Executive Council Member: Why I Voted “No” on the Proposed Contract

Reports are trickling in from the PSC’s June 23rd Delegate Assembly, at which the delegates voted to recommend that the membership accept the proposed contract negotiated with CUNY management earlier this month. Glenn Kissack is one of three members of the union’s Executive Council to have voted against the agreement. We reprint below Kissack’s statement explaining why he voted against the proposed contract.

—Editors

Personal Statement About the Proposed Contract

by  Glenn Kissack

I am one of the three members of the Executive Council who voted against recommending the proposed memorandum of agreement. At the EC we were allowed ample time to present our doubts about the contract, and we in turn listened to the arguments in favor of acceptance.

Those who voted to accept are our comrades, people who care for the members and devoted considerable time and effort towards winning a decent contract. We’ve marched and rallied together, been arrested together, spent hours talking to members about strike authorization. No other union we know of has been as active as the PSC. The principal leaders have sacrificed their personal lives, put in 18-hour days and withstood mean-spirited threats from the Governor. Despite all the sacrifices and determination, the proposed agreement—while containing some gains—is an austerity contract, not the transformative one that members hoped for.

No movement towards salary equity for adjuncts

I have good friends who are adjuncts teaching 12 credits a semester at two campuses, working during the summer and still having trouble paying their bills. No union committed to social justice, as we are, should accept this. This agreement will widen the gap between full-time and adjunct professors. And that’s not just bad for the adjuncts—it’s bad for everyone because the expanding availability of ever-cheaper contingent labor (relative to full-timers) is the foundation of the austerity regime of the cost-cutters. Under this regime, departments must pare budgets and have fewer full-time positions for new faculty, while conditions worsen for the full-timers who remain.

Salary increases that don’t keep up with inflation

You’ll hear different numbers mentioned, but the last time we had a contractual salary increase was October 20, 2009. What has inflation done to those salaries? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has an inflation calculator here. If you put in $100 for 2009, the price in 2016 is $111.98. So prices increased nearly 12% over those seven years. Yet the agreement provides for only an 8.5% increase to date. So our salaries will not have kept pace with inflation. There’s another 1.5% in 2017, but inflation nationally is now more than 2% and climbing.

Moreover, there are respected economists who argue that the rate of inflation in NYC has been higher than elsewhere. According to The Economist, “the cost of living in New York has risen by about 23% over the past five years.”

Finally, there’s the 4% that other state unions received in 2010 and which the PSC rightfully demanded. For an assistant professor making $81,000 that 4% raise would have provided almost $20,000 in retroactive pay. Instead, we’ll receive zero percent for 2011.

Promises under austerity

Certain key parts of the agreement are mere promises, without any contractual mechanism for guaranteeing they happen. They include the labor-management committee to “develop a plan and identify resources” to reduce the annual teaching workload by 3 hours, as well as the possibility of $2500 salary increases for HEOs stuck at the top salary step for their title and who take on “increased responsibility.”

Our salaries are scheduled to be 8.5% higher in September. However, the senior colleges received only a 0.9% budget increase for this coming year. Given the resulting strain on budgets, what’s the likelihood of CUNY granting many HEOs the $2500 increases they deserve? And what’s the likelihood that CUNY will be able to implement a costly reduction in teaching workload? And isn’t there the danger that the lure of $2500 for more work will result in the speedup of HEOs?

Preparing for a Strike

The alternative to accepting the flawed offer from management is to prepare for a strike. As someone who was on strike with the UFT in 1975, I know that strikes aren’t easy. Success is not guaranteed, and what is guaranteed is that the Governor and the Mayor will ask the courts to levy heavy fines and eliminate automatic dues checkoff. The PSC would sustain a heavy hit.

But the cold reality is that there is no other way of staving off contracts that impose the same austerity pattern other unions accepted without striking. And the truth is that millions of public workers – teachers, welfare and sanitation workers, postal workers and others – defied laws forbidding them to strike in the 1960’s and ‘70’s and won major gains, despite the penalties they incurred. (Summer reading recommendation: Strike Back: Using the Militant Tactics of Labor’s Past to Reignite Public Sector Unionism Today by Joe Burns.)

