Professors strike at 14 PA state-owned universities

Deadline passes, faculty strike at 14 state-owned universities

Faculty at the 14 state-owned universities went on strike today and began taking up picket lines on campuses statewide and at the Dixon Center in Harrisburg after bargaining to prevent the first classroom walkout in the system's 34 years collapsed.

The strike against the State System of Higher Education by the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties affects 105,000 students and more than 5,000 faculty.

Both sides had negotiated for five days but the talks broke apart over issues including health care costs shortly before 9 p.m. Tuesday. The system made a last, best offer, which the union rejected, and management said it was done bargaining for the night.

The strike drew sharp reaction from Gov. Tom Wolf, who called the breakdown in talks "shortsightedness on both sides.”

Click to expand...

The union has said it offered millions in concessions, including higher insurance costs for its members, but the State System wanted more.

Pay, not counting extra courses and summer work, ranges from $46,609 for first-year instructors at the lowest of 13 pay steps to $112,238 for professors at the top.

In-state tuition set centrally by the State System's board of governors is $7,238 a year for Pennsylvania undergraduates, though four of the 14 schools have adopted per-credit price policies that have led to higher rates for many students on those campuses.

Click to expand...

[video=twitter;788570169543053314]https://twitter.com/statesystem/status/788570169543053314[/video]

Professors on Strike at 14 Pennsylvania State Universities

This is the first strike in the system's 34-year history. State-related schools — Penn State, Temple University, the University of Pittsburgh and Lincoln University — are not affected.

Click to expand...

The Pennsylvania state system is one of the nation's largest public university systems. State funding for the system, at $444 million this year, is about the same as it was 17 years ago, even as full-time enrollment has risen more than 10 percent.

Click to expand...

Victoria Tischio, a full-time tenured English professor and the university's picket chairwoman, said some 500 of the university's about 950 professors had signed up for the walkout. About 77 percent of the university's professors are full-time union members, she said.

Click to expand...

My kid goes to Pitt and I had no idea until just now it's only state-related. I assumed in-state tuition vs. out-of-state tuition meant it was a state school.

Another example of why PROFESSIONALS should never, IMO, belong to any unions,or have any "right" to strike. These educators are nearly all PhD's, and their jobs and academic freedom are protected by a number of mechanisms that ordinary laborers do not have access to. IMO, public servants should not have the right to strike, particularly over things like their own health care plans.

University professors are among the smartest, most savvy, most intellectually "able" members of the workforce to negotiate the conditions of their own employment. They are not in an "unequal position" with their employers, IMO, which is why unions began in the first place-- to protect laborers from the abuses of inequalities of power (and intellect, IMO) with management in their jobs. University professors don't, IMO, "need" unions (or the euphemism "collective bargaining". Professionals should not be permitted to unionize, IMO.

Just like the recent nurse strike in MN, these professors are striking primarily over the conditions of their personal HEALTH care plan. Not over dangerous or abusive work conditions, and not for a single thing that affects their students. The STUDENTS still have to pay their university bills and tuition, and show up to class, while the professors have the luxury of "striking". Makes me sick to my stomach.

The problem we're seeing now, reflected in strikes by professionals over their employer-provided and funded health care plan, is the effect of the complete and total collapse of the revenue and reimbursement structure of health insurers in U.S. healthcare system. There will be more and more strikes over health care as the Obamacare system continues its death spiral. Health care costs for those who are employed, regardless of whether they buy and pay for their own plans, or have employer subsidized and provided plans, are escalating at an absolutely astronomical rate, which is unsustainable. Higher premiums, less coverage, and high deductibles are now the norm. Socialized medicine will be even worse. Employed people are angry about this, and that's why they're striking.

I would strike too if I had to teach three hours a day, two days a week, for eight long months out of the year. Honestly, I don't know how they do it.

But seriously, my husband is a college professor so I know how hard he works and yet at the same time he's the first to admit what a great gig it is.

Mostly unions can only deal with work conditions and salary. They do not get to make policies for where they work.

Nurses are working under hellish conditions. It is so wrong.

The union rejected an offer of raises to all permanent and temporary faculty and the same health care package that other employees receive, the administration said. It said on its website it withdrew proposals to require full-time, temporary faculty to teach five courses instead of four, to increase the cap on the number of temporary faculty from 25% to 30% and to allow graduate students to teach labs and clinics.

“These are difficult times for our universities, administration spokesman Kenn Marshall said. "If APSCUF won’t agree to share more of the costs for their own health care, like everyone else has, it will threaten our ability to keep tuition affordable for students."

Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-rocks-14-pennsylvania-universities/92400382/

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, which represents the faculty members and coaches, has been without a contract since June 30, 2015.

Click to expand...

So, why didn't they finish the negotiation over the summer, when thousands fewer students were enrolled, and the effects of a strike would be far less? Seriously, 6 weeks into the fall semester is when "they couldn't take it anymore" and hit an impasse?? Finishing the negotiation over the summer would have been the RESPONSIBLE and MATURE thing to do. Were the professors too busy enjoying their summer vacations, or sabbaticals, to give up time in the summer to negotiate??

At many public universities, in particular, declining government subsidies have led to stagnant pay and declining benefits. And colleges and universities, both public and private, have greatly increased their reliance on part-time or adjunct faculty members who are paid less than full-time professors, and sometimes receive little or no benefits.

Click to expand...

BBM. Declining subsidies are NOT why universities "rely" on adjunct and part time faculty members. Yikes, is that WRONG.

Full professors and assistant professors (tenure track) teach the FEWEST classes of any faculty, at any university. Spending too much time actually teaching classes gets in the way of bringing in $$ and grants, and pursuing and publishing their own research-- most do not want to teach any more classes, and sometimes go many semesters without teaching a single class, or negotiate teaching FEWER classes. It's a known fact in academia that "some" academic specialties bring in far more $$ to the university than others-- for example, humanities (especially anything ending in "XYZ studies") brings in very little $$ relative to science based academic areas. So based on that, "some" professors are far more "valuable" to the university than others, and they subsidize the areas that bleed money. But that's maybe another discussion all together.

Adjunct and non-tenure (and grad assistants) teach the bulk of the classes that paying undergraduate students take. And many (if not most) adjunct and non-tenure contract part timers have full time jobs in their profession elsewhere. They teach as a part time appointment, or to expand their careers, or make a little extra $$ on the side. Most contract and adjuncts don't want to be tenure track, or even "full time" teaching contractors. There is little to no discussion about that. Contract and adjuncts are the "curriculum deliverers" most of the time-- sometimes "delivering" curriculum as a recipe developed by others. (Depends on the position, university, and department how much freedom adjuncts and contracts have to develop and deliver curriculum.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/u...rs-at-14-state-universities-go-on-strike.html

Here's more from the AAUP (Am Assoc of Univ Prof) on contract, part time, and non-tenure faculty.

https://www.aaup.org/report/status-non-tenure-track-faculty

Non-tenure-track faculty account for about half of all faculty appointments in American higher education. The nontenure track consists of two major groups: those who teach part time and those who teach full time but are not on tenure-track lines. Part-time faculty now hold 38 percent of faculty appointments, and non-tenure-track, full-time faculty hold 20 percent.

If those events are important causes of the growth of part-time faculty, then the fact that the supposedly temporary situation did not improve after the economic recovery suggests a growing administrative desire for budgetary discretion. The pressure for flexibility also translates as a need to control the size and density of the tenured faculty. In addition to increased use of part-time faculty, administrative strategies to contain tenure have included extending the probationary period until the full seven years for most faculty, moving numerous faculty off the tenure track, and issuing more term contracts to the growing number of full-time non-tenure-track professors.

Click to expand...

https://www.aaup.org/article/who-are-part-time-faculty#.WAg0XuArIfI

The use of contingent faculty in higher education in the United States has grown tremendously over the past three decades. In 1975, only 30.2 percent of faculty were employed part time; by 2005, according to data compiled by the AAUP from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), part-time faculty represented approximately 48 percent of all faculty members in the United States.

This growth in the use of part-time faculty has occurred despite low pay, almost nonexistent benefits, inadequate working conditions, and little or no opportunity for career advancement. For example, my own analyses in a 2007 article published in the Journal of Labor Research, “The Relative Earnings of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education,” showed that part-time non-tenure track faculty earn between 22 and 40 percent less than tenure track assistant professors on an hourly basis. Who are these exploited workers, and why do they seem so willing to work under such terms and conditions?

Click to expand...

I actually know college profs and adjuncts, Adjuncts want real jobs but good ljck with that. So much cheaper for a university to have an adjunct .

Really, who wants to work for peanuts with no benefits and job security? Because of online classes and a declining pooulation that is of tradtional college age, there are not as many students.

For my second degree, I chose a smaller school. I had actual profs. So different than the mega university for my first degree-- the U of M Mpls

Nowadays profs have to worry about parents calling about grades for their children as well as scary students threatening.

human said:

I actually know college profs and adjuncts, Adjuncts want real jobs but good ljck with that. So much cheaper for a university to have an adjunct .

