For Ohio State: The Buckeyes' 10 on-field assistants will make a combined $8.78 million in 2022, an increase of over $1.13 million since last season when their base salaries totaled $7.65 million. Their collective salaries had never previously surpassed $8 million.
I am so glad they finally broke that $8 million barrier!
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
It's a kind of sickness.
The well people learn to just work around it.
Or else we leave....
M.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2022, 09:03:19 PM
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
OSU athletics had revenue of in $205.5 million in 2018 and $210.5 million in 2019. (//http://)
The athletic budget is kept separate from the other university budgets. I don't know if OSU's football program pays for all its other athletic programs; once upon a time, only LSU and Virginia Tech had athletic departments which operated in the black. For everyone else, the huge football programs simply offset the cost of other athletics. It could be that OSU, Alabama, Georgia are generating enough revenue now. That doesn't speak to the coaches' salaries, I realize. But in the media circus that is college football -- where there is lots of money up for grabs -- sometimes you gotta spend a lot to make a whole lot more.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2022, 09:03:19 PM
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-ten-completes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
At least OSU football is seeing a return in their investment. At my D1 school, the current football staff is 3-20 over the past 2 years.
It should be clear that
QuoteVery few Division I athletic departments are self-funded; instead, most programs rely on athletic subsidies from institutions and students. However, the largest per-athlete subsidies are in those
subdivisions with the lowest spending per athlete. Without access to other large revenue streams, these programs have increasingly turned to their institutions to finance additional athletic spending.
From here https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Academic-Spending-vs-Athletic-Spending.pdf (https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Academic-Spending-vs-Athletic-Spending.pdf)
Thus, all part of the increasing cost of higher education!
What's going on with this bundling strategy is that some customers [students] are willing to pay tuition for the stuff in classes but not for the stuff on the football field, and
vice versa for other customers. This strategy gets more students and more revenue for the colleges, muchly spent on sports, of course. But the additional athletic spending will attract a particular
type of student.
I wouldn't disallow it, but why the government should have anything to do with subsidizing this in any way is beyond me.
Quote from: Mobius on September 04, 2022, 06:42:17 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2022, 09:03:19 PM
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-ten-completes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
It is very simple. College football generates a massive revenue thus universities take a small portion of this massive revenue (which is still massive on its own) back. A better question to ask is what revenue does faculty research generate for universities? If faculty research could generate as much revenue as college football, then we could make an argument that faculty should be paid the same as head coaches.
It is the same line of argument regarding the salaries of NBA vs WNBA players. We can argue whether from a societal point of view this is misogyny, nevertheless, that's what viewers like to watch and spend their money on.
Quote from: research_prof on September 04, 2022, 09:59:10 AM
Quote from: Mobius on September 04, 2022, 06:42:17 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2022, 09:03:19 PM
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34417911/big-ten-completes-7-year-7-billion-media-rights-agreement-fox-cbs-nbc
It is very simple. College football generates a massive revenue thus universities take a small portion of this massive revenue (which is still massive on its own) back. A better question to ask is what revenue does faculty research generate for universities? If faculty research could generate as much revenue as college football, then we could make an argument that faculty should be paid the same as head coaches.
It is the same line of argument regarding the salaries of NBA vs WNBA players. We can argue whether from a societal point of view this is misogyny, nevertheless, that's what viewers like to watch and spend their money on.
College football generates a massive amount of revenue for a relative few. I don't begrudge the universities that make it, just fault the much larger number who take from academics and student services to fund programs at too high a competition level.
Here is an article which details which coaches in Ohio were well paid a few years ago. Note that it is NOT an exhaustive list: there were many more coaches who made as much or more. Coaches of even minor sports at OSU benefit (I'll admit I was really only shocked at the Women's rowing coach): https://www.cleveland.com/sports/erry-2018/05/571c0d0f7b6137/49_ohio_college_head_coaches_p.html
Quote from: research_prof on September 04, 2022, 09:59:10 AM
A better question to ask is what revenue does faculty research generate for universities? If faculty research could generate as much revenue as college football, then we could make an argument that faculty should be paid the same as head coaches.
Researchers at my school generate a lot more revenue, even IDC recovery, than the football program. Nobody is making OSU-level athletic-staff money.
I was really interested in the Youngstown State salaries. Recall that they have cut academic programs and positions while running a roughly $4 million athletics deficit each year.
That's the trouble with the sickness.
It spreads to those who have fewer resources to allow for the time it takes to heal (a few generations, in the state of Ohio, overall, I'd say) and weakens their systems overall.
Every school in Ohio has to take OSU into account in some form or other; some do well at ignoring it, but others are trapped by demographics, the stars-in-their-eyes high school athletes who won't make it onto a "good team" but haven't yet learned the pivot run (to another game), etc.
It was bad when I lived there, but it's so much worse now.
The last time I was on the campus, while I was grateful for the libraries I was working in, and the chance to check in with a few longstanding acquaintances, other parts of it--like the Brutus Buckeye idolatry and fans dancing drunk all over the place--were sickening.
M.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 03, 2022, 09:03:19 PM
How do the, ahem, people out there justify, even attempt to start justifying, this sort of football pay?
People love college football.
I don't think D1 sports ever have to justify themselves.
Coaches salaries are hardly a secret, and the only people I ever complaining about them are the academics, at least that I've ever heard. Coaches are heroes in their communities and on their campuses. They are much more feted and honored than even faculty Nobel Prize winners. Heck, even some professors defend the pageantry and heroism of D1 sports. I certainly enjoy them, although my favorite college sport, wrestling, only gets attention when a pro-wrasstler or an MMA fighter was a college wrestler.
Face it, folks, for many but not all people, the football and basketball programs are the best part of college.
