Hi Rhonda;
Personally I do not think SFUFA can ever address market differentials whether as an association or a union. At this point I understand 60% of SFUFA members receive differentials. I cannot see this majority voting for any measure, or any new SFUFA executives that seek to attack their financial security. I wouldn't.
Personally I think the real problem that necessitates the differentials are SFU's relatively low and hard topped salary scales. Virtually no faculty can currently offer a competitive salary to a new hire without a differential.
The problem is that the university is not very willing to discuss these salary scales effects. In the last arbitration they were willing to add a few steps to the tops of the most senior levels, like for full profs. Nothing, however, to make associate/assistant prof levels more competitive. Something for librarians, but what about lecturers. And others? The university is very threatened financially these days.
It is the position of the pro certification side that if SFUFA was a more equal bargaining entity, deriving its authority from the LRB, we could have more fulsome discussion with the administration on the salary scales. Discussion doesn't promise change, but full discussion is better than not. Arbitration might then be a possibility, which it is not now, but even that is not a guarantee. It's just an ability SFUFA doesn't currently have to become better heard in issues defined as governance.
None of this effects any existing differentials. Nor does it affect retention awards. Both are determined by one's faculty (Dean) and colleagues (TPC I think). The assertion that a person's existing differential or future possible retention awards would be effected by certification is moot, in my opinion. Totally not the case!
If, however, SFU had more competitive salary scales, perhaps fewer differentials would be needed in some faculties to achieve competitive offers. Other faculties would likely continue to need to offer these differentials to attract the best possible job candidates.
All the best Neil Abramson President SFUFA Beedie School
Sent from my iPhone Dear James,
Thanks for your summary of the forum yesterday on the disadvantages of unionization. I had hoped to be able to make it but could not, so I am happy to have a report on what was said.
I would like clarification on one point: market differentials and the alleged idea that unionization would pull them back from the 50% who have them, in some kind of communist revolution of wealth redistribution. As you yourself point out, those faculty would also be union members so the idea that this would happen is "unintelligible" as you put it. But I'd like some evidence that pro-union faculty actually believe that would happen. I have been paying very close attention to this debate, and I haven't heard a word that the union would claw back the "rich cats" of the faculty at the expense of the "poor mice". That sounds like a rumour and a smear by anti-union faculty. Can you show us where in all the information and discussion that has been distributed that such a thing has been suggested?
Ronda Arab Director MATE Associate Professor of English Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 ronda_arab@sfu.ca778.782.8506 (Burnaby) 778.782.5164 (Surrey)
From: "JD Fleming" < jfleming@sfu.ca> To: "SFUFA Forum" < academic-discussion@sfu.ca> Cc: "Brian Green" < brian_green@sfu.ca> Sent: Friday, 31 January, 2014 09:26:42 Subject: forum yesterday Dear all,
I'd like to express my thanks to Hilmar Pabel, Glenn Chapman, and Krishna Pendakur for organizing the panel on unionization concerns yesterday. Although I had to miss the third presentation (Pabel's), I must say that the first two (Chapman's and Pendakur's) left me at a loss to understand why unionization is a good idea--let alone an urgent priority.
Chapman reminded us, among other things, that a union structure for SFUFA would require far more work on the part of faculty, for example in defining proper workloads for departments and faculties, then monitoring faculty work to make sure those workloads are being met but not exceeded. A union-to-member disciplinary vector also opens up here. No more would SFUFA be an organization of a couple faculty and staff members. No: it would become a much more complex organization of committees, duties, etc.
Pendakur's analysis showed that, while unionization appears to compress salaries somewhat (moving top and bottom toward the middle), its effect on raising them overall is either minimal or nil. I find this point especially compelling since Neil Abramson and others have repeatedly compared our salaries to UBC's, confidently claiming that the unionization of the latter's faculty explains the differential. This claim now appears to be, to say the least, questionable. As Pendakur pointed out, the reason is not mysterious: Unionized faculty don't get more money because there isn't any more money to get. We are not working in a profit-making economic sector where collective action can redistribute wealth. Rather, we are working in a profit-losing sector where the wealth has for the most part already been distributed, or is beyond our control. Unionized or not, we have no power over the money the government gives us; student fees are already too high; and the administration, even if bloated, is little more than a minnow compared to the Jabba the Hutt of our current and future salaries and benefits. Finally, there seems to be an idea that a union would claw back market differentials from the 50% of colleagues who have them, merrily redistributing that money to the 50% who do not. Since the richer 50% are also SFUFA members, with a right to have their interests represented, I find this scenario completely unintelligible--quite apart from the handicapping effect it would clearly have on hiring, in fields where academics have rich offers elsewhere.
In short, I am now more opposed to unionization than I was before. For what it's worth. Best wishes, JDF
PS Only 25% of SFUFA members are on this list. I still think an all-faculty discussion of the union issue is critical, not optional, and that an email list is still the easiest and most effective way to achieve it--especially since the SFUFA exec and director are explicitly partisan. It's like an election campaign where the government controls all the TV stations. I again call upon Brian Green to open up the discussion to all. This can be done very easily, Brian, if you just copy messages like this one to the sfufa-members list. You will still have absolute control over what does and does not get sent, thereby eliminating concerns about offensive messages etc. -- James Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
"Upstairs was a room for travelers. ‘You know, I shall take it for the rest of my life,’ Vasili Ivanovich is reported to have said as soon as he had entered it." -- Vladimir Nabokov, Cloud, Castle, Lake
|