Really, who wants to work for peanuts with no benefits and job security? Because of online classes and a declining pooulation that is of tradtional college age, there are not as many students.

For my second degree, I chose a smaller school. I had actual profs. So different than the mega university for my first degree-- the U of M Mpls

Nowadays profs have to worry about parents calling about grades for their children as well as scary students threatening.

Click to expand...

I have a friend who is a professor at U of M, Morris. He loves Minnesota too.

Morris is considered a top school.

I think the bigger point is that they are not striking because of any work-related conditions, or power inequalities, or even salary increases. They are striking first and foremost because they are unwilling to accept the same health insurance package that every other employee is subject to.

That's the same situation the MN nurses were in, and they lost that battle.

Nothing at all is preventing these highly paid professors from going out and purchasing their own health insurance policies, at their own expense. Just like those on the exchanges, and self employed people. If the professors are that "unhappy" with the policies provided by their employer, then they should buy the plan they "want", and pay for it themselves, all of it, like self employed and those on the exchanges do.

The professors are free to "reject" the policy their employer provides, and pays a substantial portion for. If they think they can get a "better' policy, then they should go get it on their own dime, and get off the strike line and back to work. Because so many progressive leaning people (a substantial number of those are in higher education think this way) think that socialized medicine in the U.S. will be so wonderful-- see what it will cost in taxes from a paycheck, what it covers, and how it will be rationed, and all of a sudden the escalating and expensive policies employers offer today will be looking pretty good, IMO.

Highly paid, highly educated, university professors, especially those WITH TENURE actually striking over health insurance policies is beyond absurd. Really. Childish, anti-intellectual, and pathetic, IMO. What a horrible example they are setting. They should be fired. Oh wait. Those with tenure can't be fired, right? Lol. See how that works?!

I suppose striking is part of their "academic freedom", right? A big chunk of them have TENURE, AND belong to a union. What's wrong with this picture?

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-legal-ground-faculty-unions-private-colleges

I guess they are not in a race to the bottom. Since they are smart, probably a good lead to follow.

Gosh. Here it is again. Same issue, in 2015.

http://www.ohio.com/news/break-news...rs-to-take-strike-authorization-vote-1.639116

Kent State and the union are negotiating a new three-year deal for tenure track professors but have reached a stalemate over salaries and medical benefits.

The sticking points include the school wanting to require that employees’ spouses receive their health insurance through their own employers if offered and the university offering only 2 percent raises in the first two years and a 1.5 percent raise in the third year.

Click to expand...

As college professors lose earning power, unions gain appeal

The union, which represents 1,150 tenured and non-tenured professors, won certification in 2012, but it has yet to agree with the university on its first contract. The dispute between the union and the university is the latest episode in an ongoing effort by unions to gain influence on America’s college campuses.

The Service Employees International Union has been aggressively recruiting academics, and it recently launched campaigns to unionize non-tenured professors at Seattle University, Loyola Marymount, and University of La Verne. It currently represents more than 18,000 adjunct faculty members, up from 14,000 five years ago. The American Federation of Teachers claims to be the largest union for adjunct professors, with 70,000 non-tenure-track professors in its ranks, up by 10,000 from five years ago. The AFT represents 200,000 higher education professionals in total.

Up until now, much of the academic labor movement has been for the sake of non-tenured professors. That’s because tenured professors are often better paid and receive more generous benefits. But another factor is a 1980s Supreme Court decision, National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, that found that tenured professors at private universities are considered managers and are therefore barred from unionizing. The NLRB is currently considering two cases — one dealing with Point Park University, the other related to Pacific Lutheran University — that could change that rule and open the flood gates for more professors to pursue union representation.

Click to expand...

http://fortune.com/2014/02/19/as-college-professors-lose-earning-power-unions-gain-appeal/

Ending faculty strike 'took a lot of effort from everyone involved': Gov. Tom Wolf

The tentative three-year agreement includes raises for the 5,300 permanent and adjunct faculty although not as big of ones as granted to other State System of Higher Education employees represented by AFSCME Council 13, said Ken Mash, president of the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties.

It also requires the union to accept some health care plan concessions and a few work rule changes to achieve some cost-savings which is what the State System was looking to gain in its next faculty contract.

But Mash said he has no doubt the compromise would not have been reached without some outside pressure from the Democratic governor and House Majority Leader Dave Reed, R-Indiana County, who is a graduate of Indiana University of Pennsylvania, one of the system universities which sits in his legislative district. The union also credits Senate Democratic leaders and the lawmakers who sit on the system's board with aiding in the effort to restore labor peace as well.

Click to expand...

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index./2016/10/ending_faculty_strike_took_a_l.html