Your Union is Your Strength in a Hostile Environment

Everyone Knows This ...

With so many laws and civil rights provisions protecting employees on paper, the average employee probably thinks that their rights are protected, and that, if there is injustice (such as being fired for no reason at all), there will be some recourse, either within the college or in the court. However, a New York Times column advises a otherwise.

New York Times, August 3, 2018

An anonymous writer asks, “I have a new boss who is very unfair and abrasive to everyone. Hypothetically, would he be allowed to fire me just because he doesn’t like me? And if he did, what could I do legally and procedurally to fight back?”

Rob Walker, the writer of the column The Workologist, answers, “As a legal matter, unless you have an employee contract that says otherwise, he could absolutely fire you because he doesn’t like you…And again, as a legal matter, there’s probably nothing you could do about it.”

One might think that protected categories, such as discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or disability, would be clear violations and easy to pursue. However, we should not be too rosy about this prospect either. First, claims on protected categories are very difficult to prove. No one says in public, 'I am now firing you because you are Muslim.' Discriminatory actions are usually hidden under other pretexts.

I remember working somewhere where the new employees were being given a tour by the team. I had to go to the bathroom (I was pregnant). While in the bathroom, I heard the man giving the tour say to the other new employees (also all men) that these women employees were trouble because they got pregnant, couldn’t work, and took frequent breaks to go breastfeed. These same men had taken several breaks to go off and smoke on the balcony (not that smoking is a gender-based activity; that isn’t my point). But women who were actually singled out in that organization for going home to nurse were disciplined for taking too long a break, and it would have been difficult to prove that this was a discriminatory measure.

A casual look at cases in the Office of Civil Rights, for example, shows that most cases are dismissed, specifically because a claim cannot be proved. If a case is not outright dismissed, then at least it is such a long drawn out process that an employee might be out the door and living in a trailer for years before his/her case comes to light. The same is true for any legal process – time is not on the worker’s side.

This brings us to the good stuff. Rob Walker says that aggrieved employee should address how an action specifically violates a company policy or the employee contract. Employees should very quickly become conversant with all company policy. In bringing a complaint, the employee must articulate how they are valuable to the organization and express the complaint in terms of how it affects the organization, an argument that Walker calls the bottom-line argument. 

Your union is your strength

A new movie, Sorry to Bother You, [go see it!] shows that even the lowliest workers in the worst employment situations do not have to live in misery. Workers must understand the value of their work to the employer (No employer is giving you a job out of kindness. Without your labor, there will be no company). Workers must unionize and they must organize for collective demands. Perhaps in a state like Texas, this is complicated by the right to work law, which effectively stops strikes, but still, law or no law, when employees band together and demand their rights the organization has to respond. Sorry to Bother You shows that this is not easy or straightforward. Workers have to take personal risks and they have to expect retaliation. But in the long run, it is the only way for workers to ensure not only that they are treated fairly now but that their rights won’t continue to dwindle.

Without unions and organization, without push-back from workers, more rights will be taken away.  We are so afraid to be visible, to take action and become visible to the powers that be, and yet, most firings and other mistreatment of employees happen under the cover of invisibility. Visibility might be an employee’s best safeguard when workers are organized. The teacher’s strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado, and Arizona show what is possible through unionization, collective bargaining, and disruption. Precisely when labor rights are the lowest and jobs are most vulnerable are the conditions ripest for unions, organizing, and push-back.

There are other practices that could keep one safe. Have everything in writing. Save everything. Even if someone says something verbally, put it in writing, stating in an email: "You had said that you are giving the job to B because he is a guy and we need more guys. Is that correct?” The other very important strategy would be to act immediately if something strange has happened. I, like most people, try to shut out something that seems unfair or strange. But every time I have done that, the incident has come back to haunt me through some backdoor machination. So it is important to immediately put the incident in writing and send off in an email to concerned parties, and to even get witness accounts immediately and put those in writing. One more strategy would be to take note of all violations of policy and contract regularly. If your boss is building a file on you to construct an alternate version of you, you should be building a file as well to track your version of reality.  

In another recent movie, The Young Karl Marx, a prophetic critique of capitalist society at its earliest point, when monarchy has just been overturned, Karl Marx is a struggling journalist who gets fired from job after job because of his political work. By the end of the movie, Marx, together with Engels, addresses the league of the just and challenges their slogan “all men are brothers.” Engels asks, “Are the bourgeois and the worker brothers? No, they are not: making the point that the capitalist is not.”

Your boss is not your friend. Your employer is not your keeper. But as long as there is labor, labor can organize.

Your union is your strength.