How many of these why the heck is this kid in college students, or their parents, even know how little most of the kids' teachers are being paid there, whilst coaches in an *extracurricular* activity, get easy street compensation, for doing something that adds nothing to education, and in most unis' cases, outliers like OSU notwithstanding, do not even make their athletic depts operate in the black?
And why is it that really no other country operates 'intercollegiate athletics'?
Most countries don't offer much in the way of student services or one organization serves students at many universities. Universities might not even have housing under their control. Food service is simple. Retention? Nope. Mental health services might be provided by the government, but quality will vary.
It's really like college life here in the 1950s.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 04, 2022, 09:35:54 PM
How many of these why the heck is this kid in college students, or their parents, even know how little most of the kids' teachers are being paid there, whilst coaches in an *extracurricular* activity, get easy street compensation, for doing something that adds nothing to education, and in most unis' cases, outliers like OSU notwithstanding, do not even make their athletic depts operate in the black?
And why is it that really no other country operates 'intercollegiate athletics'?
I don't disagree with you. I am just calling it the way I see it. As the kids say, "It is what it is."
I do think people care when they hear about adjunct teachers and the salaries of professors, but they do not care enough. And enough people looooooooove their college sports teams that there is nothing to be done about it, at least not now.
The places that have to answer are schools like ours here in our suburban ghetto. The teams lose. The students don't go to the games. We've had several embarrassing controversies involving coaches. Our students each pay around $500 a semester to subsidize our teams. During layoffs, program closures, and enrollment drops, the campus built a new indoor tennis court so the team could practice during the winter months. We get students who would not be handed D1 scholarships, so the argument is, I believe, that they are paying tuition and boosting enrollment----which I could see, but the admin is tight lipped about the overall numbers and how much these sports actually balance the books.
We will just have to live with the system a little while longer, I think. Shrug, wash your hands of it, and hit the books would be my advice.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 04, 2022, 08:43:02 PM
Face it, folks, for many but not all people, the football and basketball programs are the best part of college.
<interthreaduality>
Perhaps this is part of why there is so much questioning of the value of higher education in the US. For people who
don't think that athletics are "the best part of college", it raises the very real question of "why bother" if that's not important to you?
(In other words, it's not just a matter of establishing the value of courses students have to take, but it's about establishing the value of the whole experience if what constitutes a major part of it to many people has no value
whatsoever to a prospective student.)
Just for balance, while I hated, and still do hate (we may only hate evil) the pernicious lie at the heart of football's glorification of violence as a strategy for moving forward, I did also get a very good education at OSU--perhaps because all of us with an actual interest in the life of the mind had learned to tune out the distractions so well.
I think that could have happened without all the idiocy going on--which skews but need not defensibly supply funding--but it's an experiment one can't run, since you can only live one life at a time.
M.
Quote from: Hibush on September 04, 2022, 05:16:05 PM
Quote from: research_prof on September 04, 2022, 09:59:10 AM
A better question to ask is what revenue does faculty research generate for universities? If faculty research could generate as much revenue as college football, then we could make an argument that faculty should be paid the same as head coaches.
Researchers at my school generate a lot more revenue, even IDC recovery, than the football program. Nobody is making OSU-level athletic-staff money.
Then such faculty should go and "fight" with their department heads and deans to get generous salary increases and overloads. I did that where I am and I got a bit more money as overload (still not much). I tried to explain that this is not enough, they did not listen to me. That's (among other things) why I am moving to a much more prestigious university where they give me even more than this extra money as my regular 9-month salary. Faculty need to be vocal and "fight" with admins to get what is theirs. We cannot be sitting in our offices writing papers and grants and expect that the university will give us a raise because they are good people. Faculty have the option to move to different universities or do consulting for more money. At the end of the day, as I have said multiple times already, academia is a job like every other job and what we get paid is super important.
Well, you certainly have to bring up the issue. It doesn't need to be adversarial.
That's also what unions are for, so that the fight isn't conducted piecemeal by those who can exert personal leverage and leave everyone else hanging.
At my relatively small D1 uni we lose millions of dollars on football every year. Very few students or alumni attend the games - there is a much better, larger team nearby. A recent study found that students and alumni don't care that we have football and it is not a draw in terms of recruitment - approximately 10% of students listed sports as one factor among many that they considered when choosing our school. We have multiple years of data demonstrating that D1 football does us absolutely no good financially or in terms of reputation and recruiting. We have football because a few of the trustees want football. That is all. It is maddening.
Quote from: artalot on September 08, 2022, 09:14:27 AM
At my relatively small D1 uni we lose millions of dollars on football every year. Very few students or alumni attend the games - there is a much better, larger team nearby. A recent study found that students and alumni don't care that we have football and it is not a draw in terms of recruitment - approximately 10% of students listed sports as one factor among many that they considered when choosing our school. We have multiple years of data demonstrating that D1 football does us absolutely no good financially or in terms of reputation and recruiting. We have football because a few of the trustees want football. That is all. It is maddening.
Out of curiosity, Artalot, do you know if those trustees donate a lot of money to the school? In other words, are they paying for their entertainment or are they free riders?
I was at BU when they dropped football.
No one really seemed to care all that much.
The LA Times has an opinion (https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2022-09-08/ucla-football-attendance-woes-hit-new-low-chip-kelly) about the cost-benefit calculation for one of their local teams.
QuoteAttendance, the scarlet "A" of the UCLA football program under coach Chip Kelly, continued a historic plunge Saturday during the Bruins' season opener.
Chip Kelley, with an annual salary of $4.3 million, is the highest paid employee in the entire UC system.
The expectations were also outlined by on fan (an alum):
QuoteSam Andress, a longtime UCLA fan who attended his first game at the Rose Bowl as a 3-year-old in 1984, cited Kelly's lack of engagement with donors among the factors that made him give up his season tickets after Kelly's first season.