We had a 92% strike authorization vote. It is true that some of those yes voters do not want to strike. But that vote was a strong foundation to build for a strike. It’s clear that in the fall the CUNY Board of Trustees will ask the legislature for another round of tuition hikes, and this time the legislators will say yes. So this fall will be a time when students begin to organize campaigns against their being forced to pay for the lack of state investment in CUNY. This would have been a perfect opportunity for us to forge a strong alliance with students to challenge the Governor’s austerity regime. I think we’ll regret missing this opportunity.

The Future

Whatever is decided this evening, we’ll unite for the battles ahead. Two thing we should consider:

  1. Initiating a labor campaign against the anti-strike provisions of the Taylor Law. Other industrialized countries—France, Italy, Canada, etc.—permit strikes of public workers. The International Labor Organization says that strikes of most public workers should be allowed. What if we only endorsed candidates who pledge to work to eliminate the Taylor Law penalties for striking?
  2. Beginning a “Fight for 7k a Course” campaign modeled on the national “Fight for 15” campaign – winning broad support for ending the outrage of “professors in poverty.”
Advertisements

A Message to Adjuncts, Part-timers and other Exploited Faculty on the Occasion of the Proposed Contract

By Andy Battle

Dear Adjuncts, Part-timers and other Exploited Faculty:

I write to you because we are in a special time. Your union has just presented you with a contract that has the power to shape how you live and you will be asked to give your approval. The union will present you with the details of the agreement they have negotiated, but beyond the bare numbers will give you little context and few tools with which to evaluate whether this is truly in your interest. What little analysis you will hear will come from the officials who negotiated the contract. The fact is they are tired and demoralized and sincerely believe that we have no hope of doing better. They are afraid to strike because they know we are weak—the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby we refuse to prepare for a confrontation in any sense beyond the purely rhetorical. They have released the contract in the dead of summer, when they know the fewest number of people will be paying attention and there will be as few opportunities as possible for you to discuss it with the other people who will be affected by what they have decided on your behalf. Both management and the union leadership are counting on your isolation.

We are part-time faculty. We make up the majority of the people for whom this contract was negotiated. We have to ask what it does for us. The answer, if you look, is not much. The raises we will receive barely keep pace with inflation—the true measure of what the money will get you—and don’t even come close to matching the increase in what it has cost to live in this city since 2009. In that sense, management and the union leadership are asking you to accept a pay cut, with the threat of extended punishment should you say no. The other provisions ratify our subordinate status, despite the fact that we constitute an always-growing majority. The “signing bonus,” which would be unnecessary in a contract that promised actual relief, will be pro-rated for all except those who already make the most money. The promised workload reduction is intended only for the shrinking full-time minority and there is no indication that it will not be used to increase the pool of adjuncts working at what will continue to be poverty-level wages. The leadership even appears to have acquiesced to an opening salvo in the drive to eliminate tenure, in the form of 250 appointments for “full-time faculty on one-year contracts, without access to tenure.” Anyone who is wondering what such appointments look like can take a peek across the Hudson, where they already exist. Does anyone believe management intends to stop there?

In short, the contract is a bruiser and contains little substantive resistance to the forty-year assault on working people the PSC rightly bemoans. It’s not that there is nothing worth having in the contract. For people living hand-to-mouth, as we do, some money is obviously better than no money. The possibility of a three-year appointment is better than freaking out every four months that you may be thrown to the curb by your ostensible colleagues. But in the grand scheme of things, this is nibbling around the edges and plugging your ears in the hope that next contract, the problem might go away. But if you consider this contract in the broader trajectory of our working conditions, the signs for the future are not promising. Think about it—union leadership had to take extraordinary measures this time, in the form of a threatened strike, simply to secure a marginally-less humiliating settlement from management, and one that not only preserves but ratifies and widens the two-tier system and the gross violation of basic principle it represents. It makes you wonder what new dances we will be asked to perform next time to be allotted the privilege of another dose.