Adjuncts, Unions, and the "Right to Work"

2018 has become the Year of the Educator, with several "red" states' educators striking or otherwise successfully reminding their legislators about the, frankly, deplorable classroom situation in which our colleagues teach. As a union of educators, we applaud those secondary and primary teachers for their successful organizing (active verb) and effective communication with their sympathetic communities.

Source: Creative Commons

At the same time, the long discussion of adjuncts in colleges and universities reminds us that our contingent faculty colleagues struggle. The U.S. media applauds a strong economy (and we can argue that), but the situation for college adjuncts has maintained a sore discussion.

In 1975, 30 percent of college faculty were part-time. By 2011, 51 percent of college faculty were part-time, and another 19 percent were non–tenure track, full-time employees. In other words, 70 percent were contingent faculty, a broad classification that includes all non–tenure track faculty (NTTF), whether they work full-time or part-time. (Edmonds)

Of course, in Texas, we live and work in a "right to work" state (where educators who strike will have their teaching certificates and their Teacher Retirement System [TRS] benefits permanently revoked) and the economic market stacks the deck in favor of college employers, allowing them to cut back on wages and benefits (American Federation of Teachers). It's all about capitalism, right? Over the years, the number of full-time professors has dropped while that of adjunct professors has risen, as colleges attempt to rein in costs. Public colleges in particular rely on adjuncts.

This is a problem, because:

Firstly, some research demonstrates that the American academy reliance on adjuncts may harm students. Because of the realities of contingent working, adjunct faculties have fewer resources to support their students. This is more so in the community college, where our students need more resources, not fewer. For example, adjuncts rarely have dedicated office support staff, lack dedicated offices to meet with students, and many of our adjunct faculty drive from far away, arrive to campus in time to prepare the class, and need to leave after class for another job. This prevents convenient face-to-face time with students. The Delphi Project research has shown that students who take more classes from contingent faculty have lower graduation rates and are less likely to transfer from two-year to four-year institutions. Due largely to the exploitative conditions of their work, adjunct faculty are often less student-centered in their teaching, have less contact with students outside of class, and spend less time preparing for classes (Kezar & DePaola). A student's learning conditions will only ever be their teacher's working conditions.

Secondly, the hiring process reflects an economic market insecurity. Adjunct faculty are hired largely because of enrollment rates, and in community colleges, the enrollment rates are very sensitive to market economies. We have heard too many stories of adjuncts being hired a week before the semester, a day before the semester, the day after the semester has started, and the related stress of the insecurity and preparation. 

Thirdly, the insecurity of contingency reflects other economic insecurities and the first obvious is lack of health security. Though the Affordable Care Act attempted to address this, most community colleges lack support for  sufficient physical and mental health (this is true for Lone Star College, for example).  A March 2015 survey conducted by Pacific Standard among nearly 500 adjuncts found that a majority earn less than $20,000 per year from teaching (Chang). Nationally and locally, many adjunct faculty rely on additional government benefits. Typically, such as in Lone Star College, adjuncts are not paid for professional development and required department meetings. Of course, adjuncts are not paid for non "contact hours," though some disciplines require extensive preparation and grading. 

We should note that TA and adjunct union membership is increasing (Edwards and Tolley). The strongest strides over the past two years have been in non "right to work" states. In those other states:

Unionized faculty have negotiated steady increases that are significantly higher, and some of the steepest gains have come from unions formed within the last few years.

and

Eighty-nine percent of the contracts we examined include provisions allowing part-time faculty to receive health insurance. (Edwards and Tolley)

On the other hand, when a union does not collectively prioritize salary and benefits with adjuncts, these questions are delayed. In other words, as a union, we must prioritize our adjuncts' needs (salary, benefits, shared governance, working environment) for the whole college strength. Every department meeting, every curriculum discussion, every "safety" discussion on campus must include the real lives of our adjunct colleagues.

We Propose:

1. Tell stories. All employees should share stories of adjunct faculty; this blog is a perfect space to share and listen.
2. Share stories with the community. Lone Star College is somewhat effective with their marketing in the community, but the college does not market the adjunct reality. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) provides a useful set of questions to ask of any school you’re interested in.
3. Inform students of the realities of adjuncts, how our adjuncts must balance time and resources with students, and explain how tuition relates to a contingent faculty.
4. Include our adjunct colleagues in meetings, listen to their needs, collaborate with everyone for working space and support. When we discuss with administration, the term "adjunct" should be included in every conversation.  

Photo rawpixel on Unsplash

Resources

American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.) "What is Right to Work." 

Chang, Bettina. (2015) "Survey: The State of Adjunct Professors." Pacific Standard.

Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012) "A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members."