"Chip doesn't seem like he cares about fans and donors and alumni," Andress said before referencing a famously gruff coach who has won six national championships at Alabama. "So to me, it's like if you're not going to win at a Nick Saban level, then you don't get to not be interested in fans and donors that are paying for your program."
That quote tells you something about the "fans" that matter.
The national significance is also there:
QuoteTo be fair, UCLA's falloff mirrors a nationwide decline in college football attendance. The average crowd among 130 Football Bowl Subdivision teams was 39,848 in 2021, the smallest since 1981.
QuoteOut of curiosity, Artalot, do you know if those trustees donate a lot of money to the school? In other words, are they paying for their entertainment or are they free riders?
There was apparently an understanding that these trustees and donors would cover the football shortfall. I remember that the idea of endowed scholarships for athletes was one of the proposals. If this didn't happen, my uni was supposed to revisit our D1 status. Let us simply say that my queries as to whether or not such donations have actually materialized have gone unanswered.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 08, 2022, 07:30:54 AM
That's also what unions are for, so that the fight isn't conducted piecemeal by those who can exert personal leverage and leave everyone else hanging.
Well.. guess what.. we are supposed to have a very strong union.. I asked them and they said what you want to be done cannot be done. All faculty need to be paid equally. In other words, unions are there to protect the bottom line (i.e., low performers) and try to equalize them with high performers.
Quote from: FishProf on September 08, 2022, 06:36:08 PM
I was at BU when they dropped football.
No one really seemed to care all that much.
FishProf, were you a student (undergrad or grad) or faculty member then?
Student - Grad.
Quote from: research_prof on September 09, 2022, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 08, 2022, 07:30:54 AM
That's also what unions are for, so that the fight isn't conducted piecemeal by those who can exert personal leverage and leave everyone else hanging.
Well.. guess what.. we are supposed to have a very strong union.. I asked them and they said what you want to be done cannot be done. All faculty need to be paid equally. In other words, unions are there to protect the bottom line (i.e., low performers) and try to equalize them with high performers.
A number of years ago I interviewed at an east coast community college. When I met the dean we conversed for a bit and then hu said, "Do you have any questions for me?"
Knowing that one is supposed to have intelligent, insightful questions for interviewers, I panicked and asked, "How do you like teaching at a unionized school?" (note that the dean did not teach)
The dean said essentially what research prof just posted, something along the lines of, "Well, I have high performers who I would pay much better if I could."
In retrospect, that was not a good question for a job candidate to ask. I came in 2nd in the search anyway.
I will say now, having worked for a union school, I much prefer the union.
Sorry for the digression. Back to the thread.
Quote from: FishProf on September 10, 2022, 06:08:22 AM
Student - Grad.
I was an undergrad. I went to go on to do fish research in grad school. Given your user name, our overlap and connection made me laugh.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: research_prof on September 09, 2022, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 08, 2022, 07:30:54 AM
That's also what unions are for, so that the fight isn't conducted piecemeal by those who can exert personal leverage and leave everyone else hanging.
Well.. guess what.. we are supposed to have a very strong union.. I asked them and they said what you want to be done cannot be done. All faculty need to be paid equally. In other words, unions are there to protect the bottom line (i.e., low performers) and try to equalize them with high performers.
A number of years ago I interviewed at an east coast community college. When I met the dean we conversed for a bit and then hu said, "Do you have any questions for me?"
Knowing that one is supposed to have intelligent, insightful questions for interviewers, I panicked and asked, "How do you like teaching at a unionized school?" (note that the dean did not teach)
The dean said essentially what research prof just posted, something along the lines of, "Well, I have high performers who I would pay much better if I could."
In retrospect, that was not a good question for a job candidate to ask. I came in 2nd in the search anyway.
I will say now, having worked for a union school, I much prefer the union.
Sorry for the digression. Back to the thread.
True, indeed. I know several low performers who have been helped immensely by the union. I also know that the university essentially cannot fire low performers because of the union (even for fixed-term positions). That's the reason that every single tenure-track faculty member at my current university gets tenure, but also the reason that the salary stretch between assistant and full professors is so narrow. Being a high performer and aiming to be a high performer throughout my career, I do not think the union will help me in any way. On the contrary, they will try to bring me down to the level of low performers, so that we are all the same and the union is happy. Btw, I stopped paying my union dues as soon as they told me that they want to equalize me with low performers.
Quote from: research_prof on September 10, 2022, 10:54:31 AM
I know several low performers who have been helped immensely by the union. I also know that the university essentially cannot fire low performers because of the union (even for fixed-term positions). That's the reason that every single tenure-track faculty member at my current university gets tenure, but also the reason that the salary stretch between assistant and full professors is so narrow. Being a high performer and aiming to be a high performer throughout my career, I do not think the union will help me in any way. On the contrary, they will try to bring me down to the level of low performers, so that we are all the same and the union is happy. Btw, I stopped paying my union dues as soon as they told me that they want to equalize me with low performers.
This, in a nutshell, is why I'm not a fan of being represented by unions. The tyranny of mediocrity is inevitable because the bulk of people in the center will always be catered to, often at the expense of the most productive.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: research_prof on September 10, 2022, 10:54:31 AM
I know several low performers who have been helped immensely by the union. I also know that the university essentially cannot fire low performers because of the union (even for fixed-term positions). That's the reason that every single tenure-track faculty member at my current university gets tenure, but also the reason that the salary stretch between assistant and full professors is so narrow. Being a high performer and aiming to be a high performer throughout my career, I do not think the union will help me in any way. On the contrary, they will try to bring me down to the level of low performers, so that we are all the same and the union is happy. Btw, I stopped paying my union dues as soon as they told me that they want to equalize me with low performers.
