the classified ranks.

As usual, ASPRO members responded with enthusiasm (despite the short time frame in which to act). We are very grateful for your efforts, and congratulations are in order. Governor Doyle vetoed the budget provision.

Not Over
Unfortunately, as stated in the Governor's veto message, the WERC still has the authority to assign academic staff positions to unions representing State employees with similar positions in other State agencies. A union can petition the WERC to review academic staff positions and rule whether they should be folded into an existing union or not. The only good news is that the UW System and/or the Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) can oppose the petition and present the employer's position on why these positions should not become part of the unions currently representing classified employees.

Unions Will Petition WERC
The unions, in particular the AFT affiliates, have made it clear that they will petition WERC to fold some Category A (non-teaching) academic staff into existing unions. Leaders of these unions have been quoted in media reports that this avenue will be pursued. They note that 4000 academic staff positions may be affected.

In a more dramatic move, ASPRO members have reported that they have received a letter from the Wisconsin Professional Employees Council (WPEC), an AFT-Wisconsin Local, stating that "we believe that your position is among those that should be moved into the bargaining unit represented by WPEC."

ASPRO members have contacted us expressing both alarm and their strong opposition to such a move by a union. ASPRO members thought that a statute change giving collective bargaining rights to the faculty and academic staff meant that they would be able to vote on whether to be represented by a union and, if so, which union. This end-run by unions to avoid having to persuade academic staff to join their ranks is viewed as "undemocratic".

Next Steps
ASPRO has been active in opposing "unit clarification" by the unions and the Board has outlined a plan of action. Many ASPRO members want to know what they can do personally to protest the proposed "unit clarification" effort. Our grassroots plan will be included in a different post shortly.

For links to the letters referenced above, as well as links to the final collective bargaining language and newspaper articles regarding "unit clarification", go to http://www.isaunionforu.com/

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2009-02-25T08:47:00.003-06:00

The Governor’s budget address last week was followed by the formal introduction of Assembly Bill 75. The Governor’s Budget Bill includes a number of provisions that will directly impact the academic staff at the UW.

The Good
AB 75 includes language granting domestic partner benefits to all state employees, including faculty and academic staff of the UW System. ASPRO has supported domestic partner benefits for many years and is gratified to see this provision in the budget bill. The premise has already been challenged by those who championed the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, but we anticipate that this provision will pass as part of the budget. The only way that this provision could be derailed is if an independent, non-partisan cost-analysis showed that the provision would be more expensive than could be justified given the State’s fiscal crisis.

The Bad
The Governor’s budget bill addresses the $5.7 billion deficit in a number of ways including cuts to state agencies. Those reductions include an estimated $49 million in an across-the-board 1% cut to the UW System. Besides this funding cut, the Governor has also announced that state employees will not be granted a raise this year, and all employees will be paying more toward their health insurance premiums.

The Ugly
As anticipated, the Governor included language granting collective bargaining rights to the faculty and academic staff of the UW System. The surprise is in the details. The specifics on how the collective bargaining units will be structured is new – that is, the Governor did not stick with the plan he outlined two years ago in his budget, nor did he incorporate the language of Senate Bill 353 which passed the Senate last legislative session.

While different, the collective bargaining language is downright ugly. Governor Doyle has proposed that:

There will be a total of six collective bargaining units across the UW System for faculty and academic staff.
There will be collective bargaining units for UW-Madison, UW-Milwaukee, and a third unit for all of the remaining campuses including the Colleges and UW-Extension.
At Madison there will be a collective bargaining unit for faculty and a collective bargaining unit for academic staff. The same configuration will hold for Milwaukee and the remainder of the campuses. Ergo, the six total collective bargaining units.
A faculty unit may merge with another faculty unit and an academic staff unit may merge with another academic staff unit, but the faculty and academic staff would be prohibited (by law) from merging together to represent the interests of the faculty AND the academic staff.

In short, Governor Doyle has divided the UW System into three “tiers” and makes it clear that he feels that the academic staff are not equal partners with the faculty of the UW System.

Want Details?
To review the biennial budget language pertaining to the creation of collective bargaining for faculty and academic staff, go to "The Facts" at www.isaunionforu.com

Your thoughts on the Governor's budget proposal?

Union Rejects Compromise

2008-12-19T10:02:00.001-06:00

In September, the academic staff leadership at UW-Milwaukee invited the President of AFT, Bryan Kennedy, to meet with them to discuss the union’s collective bargaining proposal. At that meeting, Kennedy was asked about AFT’s response to ASPRO’s compromise proposal. His answer was that the language in SB 353 “offered maximum flexibility” and there was no reason to make changes to the bill.

