EDITOR'S NOTE:
At the request of Professor Deborah Seltzer-Kelly (and the permission of Mike Eichholz), I am posting this exchange between the two concerning the confusing state of the FSN petition process. The Illinois labor law is written in such a way that the petition states X (in plain English) but means Y (under Illinois labor law). No doubt labor unions and their political allies made the process so contorted to kabosh any effort at decertification. The petition states that the signer adopts the FSN's third entity as signer's bargaining representative (X) but in reality it is only a way to get a vote on the current status of the FA and any alternatives (Y). Think of it as a vote of confidence/no confidence in the FA.
Another factor: the lack of fair share means that many faculty who might sign the petition are apathetic. The union affects them indirectly but they do not pay $600 per year to the FA. They can go on with their lives and wish these periodic union-administration disputes would pass (as they always do).
Again, at Professor Seltzer-Kelly's request, I post the following exchange for interested readers. The FSN has 75% of the petitions they need and must get about 40 more signers before the window closes (i.e., before the FA and BOT sign the final contract). That is yet another hurdle for anyone unhappy with their union: decertification can only take place (generally speaking) when a contract has lapsed.
EXCHANGE: Seltzer-Kelley(Curriculum and Instruction) and Mike Eichholz (Zoology)
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at
12:12 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:
Mike, can you tell me why the FSN has not made an AAUP
Bargaining Chapter the other alternative for representation, instead of trying
to create some new entity out of the Faculty Senate? The fact that the FSN
doesn't offer an actual plan that would clearly work for this is, I think, a
very substantial barrier for many of us in voting to decertify the FA. Frankly,
too, I can see why this makes the FSN look like a stealth administrative
support group to a lot of us who are very unhappy with both sides.
Thanks for any information you can give me -
Debbie Seltzer
On 11/9/2011 1:38 PM,
Mike Eichholz wrote:
Debbie, We considered
the AAUP as an alternative, but our perception is a big part of the problem
with the FA is the outside influence of the IEA/NEA; thus, we decided if we
were going to support a collective bargaining agent we preferred one that had
no outside affiliation. It's not clear
to me why this is preventing people from signing the petition cards. I'm not certain how we can make it any
clearer that signing these cards only indicates an indivdual would like to vote
on representation and when that occurs he/she can vote for continuation of the
current representation, new representation, or no representation at all when an
election occurs. Before such an election
would take place, details of the new collective bargaining agent would be
developed (with the input of all interested faculty and provided to all faculty
so they know what they are voting for.
We can't take this step until after the petition is completed because it
requires negotiation with the administration, and we can't contact the
administration regarding this issue until after the petition is completed. If you have additional questions, please let
me know. Feel free to forward this e-mail
to anyone that may have similar questions.
Mike
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at
2:25 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:
Mike, with all respect, I hope you will understand why
saying something along the lines of "Trust us, it doesn't actually mean
what it says, and it can all be worked out later" is not a satisfactory
response. In particular, your comment that "we decided if we were going to
support a collective bargaining agent we preferred one that had no outside
affiliation" confirms exactly what I believe many faculty fear: that the
core group in FSN already has a firm commitment to a particular course, and
will use the results to endorse that. The fact that you are promulgating a
"push poll" in which faculty members who want to vote on alternative
representation are being asked to endorse a specific model for that alternative
feeds that sense. I am unwilling to put my name to something that, while it
claims to simply affirm my wish for the freedom for faculty to make another of
a wide range of choices, can actually be used to argue that I (and others)
supported your Faculty Senate option.
I would very strongly suggest that if you want more faculty
response--and to overcome the distrust among many of us raised by the
difference between the verbal and the written versions of positions we are
seeing on the parts of both our administration and our FA--you focus upon
making your language far more precise. If what you really intend is for faculty
to be able to consider and select an alternative agent for
representation--possibilities for which might include an AAUP collective
bargaining chapter, a local educational union, a Faculty Senate constituted
body, or ???--then say so.
Thank you for your permission to disseminate your answers; I
will continue to do so with your next reply as well.
Debbie
On 11/9/2011 5:29 PM,
Mike Eichholz wrote:
Debbie, As we have
stated numerous times, the wording on the card is dictated by the Illinois
Education Labor Relations Board. If you
don't believe me, call Eilene Brennan (312) 793 -3170 with the IELRB. I agree that if I didn't know better I would
not be comfortable signing that card.
That is why we have tried to pass on as much information as possible
through e-mails. If you have a
suggestion that doesn't include changing the wording on the card, I would love
to hear it. The law is written to
protect the unions in place, we can't do anything about it. The whole idea with this approach is the
entire faculty will have input and be able to vote on how any new bargaining
agent is formed. Page 71 of the below
website provides the wording that is required for the petition.
http://www2.illinois.gov/elrb/Documents/RulesRegs1-24.pdf
If you have nay more questions, please let me know.
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at
6:10 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:
Mike, I have read each of your emails thoroughly, and
believe that I have understood them. I will recapitulate my understanding so
you can correct me when and if I go wrong:
The FSN has chosen to follow Part 1110 - Representation
Procedures in an attempt to replace the FA with another organization in a
single step, rather than following the decertification procedure and then
creating a new entity that would need to work toward recognition;
-This process requires that 30% of the represented faculty
sign a card authorizing a new group to be their exclusive representative for
collective bargaining;
-Such a group does not yet exist, but a body called the SIU
Representative Faculty Committee has been proposed by the FSN core group on the
assumption that a cooperative agreement can be reached with the Faculty Senate
to create it--so that is the name that is on the card;
-The decision to place the name of an organization that does
not yet actually exist (and that may or may not be possible at all) was made by
a core group within the FSN. This group decided not to pursue organizing as an
AAUP collective bargaining chapter because they believe that outside influence
is a problem in the case of the current Faculty Association, and for some
unstated reason they have not pursued the independent local option either;
-Those signing the card are asked to trust that, when and if
it gains the right to representation, the FSN actually intends to engage in
open deliberations as to the shape the organization will take--which might
include a Faculty Senate-associated body, an independent local union, an AAUP
affiliate, or something else.
