Well, at least there is some clarity on how this all started:
After refusing to answer almost all substantive questions I asked, we are at least able to understand how this started. Notice, by the way, the same conclusion to this student e-mail as the other one. So, they insert themselves into a situation that will cause harm to people. They can’t answer questions about it. Then they refuse to appreciate what they have done. “Dear Sir, we have broken your bedroom window, we stand in solidarity with other people who own windows, and no, you may not get a satisfactory answer for why we have done it.”
If anyone is bored enough to dig through all of the U of R webpages and pull out info on the contingent faculty, have at it. I will remind you to look at the yellow highlights above. We have no idea if they talked to 5 contingent faculty, 10, 20? And what does “most” mean? Finally, notice the ignorance at the end – as if the students think that once a union is here, that workers have free choice about whether to be a part of it. Surely they fully understand what it is that they are advocating for, correct? That was just a typo in an e-mail.
A reader sent me the following:
You know, one thing about this episode that has been revealing to me is that I am beginning to have an understanding for why Donald Trump is attracting so many votes, prior to this I was simply flummoxed.
Am really curious to see how this all shakes out: If the Union happens; why adjunct faculty didn’t come together before hand and if most really do support it (since UR faculty are all so productive already ;)); will there be outrage from more than just you?; learning more about the motivation for having non-right-to-work States; and how the administration feel about all this.
I’m surprised and somewhat disappointed that you didn’t push the idea that this would not work for everyone… To make them at least say “sacrifices need to be made”. And, most blatantly, that they won’t let you vote if you might/will vote no. I wish they would explain or apologize for that
Amazing that they ask you to leave them alone, when your “intrusion” is simply asking them questions via email (questions that are very important concerning your career and livelihood at that) . Yet you can’t ask them to leave you alone on the matters of them forcibly changing your career and working relationships. What a world we live in.
It’s like someone setting up camp on your front lawn, announcing that they are there, and then telling you to leave them alone when you ask them what they are doing.
Or like setting up camp on the quad at a public university, announcing that they’ve created a safe space, and then barring anyone from the media or anyone who doesn’t agree with them from asking what they’re doing.
I’m following this with much interest. I am a contingent faculty member at one of the Universities on the list for assimilation… er… solidarity. I am also quite happy with my arrangement, which I negotiated myself.
Frankly, I think I’m the enemy they’re after. I have no PhD, but I have worked in industry for 20+ years, and I do this because I love it. In fact, if they offered me a fraction of what I’m paid (but maybe gave me enough TAs where I don’t have to grade anything!) I’d still do it. I think the students benefit by learning from my experience, but it does put some poor, starving PhD (who doesn’t know shit about venture capital or entrepreneurship except what they read in a book) out of a job.
A couple of years ago we had a similar organizing attempt. I *believe* that at some point our administration was required by NLRB to provide SEIU with contact info on adjuncts.