Georgia abolishes tenure.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If this is true,

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay.

then either this will happen

If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

or pay will go up for faculty in Georgia.

If the latter happens, is that an improvement on the status quo?

If pay goes up (more than it would if tenure protections are in place) then some would consider that a net improvement. Personally I would prefer to have job security for life, but higher pay would be a suitable substitute for many people and that is reasonable.

[bio-nonymous]

Some medical schools, particularly where you have to pay most of your salary with grants, already have no tenure, you just get renewable contracts. Thus, as in the private sector, if you don't produce $$$, you get the boot. I am not making a judgement on the process. I can, however, see this becoming more common as time moves on. Didn't something similar start to happen already to weaken tenure in Wisconsin, and was tossed around in Iowa recently?

[downer]

The headline does suggest that Gergia is going soon to fire all their faculty and replace them with outsourced labor. Looking at the details seems to suggest that the erosion of faculty protection is more subtle. In the UK Thatcher got rid of some major faculty protection, yet universities do largely keep on with business as usual. On the other hand, Gergia's move is part of a general move to remove faculty protection. Given that higher ed was already in crisis and the pandemic has accelerated that crisis significantly, it looks like working as an academic will continue to become less attractive for all but a few faculty.

[quasihumanist]

The UK context is different, because in the UK all workers enjoy substantial job protections.

[Aster]

If this is true,

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay.

then either this will happen

If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

or pay will go up for faculty in Georgia.

If the latter happens, is that an improvement on the status quo?

If pay goes up (more than it would if tenure protections are in place) then some would consider that a net improvement. Personally I would prefer to have job security for life, but higher pay would be a suitable substitute for many people and that is reasonable.

Huh. I'm not really getting the logic of that, nor do I actually see that in practice. All of the institutions that I've worked at (or have close colleagues with) that *didn't have tenure* are the ones with the lousiest pay.

[dismalist]

All of the institutions that I've worked at (or have close colleagues with) that *didn't have tenure* are the ones with the lousiest pay.

We mustn't confuse levels with changes in levels. :-) 

[downer]

The UK context is different, because in the UK all workers enjoy substantial job protections.

Don't job protections in the US also vary by state?
There are definitely job protections in the UK, maybe better than the US federal law, but people can definitely get fired for not a lot of good reasons. Compared with stories I've heard about France and Germany, the UK doesn't have such great protections.

I think the academic setting is distinct from the rest of the job market.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If this is true,

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay.

then either this will happen

If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

or pay will go up for faculty in Georgia.

If the latter happens, is that an improvement on the status quo?

If pay goes up (more than it would if tenure protections are in place) then some would consider that a net improvement. Personally I would prefer to have job security for life, but higher pay would be a suitable substitute for many people and that is reasonable.

Huh. I'm not really getting the logic of that, nor do I actually see that in practice. All of the institutions that I've worked at (or have close colleagues with) that *didn't have tenure* are the ones with the lousiest pay.

To clarify: I'm not saying pay will go up in GA publics (I doubt it will go up higher than it would if tenure stayed in place), just that tenure offsets low pay and so if tenure is taken away then pay should increase. If it doesn't then good faculty should go on the market.

[mamselle]

Aw, they fixed it...

M.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Quite instructive 2016 CHE article
U. of Wisconsin Spent $24 Million on Faculty Retention After Perceived Threats to Tenure
- most of the money spent on "one-time funding for costs like research support, additional undergraduate and graduate assistants, and new equipment" with just $1.9 Million "earmarked for pay rises"
- tenure changes credited with provoking other institutions to "raid Wisconsin"
- "number of faculty members who requested counteroffers jumped by about 40%"

I.e. sought-after professors with established labs promptly extracted extra concessions to compensate for seemingly deteriorated conditions. I doubt that majority of faculty anywhere has the same negotiating power.

[dismalist]

Quite instructive 2016 CHE article
U. of Wisconsin Spent $24 Million on Faculty Retention After Perceived Threats to Tenure
- most of the money spent on "one-time funding for costs like research support, additional undergraduate and graduate assistants, and new equipment" with just $1.9 Million "earmarked for pay rises"
- tenure changes credited with provoking other institutions to "raid Wisconsin"
- "number of faculty members who requested counteroffers jumped by about 40%"

I.e. sought-after professors with established labs promptly extracted extra concessions to compensate for seemingly deteriorated conditions. I doubt that majority of faculty anywhere has the same negotiating power.