Is all of this correct? If so, then I reiterate my previous
point: the FSN has chosen a procedure that relies upon faculty members to trust
them to implement a particular process--despite the fact that it is not at all
clear that the body the FSN plans to create will be possible at all, and that
the core group within the FSN has already made a number of key decisions that
have dictated the direction this effort has taken. There are two alternatives
that you have not attempted to pursue: 1) go after decertification first--which
I agree leaves a troublesome gap in representation; or 2) hold meetings of more
substance than the get-to-know-you events that you've had so far, and have
enough real discussion to do the consensus-building on the replacement
organization now, so you have a genuine option to offer on the cards. I believe
that this last might yield a better result; it would provide the clarity and
honesty that many of us have found so lacking on both sides of the current
struggle.
Debbie
On 11/9/2011 8:13 PM,
Mike Eichholz wrote:
Close, but no this is not correct.
We had 2 options:
1) We could initiate
a petition for straight decertification.
If 30% of the faculty signed that petition, an election would have been
held which would have required 50% of those voting to vote for decertification
for it to pass. If it passed a year of
no representation would have been required before a new bargaining agent could
have been elected in to place.
We chose option 2!
2) Initiate a
petition of replacement (I don’t have the form with me and don’t remember the
exact terminology used on the form).
Again this approach requires signatures of 30% of the faculty, but after
30% of the signatures are received a vote by all faculty is still
required. The cost to using this
approach is you have to provide a name for the replacement bargaining agent
although you don’t have to provide any detail as to the form of that
agent. The benefit of this approach is
that it doesn’t require the 1 year period of no representation, but more
importantly, if you reach a 30% threshold for a vote, it is a 3 way vote (IELRB
requirements, check with Eilene Brennan of the IELRB if you don’t believe me)
between the FA, the new representation, or no negotiating age. If none of the above have more than 50% of
the vote, then there is a run-off election between the top 2. Thus, this approach allows both those people
that want a different bargaining agent and those that don’t want any bargaining
agent to have a voice. It also still
allows those that would like to keep the FA to have a chance to do that as
well. I’ll reiterate, 30% of the
signatures only leads to a vote with 3 choices, and that vote won’t take place
until the alternative bargaining unit is actually been created. Any information you have heard that
contradicts this is just supporters of the FA trying to provide misinformation
to confuse things. Again, if you don’t
believe me, talk to Eilene. There is no
procedure that allows for a replacement of the current FA without a vote of the
full faculty.
By the way, there is no question about the legality of the
bargaining agent we have proposed; again, this is just members of the FA trying
to create a smoke screen to confuse the issue.
I’m happy to answer other questions.
Mike
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011
at 1:06 PM, Deborah Seltzer-Kelly wrote:
Hi Mike -
I have now spoken with Eileen about a couple of my
questions, and would be interested in your responses to that discussion:
Why have you not explained in your emails that the FSN is
now working against a very short deadline? As soon as the new contract is
signed, the window for submission of a representation petition is closed until
January 1 of 2014 (per Section 1110.70 on Timeliness). In fact, too, Eileen
says it is possible that the FA could make an argument even now that, since
there is substantial agreement and documents are in preparation, the window is
closed--although there's no telling how that argument would turn out until and
unless there was a hearing.
While the IL Labor
Board does not determine the viability of the proposed new organization--that
is controlled by federal law--the FA and/or the administration could certainly
challenge any entity that did not yet actually exist (with bylaws and so on)
when they respond to the initial petition in that seven-day window (see Section
1110.100 Processing of Petitions). While the IL Labor Board might not make any
finding on that, a federal finding as to the legitimacy/viability of a union
body would definitely supersede theirs. Interestingly, too, Eileen told me
that, in her personal opinion, it would be very unusual for an organization
without at least some founding documents submit a representation petition.
I want to continue to make clear here that I am NOT pursuing
this because I would like to undercut the FSN efforts; I too believe the
existing FA has failed to serve anyone's interests, and that it has contributed
to the deterioration of relations on campus. At the same time, I come to this
process with considerable background in union representation (from my years in
the Nevada Education Association), and I am quite concerned that any effort to
challenge the FA must be done carefully and correctly.
Thanks for the discussion -
Debbie
On 11/10/2011 1:31 PM,
Mike Eichholz wrote:
Debbie,
We didn’t discuss the issue of deadlines because, as your
questions have clearly demonstrated, the process is already extremely confusing
and we didn’t want to add to the confusion.
Without knowing i) when a contract might be signed, ii) the length of
that contract (if it is < 2 years we don’t have to wait until the last year
of the contract) we could not provide an accurate estimate of when the deadline
is. I have spoken with 2 individuals
from the US Office of Labor-Management Standards and both indicated the
information we have provided would be adequate until an actual vote. There is no question the FA will file a
grievance and challenge the petition. We
are attempting to ensure they have no basis for that grievance. I’m not certain what you think our ulterior
motives are, but I really don’t have time to continue these long e-mails. I would be happy to speak with you by phone
if you would like to give me a call (453-6951) to discuss the issue further.
Mike