We have to ask ourselves whether we are willing to continue living like this. This round of negotiations has shown that any change in our situation is not going to come from above. We have three options. We can remain resigned and helpless, submitting to both the macro and micro humiliations shoveled onto part-time faculty each and every day. We can continue to believe in illusions—that someone who is not us will fix it, that the union has a plan, that the next contract will be different. Or we can face the situation soberly, reject the immediate short-term perspective and realize that the interests not just of ourselves as individuals, but of our students, our colleagues, and all New Yorkers who work for a living demand that we figure out how to say “no—it stops here”—and then figure out how to organize ourselves to make that “no” count.

Many worry, and rightly, about what will happen to us if we dare to say “no.” There is no question that I am asking us to consider a road that in the short term promises no small amount of uncertainty and, yes, pain. And if there are clear, pre-defined steps for going about a project as daunting as this, I have never been made privy to them. What I do know is that the first step is to say “no.” The rest follows and can only follow from the consequences of that refusal. I do believe that we, the rank-and-file, are capable of much more than what is asked of us by the leadership and maybe even a little more than we ourselves presently understand. I know because we are human beings and because we are teachers. If you’re one of those people who still gets a little nervous every time they have to enter the classroom, but still can’t wait to do it, I suspect you know what I mean.

So yes, I am calling for something more radical than what the union leadership is offering. I reject the idea that it’s crazy or unrealistic. What to me is unrealistic is the idea that by accepting a brutally concessionary contract such as this one we are opposing austerity in any meaningful way, which is what the PSC leadership rightfully exhorts us to do but, for reasons I do not understand, will not summon the imagination to address.

Sometimes I ask students what to them is the definition of “radical.” And I give them mine. I tell them that “radical” comes from the Latin word radix, meaning “root.” In other words, radical acts are ones that question and reshape fundamental principles. In order to confront the scale and nature of the attacks on our principles—the ones we live every day through our commitment to students—we need to contemplate radical acts. In our position, the radical becomes rational. The first act is to recognize that we cannot and say that we will not live like this any longer. The second is to organize ourselves to take advantage of the only power we have, which consists in numbers, commitment, and a higher vision. This contract asks us for none of that and as such is unworthy of the work we do. We have to insist on something better, and the first step is to say no.

What is “The Student” ?

On Wednesday May 11, CUNY Struggle held the first in a series of open forum discussions about issues central to university organizing, titled “What is the Student?”

The event drew undergraduate students, graduate student-workers, as well as adjunct and full-time professors, who gathered to debate and articulate the ideological underpinnings of a CUNY movement, and specifically the place of the “student” within such a movement.

To really have a productive conversation on this topic, it was useful to clearly delineate our understandings of what is, what ought to be, and how we conceive of the process which will bring us from point A to point B. Therefore we need not isolate empirical analysis from more abstract political analysis, no less from our aspirations for a better world.

Continue reading “What is “The Student” ?”

Join Us on the Verizon Picket Line

Today CUNY Struggle teamed up with the Adjunct Project and the Graduate Center chapter of the PSC for the first of a series of pickCim-xI7XIAAnTR2ets in solidarity with striking Verizon workers. We will be posted up at the Herald Square location (1293 Broadway) at 5:30pm on Mondays and Wednesdays until Verizon caves in and does right by its workers! We feel small gestures of solidarity like this are necessary not only to build our capacities within the CUNY system, but to build and strengthen ties of practical solidarity with the broader NYC working class. Click here for more information about these pickets, or else just come find us in the streets!

An Overwhelming Yes on Strike Authorization—What Now?

The strike authorization vote is in and the result is an overwhelming yes. Moreover, participation was significant, with over 10,000—around half the membership—registering a vote. The leadership has got what it wants—now what do they intend to do with it?

