When I think of management functions I think of the right to hire and
fire and to set compensation. I know of no faculty tenured or otherwise
that have any of these rights. This is one of the reasons why the
Yeshiva decision is such a travesty.
One small point about the Yeshiva decision, it does not prohibit or
prevent faculty a private schools from unionizing. What is does is to
say that faculty at private universities do not have the protection of
the National Labor Relations Act. So if faculty at private universities
want to unionize and the school's administration will agree they can
unionize. Alternatively, the faculty at a private institution can shut
the college or university down until their right to unionize is
recognized. Of course this is a pretty tall order so for all intensive
purposes the Yeshiva decision has prevented faculty at private colleges
and universities from unionizing..
To get back to the main point -- tenured faculty may in some cases have
the illusion that they have management rights but in reality they only
have the power to recommend. There is a big difference between
recommending that someone be hired or fired and actually having the
power to make a decision.
I say all of this as a tenured faculty member at an institution where we
have a collective bargaining agreement. In this agreement there is an
article on management rights which makes it absolutely clear that the
administration manages the university. Here is the language from the
management rights article in our contract.
6.1 Except as expressly limited by the terms of this Agreement, nothing
shall limit the
right and responsibility of the Board of Trustees, directly or acting
through its duly
constituted authorities, to exercise all powers, rights, authorities,
prerogatives, duties and
responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the laws and
Constitution of the State
of Ohio and of the United States, whether exercised or not. Without
limiting the
generality of the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall in any way
limit the
University's right to adopt, modify, implement, or terminate policies,
rules, regulations,
and procedures in furtherance and accomplishment of its statutorily
mandated authorities
and responsibilities.
6.2 These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to:
6.2.1 determine matters of inherent managerial policy which include, but
are not limited
to, areas of discretion or policy such as the functions and programs of
the University,
standards of services, its overall budget, utilization of technology,
and organizational
structure;
6.2.2 direct, supervise, evaluate, and hire Bargaining Unit Faculty or
other employees;
6.2.3 maintain and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
University operations;
6.2.4 determine the overall methods, process, means, or personnel by
which University
operations are to be conducted;
6.2.5 suspend, discipline, demote, or discharge for just cause, or lay
off, transfer, assign,
schedule, promote, or retain Bargaining Unit Faculty or other employees;
6.2.6 determine the adequacy of the work force;
6.2.7 determine the overall mission of the University;
6.2.8 effectively manage the work force; and
6.2.9 take actions to carry out the mission of the University.
This is fairly standard language in most academic collective bargaining
contracts.
We do have all of the standard search committees and we have promotion
and tenure committees. We also have a faculty Senate that deals with
curricular issues and academic policies. However, the Senate and all of
our Committees only make recommendations. In our case, when it comes to
hiring and firing and curricular issues the administration does follow
most of the faculty recommendations but they are not obligated to follow
these recommendations.
Rudy
Jim Devine wrote:
me:
in non-academic jobs, sometimes higher-level or unionized employees
have something akin to tenure (though usually it's weaker) once they
get beyond the probation period. In law and medicine, they have
something even more like tenure, i.e., being made a partner.
Jeff:
an interesting point, but again not the same security as tenure, in the case
of post-probation, and partner is actually a form of ownership, right? so
much much bigger than tenure, in certain ways.
i think.
there are degrees of job security, and I'd bet that some tenure is
stronger than others. Or has the AAUP standardized it?
Being partner involves owning part of a firm, but I don't know if
lawyers or doctors have to make actual financial contributions to
become partners in their firms. (I'd like to know, if anyone is an
expert on this.) If they don't have to make financial contributions to
become partners, it's pretty much the same as tenure. You earn the
partnership/tenure via "hard work" (as defined by those who already
have partnership/tenure and perhaps hired managers).
Having tenure as a professor is like having a kind of property rights
in a job. (It's a superior type, I think, because I can't pass the
property rights down to my heirs.) If one is tenured, one is supposed
to participate in various management-type functions, so it's like
being a "partner." Of course, it's different from owning stock,
because some jerks could decide to stop giving you raises or to
publicly shun you (as happened to Paul Baran at Stanford). This might
happen if you don't participant in management functions (or because of
political bias, as with Baran).
Perhaps the main difference between partnership in a law or medical
firm and tenure at a college or university is that the firms are
for-profit while colleges and universities are (officially) not
for-profit.
--
Rudy Fichtenbaum
Professor of Economics
Chief Negotiator AAUP-WSU
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435-0001
937-775-3085
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