In the same meeting, Bryan Kennedy stated that ASPRO was founded by UW administration to “fight unions”. ASPRO members quickly responded to his false claim by presenting the facts about ASPRO’s origins in 1989 in reaction to legislative proposals to de-couple the faculty and academic staff pay plan.

This summer, ASPRO Lobbyist Kathi Kilgore met with one of the lobbyists for AFT, Scott Spector, and offered ASPRO’s proposed compromise. Spector took the proposal back to AFT and eventually responded that ASPRO’s compromise was rejected because AFT’s original language “allows maximum flexibility”.

Essentially, the unions’ position is that their bill would allow a faculty collective bargaining unit to combine with an academic staff collective bargaining unit so it does not see why ASPRO objects. AFT points out that, on any campus, the two groups could petition together for a combined collective bargaining unit from the outset.

Sounds good and may be true, but, as Spector pointed out, “If the filing was for a combined unit right off the bat, we would need to show at least 30% interest among each of the two groups who were petitioning for a combined unit.” Translated, that means that 30% of the faculty on a campus would have to agree to form a unit which would include the academic staff.

How likely do you feel that would be on your campus? ASPRO does not feel there would be much rationale for faculty to invite academic staff into their collective bargaining unit.

Spector also noted, “. . . it seems important to point out that historically the strongest higher ed unions and the strongest higher ed collective bargaining agreements are the ones where faculty and academic staff are in combined units and are represented under one collective bargaining agreement.”

Really? We just cannot figure out why, if the strongest units include both, AFT is adamant that UW faculty and academic staff be in separate units on each campus. All we can conclude is that the unions’ bias is what is best for the FACULTY, not the academic staff.

Reason Compromise Offered

2008-12-19T09:58:00.003-06:00

The last issue of the Advocate reported that the ASPRO Board had crafted what we viewed as a compromise proposal. The goal was that this plan would bridge the gap between ASPRO’s position opposing Senate Bill 353 of the last legislative session which was championed by the unions including AFT, TAUWP, and UFAS. ASPRO is not opposed to collective bargaining for UW faculty and academic staff, but opposed SB 353 and similar proposals because they would de-couple the faculty and academic staff. These proposals would have put the academic staff at a disadvantage in collective bargaining.

We were gratified to hear from so many ASPRO members in response to the last issue of the Advocate. Some of you chastised us for caving in to the unions and promoting a plan that would still have faculty and academic staff vote separately on whether their campus embraced collective bargaining. These members wondered why ASPRO felt it had to compromise on these very important principles.

Other ASPRO members were gratified that a middle ground had been considered and praised us for crafting a compromise.

We want to clarify why ASPRO even considered a compromise rather than continuing to fight the proposals offered by the unions. To be blunt, the political realities forced ASPRO to be practical. As you know, Wisconsin’s governor has championed collective bargaining for faculty and academic staff as has the Democratically-controlled State Senate. The only way that ASPRO has been able to stop both the Governor’s budget language on collective bargaining and SB 353 was through the assistance of the Republican-controlled State Assembly.

As early as May of this year, ASPRO realized that it was a very real possibility that the Democrats would be in the majority in the Wisconsin State Assembly as well as the Senate and the Governor’s office after the November 4th elections. Because this is now true, it will be extremely difficult to stop a bill to grant collective bargaining rights to the UW faculty and academic staff.

In essence, ASPRO offered a compromise to AFT as an insurance policy.

Compromise Language Offered to Unions

2008-09-23T11:17:00.003-05:00

During the last four months, the ASPRO Board and your lobbyists have been busy preparing for the next legislative session.

We know that the unions, primarily AFT, will get collective bargaining legislation introduced again in 2009. ASPRO has used the summer to meet with key legislators to discuss the next steps regarding proposals to authorize collective bargaining for UW academic staff and faculty. The message is unchanged: ASPRO is not opposed to collective bargaining, but is opposed to any proposal which treats the academic staff differently than the faculty.

ASPRO could support a collective bargaining program that assured that the academic staff and the faculty were in the same collective bargaining unit, and the ASPRO Board crafted a plan which would meet those requirements. Our hope is that the unions will embrace the compromise we crafted and that the specifics of the legislation that will be introduced in 2009 will incorporate ASPRO’s compromise language.