Market working!

[clean]

We recently revamped our Post Tenure Review process because we live in a Republican dominated state where the idea that someone can hold a job for life is irritating to legislators that think that jobs for life should be reserved for the Ruling Class.

IF a PTR is negative, you do not get 5 years to wait for another. A development plan is created and the deficient faculty member has 2 years to repair the problem .  IF the problem is unresolved, Well, I would have to read the rules again, but I think that tenure can be revoked.  I dont know at what point a terminal contract could be issued, but it would not be issued until the end of the 2 year development plan years, unless the admincritters could document that no progress was being made. 

As this is a faculty driven process, Im not sure really how easy or hard it would be to recommend a development plan unless it was truly a case where tenure should be revoked.  ((To remove the ROAD Scholars.... Retired On Active Duty))

[mahagonny]

If this is true,

In any case, tenure is a workplace benefit that offsets relatively low university pay.

then either this will happen

If tenure goes in GA, then faculty should (to the extent that they are willing and able) leave for better pay or better job security elsewhere.

or pay will go up for faculty in Georgia.

If the latter happens, is that an improvement on the status quo?

If pay goes up (more than it would if tenure protections are in place) then some would consider that a net improvement. Personally I would prefer to have job security for life, but higher pay would be a suitable substitute for many people and that is reasonable.

Huh. I'm not really getting the logic of that, nor do I actually see that in practice. All of the institutions that I've worked at (or have close colleagues with) that *didn't have tenure* are the ones with the lousiest pay.

A college with tenured faculty can pull in more grants. Tenure rules.
Most of the discussions about what will happen to higher ed tenure are generated by scenes like this one (Georgia). One state decides to tweak the process in a way that the tenured crowd doesn't appreciate, and the chorus starts up with 'they won't be able to get good faculty anymore' suggesting a mass exodus and they will get themselves hired in a nearby state. Talk about evidence-free claims. But the question 'what might things look like if tenure were abolished everywhere' never comes up. Because the faculty who have cushy, light-hours (though they may be competent enough at what they do) jobs and their unions don't want to talk about that.
ETA: Laying my cards on the table: The biggest problems with tenure that I've seen, over many years, are not flat out incompetent or poorly performing people, but senior faculty with extremely light schedules due to shifting enrollment patterns, who sporadically publish things nobody needs, and cost the department a freaking fortune, and faculty who've been ostracized through infighting and toxicity who don't feel they can move on because they've got too many years invested in the place.
And, a big part of the reason the tenured need a union is to protect themselves from each other.

[Golazo]

Probably contractually legal if they followed their own processes for amending these rules. But I'm sure someone will challenge it.

I'm skeptical. If you promise someone long-term employment under condition X, and then create a ex post facto process that allows condition X to be changed, you are fundamentally changing the terms of the contract. See for example: https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/news/employment-law-daily/unconstitutional-to-retroactively-apply-changed-tenure-law-to-remove-layoff-protection-from-tenured-teacher/42628/

In our school, post tenure review is once every five years. If some one has two consecutive bad post-tenure reviews, that suggests ten years of bad teaching/research/service. Does that really need protection? I don't think so.

This depends on who gets to write the reviews. Unless someone is really exceptional or really awful, the wrong person or people can create a rather different narrative.

[Hibush]

All of the institutions that I've worked at (or have close colleagues with) that *didn't have tenure* are the ones with the lousiest pay.

We mustn't confuse levels with changes in levels. :-)

The situation of no tenure and lousy pay also obtains and is characteristic of the polarization in job quality that produces essentially two markets. One market is what we might call the crap jobs. Poor pay, no security and little collegiality. Those employers struggle as they try to compete in the race to the bottom. The other market is the high end, where employees demand good pay and excellent working conditions. Those employers generally do well, and their productivity results in strong competititve position.

The University of Georgia is in the latter group, at least in my field. They compete internationally for the top faculty talent.   Some other state-supported schools in Georgia may well be in the former group, so the response to these changes may be different.