Edmonds, Dan. (2015) "More Than Half of College Faculty Are Adjuncts: Should You Care?" Forbes.

Edwards, Kristen and Kim Tolley. (2018) "Do Unions Help Adjuncts?

What dozens of collective-bargaining agreements can tell us. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Kezar, A. & DePaola, T. (2018). "Understanding the need for unions:  Contingent faculty working conditions and the relationship to student learning." In Professors in the gig economy: The unionization of adjunct faculty in America.

Korkki, Phyllis. (2018) "Adjunct Professors Step up Their Efforts to Increase Pay." New York Times.  

McKenna, Laura. (2015). "The Cost of an Adjunct." The Atlantic.

Responding to Janus, Part II

Last month, we wrote a brief summary of the SCOTUS decision of Janus v AFSCME. Since the decision, we have more time to reflect on how this right-wing court affects us as workers and as union members. With our reflections, we call for more assertive actions, especially locally, to strengthen our union in Texas.

1. The Court framed its decision as a First Amendment cause. The Court is wrong. We can address this as Texans.

The Court effectively overturned an important 1977 court decision (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education if you want to learn about that background) and argued that the First Amendment's protection of free speech prohibits public employee unions from charging a mandatory fee for the costs of representation. In Texas, we don't feel the effect of mandatory union fees for representing, but in otherwise union-friendly states, the effect of union collective bargaining is somewhat mixed in some facets and clear in others. According to The Brookings Institute (a conservative think tank), "collective bargaining rights lead to substantial increases in union presence and modest increases in wages" while "evidence on the effect of collective bargaining on public employee retirement benefits is much scarcer."

The collective bargaining act was seen as a free speech act, and Janus argued that he should not be forced to use his "speech" (union fees) though he is rewarded by the union's bargaining. However, the Court's minority dissent notes that unions do not inhibit the freedom of speech of members or non-members. While labor unions have a right to equitably represent all workers in a bargaining act, labor unions are, by law, the exclusive representatives of workers. This means that workers cannot have two labor unions representing them within the same working situation (you can imagine what a Detroit factory would look like with two working unions representing the floor, attempting to bargain with Ford; thus, the law permits only one union representing all workers). 

This singular representation is not unique to unions. We do the same in our communities where we all represent ourselves collectively in the voting machine for our taxes (note: this is ideal, of course, and we are not arguing that our voting system is either fair or equitable, especially in Texas. But let's pretend). As a taxing "collective," we cannot declare one day that as a result of differences with a government body that we should be able to avoid taxes. 

But as Bill Fletcher explains:

In the case of labor unions, they have been granted by law the right and duty to represent workers in a given economic jurisdiction—a bargaining unit. Workers in the public sector are not obligated to join the union but the compromise that was established, and been in operation for 41 years in many states that permit public sector unionism, was that those who choose not to join contribute towards representation costs. Thus, an individual worker who decides not to join the union may, nevertheless, face an issue for which they need representation. Representation costs money. A case may go to arbitration, for instance, which can be very expensive. There may be issues that have to be litigated in court. Indeed, an issue may need to go to a legislative body. These steps can be very expensive. The Supreme Court majority knows this and, essentially, what they said today is that they do not give a damn.

As Texans, we can address this easily:

1. Explain to your colleagues that this was not about free speech. This is about how collective bargaining helps all workers. 
2. Learn about collective bargaining and have a conversation with your local Texas legislator and senator. Yes, most of our legislative representatives are anti-labor, but our silence only encourages demagogues like Abbot and Patrick .
3. Look at immediate history. The massive teacher strikes this year in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina have all taken place in “right to work” states like Texas, and this common fact was likely no coincidence. Workers in “right to work” states tend to have lower salaries and fewer benefits. Remind your local legislator.

2. Let's See a Perspective of the Impact -- Public Sector Unions

The court's decision certainly continues a national trend towards attacking labor-sector unions, such as in Illinois and Wisconsin, where since 2010, union membership declined 38 percent after the attacks on unions by Gov Walker and the Legislature (for a good resource of current news on labor issues such as happening in Wisconsin, see LaborNotes.org). Yet, the international union movement is larger than public-sector, while our national (and state) hostility toward labor-sector union has been part of our lives for decades. Moshe Marvit summarizes this:

the Janus decision will only directly impact less than half of the labor movement. This is because the ruling only applies to public-sector workers: federal, state and local government employees. However, federal employees (including postal employees) have long been under so-called “right to work,” so Janus will have minimal direct impact on them.

