Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Solidarity

September 12, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It was Monday, September 4th. The faculty at Eastern Michigan University had been on strike since September 1st. Picket lines were up at a dozen places on campus -- before the administration building, at all campus entrances, at loading docks, construction sites, and elsewhere. There was an inevitable, fluid conversation ongoing about what to do the next day. Should there be a mass meeting, a rally? Where should it be held? Events could derail any plans, but classes were scheduled to start on Wednesday, and it did not look like the administration would put an acceptable contract offer on the table. So people almost certainly needed to assemble the day beforehand.

Other Michigan public universities had accepted offers of raises ranging from 3-4 percent. Despite realizing that their faculty members were already at the low end of the Michigan pay scale, the Eastern Michigan administration had offered 2 percent and combined it with a new premium to be assessed for health care that amounted to 1.6-1.8 percent of salary. The package was a wash. The union was also looking to help the students, who were unsurprisingly agitated that some classrooms had deteriorated to the point where neither heat nor air conditioning worked properly. Heavy coats worn in winter classrooms did not help note taking. So Eastern Michigan's faculty union, a unit of the American Association of University Professors, asked if the administration would be willing to receive an annual report recommending priorities for classroom repairs. The administration refused.

Their offer was an overt challenge to the union. Then the administration ramped up the pressure by adding that it would walk out of negotiations if the strike was not called off by 10 Tuesday night, the evening before classes were to begin. Late Tuesday morning consensus was reached that, save two pickets per site, everyone should gather that afternoon. Time and place were still in flux. I was in town, as national AAUP president, to offer my support and speak at the meeting. I was worried that no one would show up and said so. "They'll be there," union president Howard Bunsis replied with a smile. I cannot say that I was reassured.

What I had not calculated was how an extraordinary level of faculty solidarity would mesh with new technology. My previous experience with multiple picket sites had involved quite a bit of sending messengers running back and forth across campus. Now there were people with cell phones at every site. This was especially helpful when particular locations required additional troops, as when people needed to work at turning away delivery trucks. On one occasion I persuaded a Teamster member delivering hamburger buns to call his office, which agreed to cancel the rest of the week's deliveries. At a major university construction site, the concrete trucks had nonunion drivers. A cell phone call reached the concrete supplier, whose union loaders agreed not to load more concrete trucks. Other activists were taking cell phone messages in their cars and delivering water, picket signs, and modest edible treats as needed. Several retired professors took particular pleasure in running these on-demand delivery services.

I spent several hours on Tuesday morning visiting picket sites, introducing myself and talking with faculty, students, and university workers. The faculty were unvaryingly determined, though also anxious. False rumors abounded, as usual, but cell phone calls kept them under control. I hadn't thought of cell phones as rumor control devices, but they enable members involved in job actions to make rapid contact with the leadership. The deeper anxiety was centered on the disruption of their faculty identities. They wanted to meet their classes on Wednesday. Most simply asked to be treated the same way other Michigan employees were being treated. A few said they'd settle for any offer that wasn't blatantly insulting. But because they were faculty they could not just picket; they had to talk these issues through. Happily, it was a bright Midwestern day. Spirits overall were more than high; they were stratospheric. Professors of English and engineering were one; they had shed their disciplinary skins. They were now part of that universal faculty that now and again focuses on their common destiny and mission.

At lunch time I made my way back to the negotiating room where I had first arrived the day before. It was a busy space. The union had been asking the administration for health care statistics for a year to no avail. Suddenly, at the penultimate moment, the data had arrived. Ordinarily this would have been a disaster. In the past, interpreting the numbers with sufficient mastery so as to suggest alternative solutions would have taken weeks. But the chapter president is a business faculty member more than comfortable with spread sheets. What's more, the days of the smoke filled bargaining hall had long disappeared. Each member of the bargaining team sat in front of a computer. A ten foot high projection screen let everyone see spreadsheet proposals.

Meanwhile it had been decided that a large campus auditorium was the right place to meet. PowerPoint demonstrations were being prepared. E-mail messages went out to faculty. A phone tree got to work. An hour later we walked into an auditorium packed with hundreds of faculty. Scores of red AAUP caps dotted the room. There was applause, laughter, cheers, and pointed questioning, all echoing sharply against brick walls. My own presentation was easy. I assured everyone of continuing support from the national AAUP, and I emphasized that they were not fighting for their own interests alone. A highly conservative governing board was seeking to deny faculty any influence over their terms of employment or working conditions. This was a battle we needed to win for the country as a whole. Over 40 years in the academy I have never seen a faculty so unified and determined. It was astonishing and exhilarating. Certainly the administration had a hand in inadvertently unifying the faculty. But constant communication between the leadership and the members helped turn anger into collective action.