This, in a nutshell, is why I'm not a fan of being represented by unions. The tyranny of mediocrity is inevitable because the bulk of people in the center will always be catered to, often at the expense of the most productive.
It's worse than that, marsh. In a competitive election by two unions on one issue [here wages], the median indeed carries the day. Once ensconced, a union needs a majority vote to pursue a policy and keep out competing unions. Where that majority comes from along the spectrum of ability is immaterial to the union. But not to the union members, actual or potential. The bottom of the skill distribution has most to gain from a union. Hence, that's the policy a union will follow -- do best for the bottom half. Keep the top half out.
P.S.: Some years ago a U where I was adjuncting to make some extra cash was subject to a unionization drive. [I, too, was approached, but declined to participate.] The drive succeeded, just. The wage eventually negotiated was below what I had been paid!
Just remember, folks, that intelligent, experienced people are capable of seeing multiple angles on any complicated subject and avoid reductive hyperbole. Leave the simple, one-sided cognition to the doodoos and the nutjobs.
Quote from: dismalist on September 10, 2022, 01:26:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: research_prof on September 10, 2022, 10:54:31 AM
I know several low performers who have been helped immensely by the union. I also know that the university essentially cannot fire low performers because of the union (even for fixed-term positions). That's the reason that every single tenure-track faculty member at my current university gets tenure, but also the reason that the salary stretch between assistant and full professors is so narrow. Being a high performer and aiming to be a high performer throughout my career, I do not think the union will help me in any way. On the contrary, they will try to bring me down to the level of low performers, so that we are all the same and the union is happy. Btw, I stopped paying my union dues as soon as they told me that they want to equalize me with low performers.
This, in a nutshell, is why I'm not a fan of being represented by unions. The tyranny of mediocrity is inevitable because the bulk of people in the center will always be catered to, often at the expense of the most productive.
It's worse than that, marsh. In a competitive election by two unions on one issue [here wages], the median indeed carries the day. Once ensconced, a union needs a majority vote to pursue a policy and keep out competing unions. Where that majority comes from along the spectrum of ability is immaterial to the union. But not to the union members, actual or potential. The bottom of the skill distribution has most to gain from a union. Hence, that's the policy a union will follow -- do best for the bottom half. Keep the top half out.
P.S.: Some years ago a U where I was adjuncting to make some extra cash was subject to a unionization drive. [I, too, was approached, but declined to participate.] The drive succeeded, just. The wage eventually negotiated was below what I had been paid!
Another example: salary increases at our unionized university this year: < 1%
Salary increases at a non-unionized university in our state this year: 5%
Annual inflation: 9-10%.
The union negotiations just shrank my actual annual salary by 8-9% this year only. Should I be happy about that?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 02:05:46 PM
Just remember, folks, that intelligent, experienced people are capable of seeing multiple angles on any complicated subject and avoid reductive hyperbole. Leave the simple, one-sided cognition to the do-dos and the nutjobs.
In an academic forum like this one, where a majority lean left, being pro-union is probably the dominant view. (
Especially for faculty unions.) When people express unequivocal pro-union views does that brand
them do-dos and nutjobs?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 02:05:46 PM
Just remember, folks, that intelligent, experienced people are capable of seeing multiple angles on any complicated subject and avoid reductive hyperbole. Leave the simple, one-sided cognition to the do-dos and the nutjobs.
In an academic forum like this one, where a majority lean left, being pro-union is probably the dominant view. (Especially for faculty unions.) When people express unequivocal pro-union views does that brand them do-dos and nutjobs?
I personally do not care about political views--each of us is welcome to lean left, right, or be a centrist. I care about entities though that try to shrink and limit my (hard-earned) compensation despite the fact that I work all day every day. Happy that I will not have to deal with all this union BS soon...
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 02:05:46 PM
Just remember, folks, that intelligent, experienced people are capable of seeing multiple angles on any complicated subject and avoid reductive hyperbole. Leave the simple, one-sided cognition to the do-dos and the nutjobs.
In an academic forum like this one, where a majority lean left, being pro-union is probably the dominant view. (Especially for faculty unions.) When people express unequivocal pro-union views does that brand them do-dos and nutjobs?
As long as the pro-union people acknowledge the problems with unions, no, they are not doodoos and nutjobs.
I am pro-union, having once in my life been staunchly anti-union, and I am the person who posted about the east coast dean who could not pay his best people the wages they deserve because of their union.
Think before you post, Marshy!!!!! Think, my brother! Think!
What faculty and staff need are representatives that have power. That could be in unions, but doesn't have to be.
The worst of all worlds is no union, but also no other power, and then sure, one hard worker might get lots of money from a Dean, but then who
knows whether he or anybody else did so at the expense of other hard workers (and successful ones) who he didn't like?
"Every person for his/her/themselves " is not a great way of running an institution that is essentially one large group
supposedly working toward a common goal.
Quote from: Ruralguy on September 10, 2022, 03:17:51 PM
What faculty and staff need are representatives that have power. That could be in unions, but doesn't have to be.
The worst of all worlds is no union, but also no other power, and then sure, one hard worker might get lots of money from a Dean, but then who
knows whether he or anybody else did so at the expense of other hard workers (and successful ones) who he didn't like?
"Every person for his/her/themselves " is not a great way of running an institution that is essentially one large group
supposedly working toward a common goal.
Part of the problem with unions, and specifically faculty unions, is that the well-being of the
institution (including the students) is not a priority. (This stands out given that they accuse the
administration of not acting in the best interest of the institution and the students.) "Every person for his/her/themselves " is not a great way of running an institution that is essentially one large group
including many more people than just members of the union supposedly working toward a common goal.
Supporting* people with lousy teaching undermines claims that the faculty are more concerned about students than administrators are.