In July, ASPRO’s lobbyist Kathi Kilgore met with a lobbyist for AFT, Scott Spector, and offered the following compromise language:

UW System Collective Bargaining
Drafting Instructions

Campus Collective Bargaining units

By law, each campus would have a single collective bargaining unit for faculty and academic staff.
When a petition for representation has been successful, the academic staff on the campus vote on whether to be represented by a union or not, and the faculty vote on whether to be represented by a union or not.
If both the academic staff and the faculty on the campus votes “yes”, both are then represented by the union.
If just the academic staff garner enough “yes” votes, the union will be comprised of and only represent the academic staff on that campus.
If just the faculty garner enough “yes” votes, the union will be comprised of and only represent the faculty on that campus.
At any time the group that voted “no” in an election, can again petition to vote again. If the group votes “yes” in sufficient numbers, they are added to the already established collective bargaining unit represented by the already existing union.

Example: Enough petitions are submitted by faculty and academic staff at UW Platteville to force a vote. The faculty at the campus vote to be represented, but the academic staff vote “no”. The faculty then vote to choose a union to represent them and AFT is selected. Two years later the academic staff at UW Platteville petition for a vote and vote in sufficient numbers to be represented. The academic staff at Platteville will then join the already established collective bargaining unit and will be represented by AFT.

We will share AFT’s response to ASPRO’s proposal when it is received.

What about the Academic Staff?

2008-04-29T13:10:00.006-05:00

Check out the press release below.

Just one question: If AFT wants to represent the faculty AND the academic staff, why no mention of the salary disparities between academic staff and their counterparts at other universities?

AFT-Wisconsin a union of professionals

PRESS RELEASE – April 28, 2008
Jill Malak, Public Relations Representative
608-662-1444 ext 222
608-770-0498

UW faculty salaries far behind the curve

Madison, Wis - University faculty tend to experience a high level of stress at this point in the semester – with the culmination of classes, there are many deadlines to be met, exams to be written and final grades to be calculated. Now UW faculty have an additional reason to be stressed out: a recent report by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) found that salaries for UW faculty lag far behind those of their peer institutions.

The report, entitled "Where Are the Priorities? The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2007–08," examined, in part, salaries of assistant, associate, and full professors at doctoral, comprehensive (i.e., masters) and baccalaureate universities and two-year community colleges. Its findings pointed toward a national trend of university faculty salaries lagging behind inflation nationwide, and UW salaries lagging even further behind.

"Faculty salary levels at the UW System’s comprehensive campuses are a disgrace: they are well behind virtually all institutions of higher learning," commented Ray Spoto, past president of The Association of UW Professionals (TAUWP, AFT- Wisconsin Local 3535) and UW Platteville professor.

"UW faculty salaries at comprehensive campuses are 20% behind those of our faculty peers at the national level, and far behind some of the southern states like Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama. Low salaries mean low quality - low quality research, low quality teaching, and ultimately a low quality higher education. The bottom line is that you get what you pay for," concluded Spoto.

The UW System’s comprehensive campuses are not alone in this trend – all UW institutions, including two-year colleges and doctoral institutions, are well behind the curve in faculty compensation. For example, at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, one of the UW System’s two doctoral institutions, faculty salaries are more in line with those of comprehensive universities across the nation rather than their peer doctoral universities.

"The AAUP data make painfully obvious how far behind the UW system has fallen in comparison to its peer institutions," stated Jim Simmons, UW-Oshkosh Faculty Senate President and TAUWP Chapter President. "These figures show that the faculty at our comprehensive UW campuses are being compensated at the level of the faculty at two-year community colleges nationwide. Given the crisis in recruitment and retention, UW System administrators should ask themselves if dramatically underpaying their faculty is a trend they afford to continue."

Legislative Session Scorecard: ASPRO 1, Unions 0

2008-04-17T13:53:00.002-05:00

The 2007-2008 Legislative Session has officially ended and Senate Bill 353 regarding collective bargaining rights for academic staff and faculty has “died”.

Unfortunately, the terminology used in the State Capitol is not literal. When insiders in the Capitol say a bill as “dead”, it does not have the certainty as a reference to a skunk lying in the middle of a well-traveled road.

A better term would be “hibernating”. There is no doubt that certain legislators and the unions that want to represent the faculty and academic staff will be introducing a bill again in January when the new legislative session begins.
The question is whether the unions will take ASPRO’s criticisms of the language in SB 353 to heart and propose new legislation that would put the academic staff on an even keel with the faculty in salary negotiations. What do you think? Would the unions amend their approach?

Where's it Going to Come From?

2008-01-21T16:20:00.000-06:00

Senate Bill 353 has been referred to the Joint Committee on Finance. The Senate Organization Committee voted unanimously to refer the bill to the Finance Committee because there will be a cost to the State if the bill were to become law.