The overwhelming majority of faculty contracts are, of course, negotiated without a strike. Both parties ordinarily prefer a solution and, despite competing financial aims, are willing to work toward one. The Eastern Michigan administration's determination to break the faculty's will is not unprecedented but surely atypical.

As we left the hall a huge storm broke. Nothing less could have kept people from the picket lines, though when the skies cleared faculty were out on the streets again. A hundred of them were still there at 10 p.m. that night, chanting "Talk, Don't Walk" before the administration building.

Meanwhile we were back at negotiations. There I got to see a master at work. Ernie Benjamin, a 30-year veteran of collective bargaining, was in town from the national AAUP office to advise the campus professors. He would quietly predict every administration action before it happened. He estimated they would deliver a "last and best" offer minutes before they broke off negotiations, just so they could claim we hadn't responded to it. We decided to draft a counter offer without seeing their terms, though Ernie, as it happened, predicted exactly what they would propose. The team reduced its demands somewhat, printed out new spreadsheets, and delivered them to the administration negotiators at 9:58, immediately after receiving their's. At first the administration representatives refused to accept our proposal, claiming it was already 10 p.m., but our people proved otherwise.

The following morning, more than 90 percent of faculty members honored the strike and did not attend their classes. Students picketed the administration the rest of the week. The union had advised new faculty to meet their classes, since they would otherwise not have health care coverage initiated. But the faculty had spoken with one voice, though a strike carries a special emotional burden for them. They would prefer to be partners with the administration. They cannot leave their classrooms, their offices, and their labs without psychologically leaving much of themselves behind. It is not just a job; it is who they are. At Eastern Michigan the administration decided to exploit that special loyalty. The faculty stood together in support of shared governance and fair practices. When nearly 400 faculty met again on Friday, not one suggested calling off the strike. Sometimes solidarity deserves to be remembered forever.

Cary Nelson is president of the American Association of University Professors and a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Solidarity

  • UPDATE
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , Professor at Univ of Illinois on September 12, 2006 at 10:45am EDT
  • In an effort to spur negotiations the AAUP local at EMU has offered a one-day suspension of their strike. Stay tuned for more developments.

    Cary Nelson

  • Unfortunate about your not using facts in this article
  • Posted by ProvideAllFacts on September 12, 2006 at 10:51am EDT
  • I am concerned that all the facts are not provided accurately in your article. The last offers made by each side are online for all to see. While the initial offer from EMU was at 2% per year for each of 5 years; the "last and best offer" from the administration was a 3% increase per year, plus an additional quarter percent increase to retirement every year for 4 yrs. Furthermore the administration’s last and final offer included an additional $100 per credit hour for continuing education overload pay; bring the total remuneration to $1,300 per credit hour taught. Let the readers make their own judgment.
    http://www.emich.edu/strikeinfo/EMU_AAUP_offer_comparison.pdf

  • Great report
  • Posted by Alison P. Martinez on September 12, 2006 at 10:51am EDT
  • Thanks for letting us all be there through your vivid report.

  • I am both an administrator and an EMU parent
  • Posted by MB , President at A Private Institution on September 12, 2006 at 10:51am EDT
  • I've been faculty, I am an administrator (at a Private university) and I am the parent of an EMU student...I very conflicted over the current situation.

    Times are hard. I don't think the EMU Admin was purposefully "challenging" the union. They have very major challenges especially in a state like Michigan. Their biggest challenge is providing quality education and services! They need to do this with limited budgets.

    Go back to the classroom and be glad that you HAVE health insurance to complain about!

  • Posted by Andrew Simone , Student. at Covenant Theological Seminary on September 12, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT
  • There is a EMU student vlogger who has been posting about this on youtube:

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iUuYgjnQA
    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZFxM8bPLC8
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1mRy4A9Nrw

  • Actual Link for the (Really Funny) Video
  • Posted by EMU Strike Video (Real Link) on September 12, 2006 at 10:20pm EDT
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzAN9PvGKc

  • Updates & Facts
  • Posted by Paul at Eastern Michigan Univeristy on September 13, 2006 at 5:55am EDT
  • I'm on the negotiating team and have been keeping a blog, On Strike for Labor Day - now in Part 11.
    http://paulsjusticeblog.com (see late Aug to early Sept entries)

    For the facts, you can't only go to the employer's site. See
    http://www.emu-aaup.org/node/199

  • Get out of your socialist Ivory towers
  • Posted by Al Meyer on September 13, 2006 at 2:35pm EDT
  • "Professors of English and engineering were one; they had shed their disciplinary skins. They were now part of that universal faculty that now and again focuses on their common destiny and mission."

