Faculty should vote ‘no’ on unionization
Nobody’s asserting UNM’s faculty members don’t have a legitimate bone to pick. On the contrary, it’s clear many educators at New Mexico’s flagship university deserve much more than a pat on the back for sticking around through years of frozen pay and slashed funding.
But in its current form, the effort to unionize isn’t the cure. UNM faculty members who can vote on unionization Wednesday and Thursday should consider the very possible negative long-term effects and reject both proposals.
A bit of history: The UNM Labor Relations Board petitioned to unionize in January. It proposed a union affiliated nationally with the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors. Against a backdrop of years of frustration over a lack of meaningful raises and investment, proponents said unionizing would help “provide the best possible environment for teaching, learning, research and outreach” by collective bargaining.
In an op-ed in Wednesday’s Journal (Page A13), Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein writes, “Shockingly, these adjuncts are the new working poor, with over 25% eligible for public assistance, and are overburdened with having to teach too many courses for very little in compensation.”
It’s a dire predicament, and it’s understandable why many faculty members would support collective bargaining that advocates on their behalf. But opponents raise serious, valid concerns that this proposed union incarnation would be worse than what ails the faculty. Among the most pressing:
While many temporary faculty would be in one bargaining unit, the other bargaining unit lumps others plus tenure-track, lecturer and research faculty together. That onesize-fits-most approach disregards essential differences in disciplines, subjects and specialties. For example, requiring a set teaching load discounts those who lead research projects or write books, both key aspects for research institutions.
Such a contract could severely hobble departments that need to be nimble in locking down talented faculty. Academia has its own version of rock stars. Having to run offers past union officials and measuring all faculty by the same yardstick could mean UNM misses out on some talent.
The rigidity in a union contract could jeopardize UNM’s status as an R1 research facility as influential faculty members go where they have the freedom to meet the requirements of their six- and seven-figure grants. That would mean less money for UNM and could threaten the school’s relationship with New Mexico’s three national labs as funders choose universities that embrace what the research mission entails.
The determination of who can vote in this election defies explanation. Managerial responsibilities are fluid in the academic world, and in fact many faculty who have minimal supervisory duties are not eligible to vote, while nearly full-time managers are.
There is no doubt state revenues and funding for higher education have been squeezed in recent years, but the state now has the resources to boost that spending. Some of that money should go to faculty salaries, with or without a union.
And if a union is what most faculty want, it should be done right and not rushed through. Faculty members, who have already endured so much, should not book tickets on a plane that will only be built after takeoff.
UNM is proud that as a minority-majority school, it provides access to research opportunities and world-class academics to Hispanic, Native American and other minority students in one of the poorest states in the country. Those students and their faculty deserve a vetted plan that respects the more than 20 different academic titles at UNM as well as their respective missions. This proposal is simply not ready for prime time and could do much more harm than good.