So, as Texans, we can address this:

1. Be proactively engaged as a union. More than paying dues, be verbal, physical present. Specifically,
2. Be present for Board of Trustees meetings: start at least once a year and remind the Board that you are a union member
3. Meet your local legislative representative. Local has power while federal representatives are weak. Write your Texas legislator and senator and remind them how our union protects us as employees and strengthens us as citizens. Let them know that our union is very alive
4. Inform other college employees about our union's efforts. Recruit other members to be paying union members.

3. On the other Hand, Understand that Some Populations will be Harder than Others ... Read: than Whites. Duh.

As Miles Kampf-Lassin argues, national public-sector unions disproportionately empower Black women, "this class of hyper-exploited workers is poised to be hit hardest by the anti-union ruling."

Source: Economic Policy Institute

While public-sector labor has facilitated Black women moving into the middle class, the ugly truth is that, on average, African-American women have to work seven months longer to receive the same pay as white men. The Janus decision further exacerbates that economic disparity. This discussion of color, unions, and education needs to be discussed elsewhere.

Here, we recommend:

1. We need to hear more voices of Black women and men, Latinx women and men, and all disenfranchised workers in the college. Their stories often stun us. Our union chapter is open to all, but we see too many white voices and representation, which makes it especially important to listen. 
2. We very pointedly want to understand real racial equity in the college at every corner: administration, faculty, and staff. For example, we call for a Freedom of Information Act request for hiring status, hiring persistence, and salary at LSCS. Though some tools show salaries for University of Houston and Houston Community College, no open data are available for LSCS.
3. Trust Black Women.

4. Remember Who Represents Who: Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The Liberty Justice Center, one of the parties that represented Janus in court, received $800,000 from a policy institute funded by Richard Uihlein, an anti-union megadonor, according to tax forms reviewed by OpenSecrets. Uihlein is an Illinois businessman who has spent millions of dollars supporting Republican candidates such as Sen.Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

This is not a surprise, but as Texans, we have a responsibility to 

1. Inform (repeatedly) Senator Cruz how his poise against workers affects us, and
2. Connect with other Houstonians resisting Senator Cruz's agenda against people of color, migrants, workers, and everything that AFT stands for.

Postscript: As of 20 July, Mark Janus has left from his public-service position ... to work for the Liberty Justice Center, making even more money.

“Once again it’s clear that this court case was never about Mark Janus, but about billionaires like Bruce Rauner and big-money corporate funders launching a political attack on the freedom of working people to speak up together through a strong union,” AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall said. “While IPI tries to dupe workers into quitting their union, AFSCME members will continue doing what they’ve always done: providing important public services and building their union to speak up for themselves, their families and communities.”

Additional Reading

Compa, L. (2014). "An Overview of Collective Bargaining in the United States." Digital Commons.

Semuels, A. (2018). "Is This the End of Public-Sector Unions in America?" The Atlantic. 

Tang, A. (2018). "Life After Janus." [see whole 81-page PDF]

Janus v. AFSCME

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It's been a difficult week of SCOTUS news, though of particular interest to us is the Janus v. AFSCME decision, which finds that public sector unions cannot collect non-member fees (agency fees) even though the collective bargaining of unions affects all workers. It's a move expected to drive down union membership nationwide. (The thinking goes: Why pay membership dues when you get the benefits of union activities anyways?) Some research complicates this basic assumption, but any way we look at it, the next few years will be a struggle. NPR goes into greater depth about expected nation-wide effects of this ruling.

Because Texas is a "Right to Work" state (a rhetorical turn of phrase detested by most labor-minded people; the labor caucus of the Conference on College Composition and Communication has suggested "Right to get Screwed" as a more apt descriptor), this decision will have little direct impact on our specific union. We have no rights to bargain collectively and the union has never collected agency fees.

The fact that we won't feel a direct effect doesn't mean that this won't affect us, though, as our colleagues in other states struggle to keep their membership up. Nationwide, unions are expected to have less funding and less power to stand up to movements that seek to chip away at public education -- from fighting for better funding to opposing privatization and vouchers.

Texas AFT president Louis Malfaro reminds us that now is a moment to win over the "court of public opinion" with reminders about the good that unions do for all workers. We've seen the way that unions of public teachers have won in the court of public opinion, and the effectiveness of their moves for collective action, especially in states like Texas where collective bargaining was never an option.


Steps for Action Now:

1. Follow the AFT on Facebook and/or Tweet and express your support for unions using hashtags #IamAFT, #JanusvsAFSCME #unionstrong, as well as handles: @AFTunion and @TexasAFT. See the AFT's tweet here for graphics you can use.

2. Support, campaign for, and then vote for people who support unions.

3. Sign the AFT's petition (if you haven't already) in support of public education.