    Who heads their engineering discipline, that this professor is from, as this article alludes too. This article is very slanted and miss leading since is author is the top official of the national AAUP. The bias in this article also goes well beyond any bias the main stream media has written. It uses statistical terms without stating numbers or values.

    Michigan is one of two states that still have a full blown recession. With all major manufacturing leaving soon no one in this state will be able to afford to send there children to EMU.

    Get out of your socialist Ivory towers and live with the people who pay the tuition. Let us see if you can live on a living wage that you teach students we should be paying our workers, who have to pay a larger percent of their health care than you are being asked too.

    If education people is so important you should be willing to give it away for free.

  • EMU strike
  • Posted by Mark H. on September 13, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT
  • As a striking faculty member at Eastern Michigan, I can confirm what Cary Nelson has written in his fine on-the-spot report, and I can also point out - contrary to the posts of one other reader - that EMU's financial problems are less due to the state's economy, bad as it is, than to the gross mismanagement of the University by its past and current administration. The Regents a few years ago built a $6 million mansion the President, while claiming it was a $3 million house, and allowed state law to be violated in the process, since students funds were divered to it. And those administrators who objected to this strange choice were silenced by their bosses, and meanwhile our academic buildings and dorms are in terrible shape. Many of the administrators who helped perpetuate this misuse of funds, or who tried to silence the critics of that misuse, are still in their well paid jobs, still setting University goals....which include refusing to hear meaningful faculty input on facilities.

    The president who built that house, Sam Kirkpatrick, was given a half million dollar buy out, and he then worked for the computer company that his administration had hired, for tens of millions of dollars, to install a integrated "Banner" system for the whole campus. Sweet, huh?

    Back at the campus, we still have one of the most expensive and least talented and top heavy administrations in the land. That's why our students aren't getting a fair shake for their tuition and fees. Nor does the administration have the brains to seriously address EMU's problems with retention and recruitment of students.

    And most of our students recognize the upper administration's indifference to their education (their criticisms make mine look mild!), and thousands of them have actively supported our strike.

    Today, for the sake of the students' education, we voted to go back to teaching while also pursuing neutral third party fact finding. We hope to get a fair contract ASAP, and we also aim to provide the education our students deserve, to the best of our ability.

  • Observation for Paul
  • Posted by ProvideAllFacts on September 14, 2006 at 5:20pm EDT
  • You say "For the facts, you can’t only go to the employer’s site. See..."

    I see some facts, then as I read on and see "Health Care Hit as a % of Salary" that is used as a reduction to your “Real Income.” That is where I stopped reading. Your opinion is wrongfully applied as fact. Show me how Faculty A who makes $68,000 and Faculty B who makes $110,000 both take a “hit” of 1.8% of their salary if you take the same policy? You also use Expected Inflation Rate; health care is already factored into the rate of inflation, assuming you obtained your CPI data from someone who is able to make a good guess of what inflation might be, but reading the link, that is certainly not obvious.

    I have been both a faculty and an administrator, and frankly, if I feel I am not paid what I am worth, I simply move on to an institution that values what I have to offer. It appears to me that this is an emotional issue there, and one has to believe it is affecting the institution. Should you air your laundry this way to gain an upper hand? If I were a student, I would wonder.

  • Administrator Speak
  • Posted by JimmyDean Doe on September 15, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • The above post is a fine example administrator speak and double think: advocate unfair wages and working conditions for those who actually care about the university, take the illogical party line of those who are on the path to damaging the university, and then recommend abandoning the post altogether to selfishly improve one’s own personal conditions. Such reasoning is exactly what has led to our iniquitous global economy.

    Why not just give a fair wage to those who dedicate themselves to the university, who have proven themselves to be able to make it a great place despite the odds, and who are willing to make personal sacrifices to make the university a better place?

  • Response from Paul
  • Posted by Paul on September 16, 2006 at 6:25am EDT
  • ProvideAllFacts - obviously faculty members who have different salaries will take a health care hit that is a different percentage, but the idea was to provide an AVERAGE health care hit based on an AVERAGE salary. Yes, the College of Business people will pay a smaller percentage; the teacher's Education profs will pay a much higher percentage. On an average salary, it's 2%. Pretty basic, not misleading.

    The administration's proposal also factored in a 10% increase in health care into the increase in premiums each year over the contract. So there's an ongoing health care give back each year that comes out of the raise (our premium +10% but wage up 3%). That means our net wage increase is less than what's being touted in the press release and means we have less take home to spend on inflated goods.

  • Video Links
  • Posted by Paul on October 20, 2006 at 10:31am EDT
  • A few of the video links above don't work, but the ones that are still available have been collected here
    http://www.emuprofessors.org/contract2006/multimedia

    There's also a podcast about the state fact-finding process we're using to try to resolve the dispute.