Monthly Archives: March 2006

Steve Vladeck has written up some thoughts spurred by the Town Meeting yesterday. When Students Strike Back — Some Reactions. Go read it. (The comments are well worth reading too.) I’ll wait.

Like Steve, I find myself taken aback by the size of the anti-strike faction among the students, and especially at the vehemence of a significant minority of the students who experience some of their professors’ decisions to move classes off campus as a wholly unreasonable imposition on their time (rather than as an understandable attempt to deal with difficult circumstances), or even as a cheap political stunt enacted by unfeeling hypocritical brutes.

I am lucky I am not teaching this semester, as it saves me the painful choices and the massive amounts of extra work that face my colleagues. So instead, let me ruminate out loud. It seems to me that there are two surprising things going on here: one is the lack of solidarity between (quite a few ) students and workers with whom they are in close proximity. The other is the lack of solidarity between (quite a few) students and the faculty with whom they are in close proximity. Indeed, one might go so far as to wonder at the hair-trigger anger of (quite a few) students at the faculty and administration. (The third thing going on — that so many people see their view as ‘neutral’ and the other view as ‘biased’ is unfortunate, but hardly surprising.)

I can’t help compare this to my memory of being a first semester 1L during one Yale’s many strikes. It may be that because I was off campus I wasn’t exposed to the full breadth of anti-striker and anti-strike-supporter sentiment, but my sense then, almost 20 years ago now, was that these views existed, were articulated, but were held by only a tiny minority. And while there was deep grumbling about individual faculty members’ choices, I don’t recall much hatred. I certainly resented my Contracts prof’s decision to stay on campus but it never felt terribly personal. It was just the way he was going to be.

So I’m wondering if it’s the times that are different, or the place?

Continue reading →

Students are not the only ones with strike-related anxieties. Anyone who is a “supervisor” — a term that can reach quite low down the food chain — is considered management and could in theory be disciplined for wearing a pro-union button.

UM issued a statement this morning reaffirming the principle of free speech on campus. I would guess that the statement is in response to the recent incident involving intimidation by the campus police. I think it also in effect promises ‘supervisors’ protection for button wearing and other expressions of personal opinion:

Statement to the University of Miami Community Reaffirming Freedom of Expression

Last week the University of Miami issued a statement reaffirming the rights of the University community to express opinions regarding the UNICCO employees who are involved in organizing activities with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This includes exercising the right to free speech, engaging in peaceful demonstrations that conform with established University policies, and other expressions regarding the UNICCO employees (buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.).

The University maintains that commitment and reminds all administrators to honor and respect this activity insofar as it does not disrupt the workplace or the provision of services to our various constituents. As members of an academic community, our faculty, staff, and students have an obligation to continue to teach, to do research, and to see patients-fundamental missions of the University. Therefore, any exercise of freedom of expression should be consistent with the rights of other members of the community who wish to attend classes, conduct research, practice medicine, receive health care, or visit our campuses.

The law faculty had a meeting yesterday, and there was general agreement about many things most of which I’ll leave to the Dean to discuss. But three items are worth noting now: I think that there was consensus on the need for each of us to reassure students that they will not be penalized for physical absence from lectures (a latitude which will not, however, apply to exams…sorry guys) whether on or off campus and to provide meaningful alternatives, be they tape, video, handouts, or alternate meetings, which will meet students’ educational needs and expectations.

There was also widespread agreement among the faculty that this is a major teaching moment: many of our students have never seen a strike up close, or a picket line, and with unions down to circa 10% of the US work force, this is a chance to learn about labor relations, worker economics, and many other things it will be valuable to know.

Another item of consensus was that the law school hasn’t done a great job of communicating what the faculty are doing with their classes — in part because they’ve been too busy doing it to tell the registrar’s office. Or indeed communicating our thinking, or much of anything.

So, law student readers, expect a barrage of communication efforts in the days to come. And indeed, it begins:

U.M. Law Town Hall Meeting. The meeting will take place today, Tuesday, from 4:30 – 6:30 in Room 352. Dean Lynch will moderate the discussion. All students and faculty are encouraged to attend. The meeting will be an opportunity for students to voice their concerns about the strike and its ramifications on the law school community. Unfortunately, the meeting time conflicts with some classes. Given the pressing nature of the concerns and the importance of meeting before spring break, this was the best time we could find. We will tape the discussion and make it available on the web for those who are do not attend. Conflicting classes will meet at their usual time unless your instructor decides otherwise. Any issues related to class conflicts should be directed to your instructor.

Student Organized Panel on the Strike. Also today is a panel discussion of substantive issues regarding the strike. This panel, organized by students, consists of a UNICCO spokesperson, SEIU (union) representative, a UNICCO worker, and Professor Michael Fischl. The meeting will take place in the student lounge from 12:30 – 2:00 and pizza will be served.

Having been away when the strike hit, I am perhaps unduly perplexed as to some aspects of it.

Here’s a quick summary of what I (think I) understand, and what I’m fairly sure I don’t know about the economic issues.

I think that there are about 450 mostly janitorial employees in the would-be bargaining unit. This includes both the Coral Gables campus and the Medical School (and perhaps the Rosenstiel campus too?). The workers’ current grievance is with UNICCO, which contracts with UM. The UM contract is only one of many held by UNICCO.

Most people I’ve talked to believe Donna Shalala could end all this with a phone call and money. Whether that’s true or not, UM’s leverage is both economic and moral, and especially the moral aspect is a reason why one might reasonably expect Donna Shalala to take a leadership role.

One thing that seems generally agreed is that whether or not there are any current constraints on the extent to which the University can insert itself into what is in form a dispute between its contractor and the contractor’s employees, this contract ends soon, and there are fewer limits on UM’s ability to announce what terms it will wish to put into the next contract, be it with UNICCO or a competitor. If UM were to announce that the next contract will require a minimum wage of $N per hour, or a specific level of health benefits, that would be legal, subject only to questions of timing (I’m told that were the announcement too close to a unionization vote it might be seen as an unfair labor practice); the downside from UM’s point of view is that it would undercut UNICCO, which the University seems strangely loath to do, and would ultimately cost money. How much money is itself an interesting question (see below).

Continue reading →