One possibility is that the leadership has ruled out striking and plans to use the vote purely as a bargaining chip to pressure the state to come up with a better economic offer. If this is the case, it would indicate that the leadership remains unwilling to transcend the status quo but finds itself compelled to use increasingly dramatic measures simply to maintain the present rate of decline in our working conditions. The other is that they have not made up their minds and remain open to the idea of a strike.

13118868_10156868310095594_437814942962033573_nIf the latter, no one knows what the magic number is that will cause Barbara Bowen & Co. to throw up their hands and resort to what in our view is the only tactic that can secure even the bread-and-butter goals of this ostensibly social-justice union—labor’s most powerful weapon, a strike. In the PSC press release and Bowen’s e-mail message to members, Bowen refers simply to a “decent economic offer” without providing specifics. The only thing we know for certain is that the union has rejected CUNY’s insulting pay-cut offer of last November. Moreover, we don’t know which of the 35 demands ratified way back in 2010 the bargaining team is pushing hard on and which are expendable, given that the union, in Bowen’s words, “remains absolutely committed to achieving an acceptable contract through the negotiating process.”

Continue reading “An Overwhelming Yes on Strike Authorization—What Now?”

A Little History of PSC Pledges to Adjuncts, or, Our Leaders Weren’t Always So Timid About Dismantling the Two-Tier System

by Ruth Wangerin

If adjuncts want documentation to cite in lobbying for a significant pay increase in the contract currentCUOI5h5WcAA13u2-640x360ly in negotiation/mediation, they might refer to the following PSC records from 2004, 2007, and 2010.

2004

In 2004, the PSC was committed to parity for adjuncts in income and working conditions. They worried about the impact of the 9/6 rule on adjuncts’ livelihoods and promised to debate and discuss it fully. They even passed a resolution at the Delegate Assembly in Sept. 2004 to continue discussing the 9/6 issue:

Whereas the achievement of parity for adjuncts in income and professional working conditions is the contractual goal of the PSC, and

Whereas injury to one group is injury to all in a fully committed union of workers, and

Whereas improvement of the 9/6 rule has long been deferred, a more sensitive and sensible adjunct workload policy could make a favorable difference in how adjuncts view the union, and

Whereas the May 2004 Delegate Assembly meeting ended with assurance of further discussion at this meeting on the 9/6 matter, now therefore

Resolved, that the PSC undertake a discussion on solidarity across the ranks during Campus Equity Week and the formation of a working group to start discussing adjunct workload (9/6 policy), but in privacy.  

Continue reading “A Little History of PSC Pledges to Adjuncts, or, Our Leaders Weren’t Always So Timid About Dismantling the Two-Tier System”

I’m Voting Yes on Strike Authorization

 

by Jarrod Shanahan

To mark the beginning of the PSC’s strike authorization vote, we invite perspectives on the vote, the contract, and the campaign ahead. This first piece comes from Jarrod Shanahan, a PhD candidate and teaching fellow in Environmental Psychology at the CUNY Graduate Center, a rank-and-file PSC member, and an editor of CUNYStruggle.org.  

Before starting at CUNY as a graduate teaching fellow I worked on and off for over a decade as a residential furniture mover and truck driver. I saw firsthand the immense wealth of cities like Boston and  New York juxtaposed with the poverty wages of myself and my coworkers, engaged EM-151104-PSC-CUNY-021_0though we were in backbreaking labor for endless hours in an industry that laughs at labor law. I felt quite viscerally our powerlessness against the dictatorial, often illegal management practices which characterize the average non-union “small business” so wrongfully hallowed in US folklore. I struggled with the difficulties of convincing my co-workers to take even the most preliminary steps towards collective action, as many quite rightfully feared retaliation, especially those without documents or with dependents at home, or else had negative experiences with the nepotism of unions like the Teamsters. And in one instance, when a handful of us organized a direct action campaign demanding higher wages and health benefits, we won some modest gains–only to be fired, under some bogus pretext, shortly thereafter. We needed a union, alright, because we wanted control over the work that we did, the power to fight for higher wages and benefits, the ability force agreements, and the strength to enforce them, until the next round of struggle.

Continue reading “I’m Voting Yes on Strike Authorization”