*If/when support doesn't involve getting the people to do some sort of professional development regarding their teaching.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 02:53:00 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 02:37:42 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 02:05:46 PM
Just remember, folks, that intelligent, experienced people are capable of seeing multiple angles on any complicated subject and avoid reductive hyperbole. Leave the simple, one-sided cognition to the do-dos and the nutjobs.
In an academic forum like this one, where a majority lean left, being pro-union is probably the dominant view. (Especially for faculty unions.) When people express unequivocal pro-union views does that brand them do-dos and nutjobs?
As long as the pro-union people acknowledge the problems with unions, no, they are not doodoos and nutjobs.
I am pro-union, having once in my life been staunchly anti-union, and I am the person who posted about the east coast dean who could not pay his best people the wages they deserve because of their union.
Think before you post, Marshy!!!!! Think, my brother! Think!
So since I've said that I supported Solidarity in Poland during the Soviet era, and I think unions have value especially when representing unskilled, easily replaceable workers, does that make me enough "pro-union" to not be a do-do or nutjob?
OK, there are unions and there are unions. How they behave depends on the law, or the institutional framework they are confronted with. And this varies widely.
--There are the pre-Thatcher British trade unions, totally outside the law from 1911. They behaved to maximize the benefit of the median strongest! [That's my machine. Get off it. 'Ya wanna make something of it?]
--There's the US of A, Taft-Hartley, one union per establishment. Not great, but avoids the internecine warfare of the pre-Thatcher British trade unions. The law here allows a lot. In their heyday, US unions sold cartelization services to corporations, famously John L Lewis of the United Mine Workers. When the coal piles got too high, a strike was called, so that the competitive mining industry could collectively raise prices to support high wages. Not too different for the United Automobile Workers. This all ended through technical change or international trade or right-to-work States.
--There's Sweden, with four national unions, attached to political parties in pairs. You strike, you hurt yourself. So, these guys behave in a reasonable manner.
--Then there's Japan, with the Company Union, my favorite. The company union would never do anything to hurt the company, for the members depend on the company. Rather, the company union adjudicates conflict among workers, all of which are members, making people more productive, 'ya know, the young one's like to horse around, messing up everybody, and the old one's wanna take money home to feed the family. Personally, I'd rather have a company union do that than a contemporary HR department. :-)
See, who the "we" are, nice as "we" sounds, is different in each case.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 05:06:49 PM
Part of the problem with unions, and specifically faculty unions, is that the well-being of the institution (including the students) is not a priority.
Supporting* people with lousy teaching undermines claims that the faculty are more concerned about students than administrators are.
*If/when support doesn't involve getting the people to do some sort of professional development regarding their teaching.
Can you substantiate these in some way? Or are you spitballing?
Our union just saved our single most decorated and one of our most popular professors when our admin tried to cut him. We would have lost one of our best but for the union.
If the salaries were capped at a much lower rate then they would still have great teams with great coaches. I mean, where else are they going to work?
Maybe, but they'd likely leave much earlier. Once they get a bit of fame, they'd just cash in on that. Why stay if you are only getting peanuts. Granted, most places under this scheme wouldn't pay any more. but the point is they'd leave the system entirely much earlier.
What exactly does it mean for a professor to be/ become a 'high performer', and how can Professor X evaluate whether he himself is one?
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 09:51:03 PM
What exactly does it mean for a professor to be/ become a 'high performer', and how can Professor X evaluate whether he himself is one?
I guess the way we all know how well we and our colleagues do.
Student evals? Publications? Meaningful service (I finally talked my wife out of taking on so many committees----although the work load did a lot of the convincing by itself; people kept coming to her because they knew she would take on work and do a good job of it and I'd end up driving home by myself and then coming back later to get her)? Curriculum advancements? Whatever makes a good academic.
Certainly we know who the "dead wood" in our departments are? Even wished someone would just retire because it is obvious they will not be fired? Anybody know someone who should really not be in front of a classroom?
Conversely, anyone mention a colleague's name and have a student exclaim, "Oh, I love Dr. X!"
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 10, 2022, 09:51:03 PM
What exactly does it mean for a professor to be/ become a 'high performer', and how can Professor X evaluate whether he himself is one?
Most Departments and Schools have (or should have) criteria for annual evaluations and for tenure and promotion, that are posted and shared with all colleagues. That represents a basic yardstick against which to craft your narratives.
There are also some unspoken or unwritten criteria in addition to the written ones - e.g. some places don't write down a specific number of articles published per year or amount of external funding brought in (in relevant fields) that people should achieve, but there are informally known expectations that colleagues discuss, or Chairs mention in conversations, etc.
Then there are one-off occurrences like awards or prestigious invited speaking gigs or some unusual / extraordinary leadership activities, etc.
If a faculty member frequently exceeds such criteria each year, then they can make a compelling argument of why they are high(er) performers and deserve merit raises for example.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 10, 2022, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 10, 2022, 05:06:49 PM
Part of the problem with unions, and specifically faculty unions, is that the well-being of the institution (including the students) is not a priority.
Supporting* people with lousy teaching undermines claims that the faculty are more concerned about students than administrators are.
*If/when support doesn't involve getting the people to do some sort of professional development regarding their teaching.
Can you substantiate these in some way? Or are you spitballing?
Our union just saved our single most decorated and one of our most popular professors when our admin tried to cut him. We would have lost one of our best but for the union.
One incident which I have brought up before. A math prof from a prestigious university (https://bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/1999/nov/09tu.html) was charged with attempted murder for attacking his wife with a rock. He was convicted of assault. The faculty union fought to let him retire rather than be fired.
That kind of stuff is all too common with unions.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 06:50:21 AM
One incident which I have brought up before. A math prof from a prestigious university (https://bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/1999/nov/09tu.html) was charged with attempted murder for attacking his wife with a rock. He was convicted of assault. The faculty union fought to let him retire rather than be fired.