Indeed, the UW System and other state agencies have reported to the legislature that the implementation of SB 353 will cost the State more than $2.2 Million ANNUALLY.

That’s right. More than $2 MILLION EACH YEAR.

Why so expensive? Senate Bill 353 could create 31 different bargaining units. The Regents will be required to add new state employees to administer the day-to-day operations related to collective bargaining for faculty and academic staff and to conduct and manage the labor negotiations for up to 31 collective bargaining units.

Where will this $2.2 million come from?

Will the legislature take the money from the Corrections budget?
From Medicaid?
From the shared revenue doled out to local government?
K-12 education?

Nope. These funds will come out of the UW System budget.

If SB 353 becomes law, $2.2 million comes right off the top of the UW System budget. That's $2.2 million less that the State will have to spend on salary increases for any state employee.

How can supporters of collective bargaining and SB 353 believe that they will reap financial benefits – that is, higher salary increases – if SB 353 becomes law? Are they dreamers? Or are they delusional?

Do they believe what they say?

2008-01-08T14:12:00.001-06:00

ASPRO expressed its dismay to Committee Chair Senator Kathleen Vinehout that the only public hearing on SB 353 was held during finals week -- and in Eau Claire when almost three-quarters of the academic staff in the UW System are employed at the campuses in Madison, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, Green Bay, Whitewater and Kenosha (Parkside).

After reading the press reports of the hearing, an ASPRO member shared these thoughts with us:

The hearing was stacked with TAUWP advocates as expected. AFT supporters are beginning to show their true colors. Janet Polansky, an English professor at UW-Stout, is reported as saying in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram article: "expanding collective bargaining rights wouldn't necessarily raise taxes by increasing UW System costs. It could, however, lead to a more equitable redistribution of money."

It is amazing to me, that faculty union enthusiasts really believe a union will get them more money than the current system of allocation - the same percentage salary increases to faculty and academic staff across all System campuses and colleges. This allocation does not give Madison an advantage and ensures the colleges and comprehensive campuses are not short-changed in salary increases. Once this distribution system is broken, I believe the UW-Madison faculty (and possibly Milwaukee) will be able to command larger salary increases at the expense of faculty and academic staff at the colleges and comprehensive campuses, and category A academic staff at UW-Madison.

It is all about growing the union, not about advancing the status of faculty and academic staff.

ASPRO's Testimony to the Senate Committee

2008-01-08T13:50:00.000-06:00

Senate Bill 353 was introduced by Senator Dave Hansen of Green Bay on December 11th. The Bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education.

The Committee held its first, and only, public hearing on SB 353 on December 17th in Eau Claire.

ASPRO submitted the following testimony:

TO: Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education

FROM: Janet R. Swandby, Lobbyist

RE: Opposition to Senate Bill 353

ASPRO is the only professional organization that represents the 11,000 Academic Staff of the UW System, and ASPRO is opposed to Senate Bill 353.

Contrary to what you will hear from its supporters, SB 353 is not a simple bill granting collective bargaining rights. In its 41 pages, SB 353 outlines very specifically how collective bargaining units would be created across the UW System. The bill would create a faculty unit and an academic staff unit at each campus. The bill creates separate and unequal bargaining units which give the faculty a bargaining advantage over the academic staff. The language allows the faculty unit on a campus to join with the academic staff unit, but 30% of the faculty must request a referendum on combining. AND THEN there is a second hurtle -- more than 50% of those who vote in the referendum must approve of combining the two units.

Supporters of the bill will testify that 14 of the 15 UW campuses passed resolutions supporting collective bargaining rights. What these supporters will not tell you is:

1. These were faculty not academic staff governance bodies.

2. These faculty resolutions were passed in 2001.

3. In 2007, seven elected governance bodies of the academic staff passed resolutions opposing collective bargaining proposals which separate the faculty from the academic staff. These campuses were:

UW-Colleges
UW-LaCrosse
UW-Madison
UW-Milwaukee
UW-Oshkosh
UW-Stevens Point
UW-Stout

Throughout the history of the UW System, the academic staff and the faculty have been a single unit of professionals who have been treated the same with regard to salary and benefits.

Academic staff in the UW System have the same post-graduate degrees as the faculty. They work in partnership with the faculty. One category cannot work successfully to achieve the mission of the University without the other.

ASPRO finds it curious that those who are championing collective bargaining rights for the faculty and the academic staff are supporting SB 353 which would separate the two professional groups and give the collective bargaining advantage to the faculty.

ASPRO asks you to oppose SB 353 unless it can be amended to assure that the faculty and academic staff will be able to bargain as one single unit.