The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: SIU leaders face a serious choice (on furlough decision)
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Jerry P. Becker

Posts: 16,576
Registered: 12/3/04
SIU leaders face a serious choice (on furlough decision)
Posted: Aug 15, 2014 5:49 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (7.4 K)

From the Carbondale Times, August 13 - August 19, 2014, pp. 4, 6.

Letter: SIU leaders face a serious choice

This summer's ruling ordering the return of furlough pay is one the
new SIU administration would be wise not to ignore

By Randall Auxier

Editor's note: Last week, three unions representing employees at
SIU announced an administrative law judge's ruling concluding that
because of unfair bargaining strategies, the SIU administration
wrongly imposed four unpaid furlough days on workers in 2011 and now
must repay them.

First, I want to make it clear that I was among those who sat across
the table from the administration bargaining team in 2010-2011. They
like to call themselves "the University" while we, the peons in the
FA, NTTFA, and ACeS, are expected to go by less exalted titles. I
refuse to play that game. They are not "the University." They weren't
even fit to speak for it. I sat across from people far less committed
to or knowledgeable about SIUC than were the people on the IEA side
of the table. The fact that most members of their "team" have moved
on to other places, and came from other places, using SIUC as a
stepping stone, should be a clear enough indication of their level of
commitment to us.

On the FA side of the table, I think the average length of service to
SIUC exceeded 20 years, and all members were career-SIUC faculty. I
sat there, for two years, volunteering my time and energy, being
actively disrespected and repeatedly lied to by these cynical people
who dared to call themselves "the University." It is not easy to
explain to people who have never endured this kind of disrespect what
it is like to do so, day in and day out, for years. I was a veteran
of the 2006 bargaining effort, and as difficult as that was, I never
felt disrespected.

The process from 2010 to late 2011 was toxic from the beginning. It
was very clear to those of us who haplessly volunteered to endure it
that this was headed nowhere good. The administration hired a brash
and conceited young lawyer from Oklahoma named D. Shane Jones whose
specialty is breaking unions. God only knows how much they paid him,
but they didn't really get a good deal even if he had worked for
free. They stupidly followed his foolish strategy straight into a
strike that they lost and that has permanently scarred the campus.
Jones was also the one ultimately responsible for the loss of the
recent IELRB ruling. He is a foolish man who, I would opine, believes
he is far smarter than anyone he happens to be talking to, but he
wasn't smart enough to check to see what the BOT team, itself, had
placed into evidence in the recent case. Their packet included their
own private notes from internal team meetings.

These notes demonstrated they were bargaining in bad faith - which is
difficult to prove under normal circumstances. They convicted
themselves with evidence they submitted from the depths of their
almost perfect incompetence.

We all certainly knew they were bargaining in bad faith; it was
obvious. But the public isn't there, and we had decided together not
to wreck the bargaining process by making accusations publicly about
what they were doing. They, on the other hand, were more than willing
to tell the press that we were the ones blocking progress. It was
never even close to being true. The IELRB decision provides a summary
of the facts. So we spent weeks, months, finally over a year enduring
their pretense of bargaining when it was obvious to us that all they
wanted was the minimum requirements for declaring impasse, so that
they could impose terms, reduce our wages and salaries, and, with
luck, they hoped, leave us in disarray, divided, weak and submissive.
They probably could have succeeded in doing all this, if they had
been smart enough. But in fact, they made six or eight crucial errors
and lost. Most of them got out with their shirts and their suitcases,
anyway. A few fell in ignominy. Now the court has upheld what we knew
all along: that we were subjected to terrible behavior by dishonest,
extremely foolish and cynical people. I'm glad they are gone, and so
is anyone else who has even a modicum of moral decency.

I think the new administration has not had an encouraging response to
the IELRB decision. They say they "respectfully disagree." It is not
possible to disagree respectfully with the court's decision - the
case is beyond doubting. But I'm sure the new administration is
unhappy with having to find the money, and perhaps they will even
drag this out further, if it gets them time before having to pay.
That is not a good sign for future relations. Anything I can do to
make our new leaders aware that it will be better to pay than to try
to fight this further is worth doing. But they need to do more than
simply pay. They need to apologize for the misdeeds of the previous
administration, and they should do so with contrition. They must
understand that not our credibility, the long suffering employees of
SIUC, but theirs is in doubt. Bold action to say to us "this will not
happen again" is what is needed.

The disrespect for the employees of SIUC is beyond believing, but
they have been equally disrespectful of the law itself, in all of its
vital functions, and they have done all of this in full knowledge it
was wrong. That adds up to malice. Restitution, therefore, is not the
full solution. How much does the public have to hear before it
accepts the malicious incompetence of these people? The admission of
wrongdoing, the admission of poor judgment, the statement of an
intent not to allow it to recur, and an unusually transparent
approach in the near future, in which not only employees but the
public is allowed full access to the processes, records and books of
the administration is needed.

The new administration needs to understand that they are the ones
whose credibility is in doubt. If they want to destroy us further,
then questioning the IELRB decision further is a good way to start.
But I stand ready to help the university take a new direction. Still,
I am also ready to scrutinize every decision, every press release and
everything I can get by FOIA to expose further lies and misdeeds. I
do hate being lied to and lied about. That is what has been done to
those of us who had to negotiate with these cynical, ambitious,
immoral people. We have serious problems at SIUC overhanging from the
previous administration. Will they be addressed? We should wait to
see, but we should not wait long.
Randall Auxier is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at SIU.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.