That kind of stuff is all too common with unions.
Is this the kind of stuff that is common with unions? Hmmmmmm...don't think so, Marshy. This is moderately sensational. Methinks you are reaching pretty far here to prove a point you probably can't make. I assume you are not blowing smoke since this is U of Waterloo, but I see nothing about a "union" and "Platonov." He took an "early retirement," which sounds legitimate to me considering that his crime was plead to "assault" and did not occur on campus.
At some point, when I don't feel like actually working, I'll tell some union stories, good and bad, but for now I will leave you with a thought: unions support faculty; unions support staff; the primary purpose of the university is fulfilled firstly by faculty, secondly by staff; ergo, the union supports the workers who support the primary purpose of the university. What is your problem with that?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 11, 2022, 08:22:39 AM
At some point, when I don't feel like actually working, I'll tell some union stories, good and bad, but for now I will leave you with a thought: unions support faculty; unions support staff; the primary purpose of the university is fulfilled firstly by faculty, secondly by staff; ergo, the union supports the workers who support the primary purpose of the university. What is your problem with that?
A personal story; one I could have benefited from:
in a previous job, I was hired for a one tear maternity replacement. At the same time, another person was hired for a part-time ongoing position in the same department. (We actually wound up sharing an office and becoming friends.) At the end of the year, when my position was done, a union rep came to tell me that the union would support me in taking my colleague's job, since I had more seniority since I was full-time and she was part-time.
This made me feel soiled.
Things that did not matter:
- I did not initiate the conversation.
- I was hired for one year and I knew it at the time. (And a maternity replacement is not normally going to last longer.)
- Neither my or my colleague's teaching ability was considered.
- The fact that my colleague had experience teaching her courses and I did not didn't matter.
All that mattered was STUPID SENIORITY. PERIOD.
The good of the students and the good of the organization did not matter one iota. JUST SENIORITY.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 02:42:09 PM
A personal story; one I could have benefited from:
in a previous job, I was hired for a one tear maternity replacement. At the same time, another person was hired for a part-time ongoing position in the same department. (We actually wound up sharing an office and becoming friends.) At the end of the year, when my position was done, a union rep came to tell me that the union would support me in taking my colleague's job, since I had more seniority since I was full-time and she was part-time.
This made me feel soiled.
Things that did not matter:
- I did not initiate the conversation.
- I was hired for one year and I knew it at the time. (And a maternity replacement is not normally going to last longer.)
- Neither my or my colleague's teaching ability was considered.
- The fact that my colleague had experience teaching her courses and I did not didn't matter.
All that mattered was STUPID SENIORITY. PERIOD.
The good of the students and the good of the organization did not matter one iota. JUST SENIORITY.
Seniority, why seniority? Because it implies that those voting for the union in the first place will never have to compete for their jobs with the 'yunguns on criteria like productivity. The originals win higher wages [if the union doesn't kill the firm]; the newcomers compete elsewhere and have lower wages than otherwise.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 11, 2022, 08:22:39 AM
At some point, when I don't feel like actually working, I'll tell some union stories, good and bad, but for now I will leave you with a thought: unions support faculty; unions support staff; the primary purpose of the university is fulfilled firstly by faculty, secondly by staff; ergo, the union supports the workers who support the primary purpose of the university. What is your problem with that?
A personal story; one I could have benefited from:
in a previous job, I was hired for a one tear maternity replacement. At the same time, another person was hired for a part-time ongoing position in the same department. (We actually wound up sharing an office and becoming friends.) At the end of the year, when my position was done, a union rep came to tell me that the union would support me in taking my colleague's job, since I had more seniority since I was full-time and she was part-time.
This made me feel soiled.
Things that did not matter:
- I did not initiate the conversation.
- I was hired for one year and I knew it at the time. (And a maternity replacement is not normally going to last longer.)
- Neither my or my colleague's teaching ability was considered.
- The fact that my colleague had experience teaching her courses and I did not didn't matter.
All that mattered was STUPID SENIORITY. PERIOD.
The good of the students and the good of the organization did not matter one iota. JUST SENIORITY.
Being as how unions are human entities, they are imperfect.
Tell me, Marshy, has anyone ever benefitted from a union?
Hmmmm... all the comments about judging 'high performer' status, or at least almost all, seem to have nothing to do with, ahem, actual teaching. Hint, student evals are nigh onto worthless, and certainly can be gamed by a prof, and that some kid waxes eloquent about 'loving Dr. X', well... (more or less same problem is possible, even likely).
Just curious: has anyone here besides me ever been in a non-academic or teaching union? I was in two in factories. They both worked to ensure safer working conditions, and only one seemed to be really concerned about seniority at all. Neither got particularly great wages compared to all the UAW shops in the area.
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 11, 2022, 08:27:40 PM
Hmmmm... all the comments about judging 'high performer' status, or at least almost all, seem to have nothing to do with, ahem, actual teaching. Hint, student evals are nigh onto worthless, and certainly can be gamed by a prof, and that some kid waxes eloquent about 'loving Dr. X', well... (more or less same problem is possible, even likely).
What can I say, kay. There is some stock to student evals----we like to pretend there is not, but there is (problems noted---I can't imagine there is any need to enumerate them with the folks here who already know). And sure, kid who loves "Dr. X" probably has a reason.
Are you telling me that you have absolutely no idea who your best and worst faculty are? Are you suggesting that there is no way to evaluate professors and instructors? Is it possible that chairs and admin are so out-of-touch that they have no idea whatsoever about how their people are performing?
And just so you know, I am not sure EXACTLY what the dean from my anecdote said; this was a long time ago. I used "high performers" simply because that is the gist of hu's comment to me. What hu specifically said is buried in time. And anyway, hu said it, not me. Your argument really is with hu.
