| QUICK CLICKS: |
Table of Contents |
|
Speaking OutMobilize for SuccessWhen California State University imposed terms and conditions of employment on its faculty last spring after the breakdown of negotiations with the California Faculty Association, faculty on CSU's 22 campuses responded with a level of activism unprecedented in our collective bargaining history. Within three months we had a new contract overwhelmingly approved by the membership. Although our new contract is far from perfect, it is clear that the faculty's willingness not simply to vote "no," but to act was critical in winning the gains we did. Faculty on all campuses picketed the chancellor as he visited each of them, and, in the final weeks of the campaign, picketed his public appearances. Many campuses held successful teach-ins that further publicized the contract dispute. Coordination with students, other university staff unions, and community labor councils in these and other events not only increased their size but strengthened our alliances. Faculty from each of the campuses traveled to Sacramento to discuss our bargaining difficulties with legislators. In March, the CFA Delegate Assembly declared "a state of strike" in the system; faculty continued to teach their classes but withdrew from committee work and quasi-administrative activities. Both the statewide Academic Senate and individual campus Senates passed votes of "no confidence" in the chancellor and refused to participate in implementing the administration's imposed "merit pay" plan. Obviously, no single one of these activities, nor any one of the many others undertaken, brought the administration back to the bargaining table, and none garnered support from 100 percent of the faculty. But the wide variety of actions gave every faculty member the opportunity to act in some significant way, and the sum total generated considerable pressure on the administration. The most important lesson to be gained from our experience, we feel, is that what happens away from the bargaining table does, in fact, drive what happens at the table. Without the exercise of faculty power that profoundly changed the context in which negotiations between the CSU and CFA took place, we would be working under imposed conditions that not only involved lower salaries but, more importantly, profound changes in the nature of the university.
|
I'd like to Say...Professor Johns's fear that higher education may be driven by the need to prepare employees for the Information Age at the expense of philosophy, ethics, art, and social issues (August Speaking Out) is a very narrow view of higher education. The majority of programs in higher education---including those whose focus is to provide employees for the Information Age--- require courses in an array of non-technical areas, including the social sciences, art, and philosophy. To disdain the economic needs of our citizens moves us back to an era where only the wealthy benefited from higher education. ---Janet Black I must admit that after reading Steve Robinson's glowing review of interest-based bargaining (June Speaking Out), I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I fully understand why our district embraces this form of negotiations. Far from being a "win-win" situation, it's been a stalling tactic, giving the district the appearance of being sincere while it throws up so many road blocks that little to nothing gets done. ---Lin Fraser |
|
We welcome your opinion. Join our talk back community discussion boards. |
|
