An elite DI set of assistant coach salaries

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[TreadingLife]

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.

[research_prof]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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!

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[research_prof]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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?

[research_prof]

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...

[Wahoo Redux]

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!

[Ruralguy]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?

[dismalist]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.