Again, intelligent people do not look at complex issues from a single viewpoint.
Take Marshy's little bark about "seniority."
Seniority simply for the sake of seniority = bad.
Seniority to keep admin from removing the most qualified, most experienced people to hire on inexperienced, lower-paid newbies = good.
Seniority to protect people who have dedicated their working lives to an institution and deserve respect and security because of what they have accomplished (no matter how expensive they may be) = good.
Denying the hardest working, most accomplished people a bigger slice of the pie to protect the middle-of-the-pack = bad.
Denying admin the ability to raise toadies, yes-people, and sycophants up the ladder ahead those who do honest work for the good of all = good.
Protecting workers from the caprices of incompetent and egotistical admin = good.
Denying ambitious and insightful admin the ability to better their institution, or denying admin the ability to make difficult decisions in times of financial stress = good and bad, depending.
What if the unions had the power to limit coaches salaries for the benefit of the university?
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 11, 2022, 08:31:18 PM
Just curious: has anyone here besides me ever been in a non-academic or teaching union? I was in two in factories. They both worked to ensure safer working conditions, and only one seemed to be really concerned about seniority at all. Neither got particularly great wages compared to all the UAW shops in the area.
YES! I have worked in a union store. And I got a great view of both good and bad union policies. My experience both fortified my ideas about union failures and changed my mind about the role of unions overall. I can post about it later, it is too late in the day now.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 11, 2022, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 11, 2022, 02:42:09 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 11, 2022, 08:22:39 AM
At some point, when I don't feel like actually working, I'll tell some union stories, good and bad, but for now I will leave you with a thought: unions support faculty; unions support staff; the primary purpose of the university is fulfilled firstly by faculty, secondly by staff; ergo, the union supports the workers who support the primary purpose of the university. What is your problem with that?
A personal story; one I could have benefited from:
in a previous job, I was hired for a one tear maternity replacement. At the same time, another person was hired for a part-time ongoing position in the same department. (We actually wound up sharing an office and becoming friends.) At the end of the year, when my position was done, a union rep came to tell me that the union would support me in taking my colleague's job, since I had more seniority since I was full-time and she was part-time.
This made me feel soiled.
Things that did not matter:
- I did not initiate the conversation.
- I was hired for one year and I knew it at the time. (And a maternity replacement is not normally going to last longer.)
- Neither my or my colleague's teaching ability was considered.
- The fact that my colleague had experience teaching her courses and I did not didn't matter.
All that mattered was STUPID SENIORITY. PERIOD.
The good of the students and the good of the organization did not matter one iota. JUST SENIORITY.
Being as how unions are human entities, they are imperfect.
Tell me, Marshy, has anyone ever benefitted from a union?
As I said, Solidarity was a great benefit to society. German unions, (and apparently Japanese unions, as dismalist noted), are very good for everyone, since they actually see everyone (labour AND management) as needing to work together for the good of the organization. The adversarial stance in North America, which views labour negotiations as a zero-sum game, often winds up with situations of people cutting off their noises to spite their faces. (Consider stories of how unions have gone on strike until they bankrupted the company and wound up unemployed, for instance. It's hilarious in those cases to see the shock of members who actually thought that everything the company said about finances actually turned out to be correct.)
I don't expect unions to be
perfect, but I expect them to be
honest. For faculty unions, if they really had the best interests of
students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 11, 2022, 08:44:50 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on September 11, 2022, 08:27:40 PM
Hmmmm... all the comments about judging 'high performer' status, or at least almost all, seem to have nothing to do with, ahem, actual teaching. Hint, student evals are nigh onto worthless, and certainly can be gamed by a prof, and that some kid waxes eloquent about 'loving Dr. X', well... (more or less same problem is possible, even likely).
What can I say, kay. There is some stock to student evals----we like to pretend there is not, but there is (problems noted---I can't imagine there is any need to enumerate them with the folks here who already know). And sure, kid who loves "Dr. X" probably has a reason.
On that note, has anyone ever heard of a prof recognized as stellar by colleagues who all of the students
hated? I submit that every prof that I've known who was recognized as outstanding by peers was also highly regarded by the best students.
Quote
Are you telling me that you have absolutely no idea who your best and worst faculty are? Are you suggesting that there is no way to evaluate professors and instructors? Is it possible that chairs and admin are so out-of-touch that they have no idea whatsoever about how their people are performing?
As I've noted before, it is ridiculously ironic to me that
academics, aka
researchers, who in all kinds of disciplines consider themselves experts at analyzing everything under (and including) the sun, consider their own work of teaching to be something
absolutely incapable of any sort of objective analysis and evaluation. "Just trust me; I know what I'm doing."
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 06:16:09 AM
As I've noted before, it is ridiculously ironic to me that academics, aka researchers, who in all kinds of disciplines consider themselves experts at analyzing everything under (and including) the sun, consider their own work of teaching to be something absolutely incapable of any sort of objective analysis and evaluation. "Just trust me; I know what I'm doing."
Ad hom, strawman, and hyperbole, Marshy. Keep the frustration under control.
Be careful of trying to confirm confirmation bias as well.
Intelligent, experienced people----which you are----understand that a complicated subject such as the effect of unions is not one thing or the other, but one thing AND another.
