TAs will be needed to get less-than-tech-savvy faculty members converted to the technology of remote education. To have any kind of interaction, particularly in larger classes, TAs will have to conduct sections, etc. So, is there a route to a resolution? Below is a personal recommendation from yours truly:
--------------------
A Third-Party Neutral Could Help Resolve the Current Grad
Student Strike
====
For many years before retiring, I taught courses at UCLA
dealing with labor relations and collective bargaining. So perhaps I can offer
a route out of the current graduate student/TA strike that is centered on the
UC-Santa Cruz campus, but is having ripple effects on other campuses.
Let’s dispose of the legalities. I say “dispose” because
although both UC and the union involved – UAW 2865 - have filed unfair labor
practice charges against each other at the California Public Employment
Relations Board (PERB), it is an illusion to think the PERB process is going to
provide a quick resolution.
UC says that the union signed a multiyear contract which has
yet to expire and which has a no-strike clause. It says the union has violated
its contract by not taking steps to halt the strike. The union says the strike
is a wildcat, unauthorized strike over which it has no authority. But, at the
same time, the union wants UC to reopen the contract and negotiate a new settlement.
PERB will in due course investigate, possibly issue a complaint, and hold a
hearing, all time consuming steps. In reaching a decision, PERB will look not
only at what the union publicly says, but what it has done. PERB could
conceivably order the union to take steps to halt the strike, but even with
such steps, how effective could such a remedy be? Probably not much.
The point here is that PERB is unlikely to be the source of
a settlement. So, let’s move on to what’s at stake for the union, for the
strikers, and for UC. All three have a stake in having a significant level of
trust in the collective bargaining relationship. Unless there is to be a future
of prolonged and difficult negotiations, recurrent impasses, and strikes, there
is value to the proposition that a deal is a deal, apart from the legalities
involved. That is the essence of UC’s position, but it should also matter to
the union and the strikers, too. If a deal isn’t a deal, you are likely to end
up with an endless rocky relationship that benefits no one. Note that it is
possible to negotiate long-term contracts that have contingencies built in for
unforeseen events that can trigger an early reopening.
It is also possible – if there is a sufficient level of
trust – for the union and UC to recognize that unforeseen events have occurred
at the present time and mutually to agree to reopen the contract. UC’s
educational function is not well served by disruption and a hostile
relationship with key employees.
Potential resolutions are available that could preserve the
principle of a deal is a deal and yet respond to the unfortunate situation that
has developed. Both UC and the union would need first to step away from the
legalities which aren’t likely to resolve anything. Often in situations when
there is low trust and when an impasse has occurred, it helps to bring in an
outside neutral for mediation and/or arbitration.
====
*Daniel J.B. Mitchell is a Professor-Emeritus at the UCLA Anderson School of Management and the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. He
continues to co-teach Public Affairs 145 – California Policy Issues – each
winter quarter at the Luskin School.
No comments:
Post a Comment