In the national discourse about labor unions, all eyes are on Wisconsin and, now, Ohio - two states which could set a precedent for a new climate of negotiation between faculty and administration in Higher Ed across the country. Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) became law earlier this year. It includes provisions which greatly limit the effectiveness of public-sector employees bargaining collectively and even the very premise of whether or not they can (or should) hold to unions and collective bargaining procedures on a number of policy issues.
The practice of collective bargaining has long been one of great debate in the world of business. The key assumption of either side in the debate is one of corruption. Those in favor or unions argue that corporate directors and administrators are corrupt- while those opposed say that the union structure is inherently rife with illicit practices. Many stories have made a national stir over the years and infamous figures have often emerged from among the ranks of union officials. Characters like Jimmy Hoffa and Steve Raucci, and the long list of commonly occuring threats which those who've opposed unions on various issues over the years have faced are often held up as case studies of the inherent flaws in collective bargaining. Yet it prevails as a source of reform in industry and politics. But at what cost?
This is the question tax payers have finally asked their elected officials to "stand and deliver" on. It seems the American tax-payers (often left out in the coverage of thugs tyrants and bomb threats) have decided to have their voice heard. Everyone is looking, right now, to find answers to the shortfalls which are ubiquitous throughout the American economy. For the voting public in Wisconsin and Ohio (and their sentiment is shared in other parts of the country) this means taking back control of public spending. Now this case is bound to polarize a conference room. But there is one question I would like to raise that, perhaps, we are overlooking: Mightn't this not mean that the general public are taking a stronger interest and a closer look at education? Might not this be the beginning of a resurgence of public engagement in the education process? This issue is certainly sparking a dialog between the public and the educators which they entrust with the young minds of our nation. What are we doing - in the midst of this debate - to forge a stronger connection with that public? I have spoken with many teachers and educators who have expressed a desire that parents were more involved in the academic process of their children - and not just in K-12. Might this not be an opportunity to connect with the collective which really has the bargaining power - the voting public? If stronger ties were forged between educators and their constituencies could not the bridging of those relationships yield great returns not only for the schools, or for the communities, but also for the students? A sequence of events like this one - which so impacts the public discourse is just such an opportunity. The interests of those in higher ed and those who pay for it are united in a way which uniquely facilitates dialog. It is not philosophical (often polarizing) it is not political (arguably), it is a matter of resources - something static and non-personal but evoking great personal interest. Are unions good or bad? I have my opinions and you have yours. Are administrators in higher ed taking advantage of faculty? Perhaps they are - inspite of the fact that some of those administrators are faculty - this is devisive. But do we all need to find better ways to do our jobs and to be good stewards of the public faith (not to mention of the taxpayer's dollars)? I'd say we could all agree on that.
David Dorr
No comments:
Post a Comment