For instance:
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 06:08:35 AM
As I said, Solidarity was a great benefit to society. German unions, (and apparently Japanese unions, as dismalist noted), are very good for everyone, since they actually see everyone (labour AND management) as needing to work together for the good of the organization. The adversarial stance in North America, which views labour negotiations as a zero-sum game, often winds up with situations of people cutting off their noises to spite their faces. (Consider stories of how unions have gone on strike until they bankrupted the company
Agreed. I do wish our union was not automatically adversarial. We mistrust our admin primarily because they lack transparency and so frequently try to hide or deny the obvious bad news while doing things like resodding the football field and building indoor tennis courts right before layoffs. We still need teachers; we just hire adjuncts. So yeah, I just wish our union leaders could work a little better with our admin. What is happening to our university is not admin's fault, although their responses to the demographic cliff, population shift, and rising costs has not been effective so far. We have hired several new high-priced administrators while many of us lose our jobs. It's just our union folk tend to reflexively work against the admin with fiery rhetoric and demands for things that cannot realistically be met. Our union levels accusations without information; admin will not provide information. Mistrust continues to grow.
RE: companies and bankruptcy. I think you are referring to Hostess above? The union is not the only reason that company went bankrupt.
See Forbes: (https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/21/why-hostess-had-to-die/?sh=143d034c6dfe)
Quote
But who was ultimately to blame for the company failure? Here at Forbes, Leadership contributor Adam Hartung had a provocative piece on Sunday where he fingered management. In its most recent bankruptcy filing, writes Hartung, the company imposed "draconian cuts to wages and benefits." This was unrealistic and damaging, he says, "tantamount to management saying to those who sell wheat they expect to buy flour at 2/3 the market price." The company also kept trying to prop up its old business of obsolete products, failing to cook up more palatable foods with higher margins. Then it scapegoated the unions.
Maybe you know something Forbes does not?
The union definitely had an effect, but it is not all at their feet. Think, Marshy, don't just get mad and claw after confirmation bias. Think, my brother! Think!
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 12, 2022, 06:08:35 AM
I don't expect unions to be perfect, but I expect them to be honest. For faculty unions, if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are.
I may be outing myself to anyone from my uni, but oh well.
Two years ago a student in an art history class filed a Title IX complaint against an art history professor. Her charge was that, in showing slides of classical Greek sculpture, he included slides of naked "buttocks." She was offended and felt threatened. No, kidding. This is true. Our president is a member of a very conservative Christian movement and, as we now know, looking to shed faculty. I know that every Title IX complain must be investigated, but this should have been a no-brainer. It was treated like a brainer and charges were filed. God bless the union. They fired up their lawyers. The charges were quietly resolved and the art history prof still has his job.
Our admin hit hard on renegotiations sometime in the near past. Because this is Googleable, I will remain vague. What the admin wanted was frankly unfair, say whatever you will, and would have damaged the university irreparably. We went on strike. The students came out in droves to support and the local McClatchy Compass Project landed firmly on the side of the faculty and staff. God bless the union. We won. Some of the plans our admin wanted to institute have gone forward anyway, of course----and their ideas do not seem to be working.
I do not know what "if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are" really means in context.
Do you have examples?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 12, 2022, 07:04:17 AM
Agreed. I do wish our union was not automatically adversarial. We mistrust our admin primarily because they lack transparency and so frequently try to hide or deny the obvious bad news while doing things like resodding the football field and building indoor tennis courts right before layoffs. We still need teachers; we just hire adjuncts. So yeah, I just wish our union leaders could work a little better with our admin. What is happening to our university is not admin's fault, although their responses to the demographic cliff, population shift, and rising costs has not been effective so far. We have hired several new high-priced administrators while many of us lose our jobs. It's just our union folk tend to reflexively work against the admin with fiery rhetoric and demands for things that cannot realistically be met. Our union levels accusations without information; admin will not provide information. Mistrust continues to grow.
RE: companies and bankruptcy. I think you are referring to Hostess above? The union is not the only reason that company went bankrupt.
I didn't have any specific example in mind. Over the decades I've seen it happen with several smaller companies. Generally the union tells employees that the company has big stashes of cash, so if they just hold out they'll win. Turns out it's a very competitive industry and the company is just making ends meet. So they go under, and then union executives are SHOCKED!, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! that what the company said about their finances was correct.
Quote
I do not know what "if they really had the best interests of students and their education in mind, (which they always claim), their priorities would be different than they are" really means in context.
Do you have examples?
Like my earlier one, where ALL They care about for who should teach a course is "seniority", EVEN WHEN that can mean someone who has
never taught a specific course and whose performance has been mediocre will be chosen over someone who has experience with that
specific course, and whose performance has been stellar. By any sane assessment about who is better
for the students' education, they would choose the less "senior" person. (In the case of my colleague and I, I had never taught her courses, but the union would automatically pick me because I had more "seniority".)
Hmmm. Not a lot to go on there, Marshman, and a little vague.
Okay.
All your points are valid. Up to a point-- we have to ask why students love Dr. X, and what might be different between his students and other students.
I get that it is generally doable for colleagues to, taken as a whole, evaluate the competence (though teaching competence is harder than competence in other areas of professor employment, to evaluate) of colleagues. It is however much harder to evaluate one's own competence.
Sure. I have no idea what my own competence is. My department has been very supportive but my dean does not seem to think I am worth holding on to (I doubt hu has ever seen my CV or my evals).
In my experience, the student who says "I love Dr. X" is not the only student to do so. Platonic, respectful, appropriate "love" from students generated by inspired teaching and dedication generally comes in flocks. Again, as checked out as I am, I have known who has the best teaching reputations and who has the worst teaching reputations in each department, from grad school to my current sinking ship. And I have known who produces lots of good writing, which is a perfectly valid criteria for judging "high performers" in college. I just don't think it would be that hard to decide who is good faculty and who is not in our insular little worlds.
Ok, but you see my point. If Prof. X has lots of students expressing love and admiration for him, his evals are glowing, etc., it may well be because he is a great teacher, etc., .... or, it may well be that he gives easy workloads and/or easy As. This would be especially problematic at less-selective schools whose student bodies tend towards those who, ahem, less than fully priortize booklarnin and study.
It's hypothetical, kay. I was referring to the inspirational prof.