Reader's Forum: Faculty group does rhetorical backflips in arguing against union

I have to admit I had a good chuckle reading the article about the Committee for an Independent Faculty (The NEWS, Dec. 15).

Could they show anything that even remotely proved their argument that unionizing reduces clout? What about a study? How about some statistics? Perhaps a sample contract where unionized faculty (inexplicably) negotiated away rights and terms of employment? I guess after their last little temper tantrum, I should not be surprised that they do not seem to know (or even care to learn) the nuances of labor law. After a successful union election, the law generally requires that terms of employment are frozen. This prevents management from retaliating against employees for unionizing by stripping benefits from them before negotiations start. The only way faculty would "give up" anything is if they would vote to do so when they ratified a contract, something I see as very unlikely.

I must say that the proposed "remedies" are even funnier. For example, proposing non-voting faculty membership on the Board of Trustees as an alternative to a union. I understand that the Faculty Senate has been working on this for years but perhaps they should ask some students how empowered they feel with non-voting seats. There has been a debate in the student community for years on whether to lobby the state Legislature to give voting rights to the student members like in other states. I can assure you the line of logic was not, "Hey, this non-voting thing is working so great, let's just see what voting would be like, you know, just for fun."

But perhaps the funniest part of the article was their argument that Ohio University policies actually give faculty a lot of rights, but the administration just does not follow them. In a realm I like to call "reality," this would be seen as a problem and a reason for pursuing a binding contract. Apparently this is not true for the "Independents." No, in their world all one needs to do is go to the employer and say, "You know, you really aren't following these policies. We would very much appreciate it if you would, even though there is nothing that says you HAVE to. Would you please do it, because it would sure make us all feel swell."

Here is an idea for the "Independents." They could round up a group of incredibly well-respected members of the faculty. Let us call them for the sake of argument Distinguished University Professors or something like that. Then, they could have these Distinguished University Professors write a "strongly worded letter" about how the Board of Trustees is not living up to its responsibilities. They could arrange a meeting to show this "vitriolic epistle" to the board and tell them that if they do not change their ways they will gasp release it to the press, with their names written on it and everything.

Wait, this sounds familiar. Oh yes, it reads exactly like what the real DUP's did to show their disapproval of the president's job performance. Only if memory serves me correctly, they were publicly embarrassed by the administration when their letter was released to the media before their signatures were attached. That should be the shining example that the modern university is not "collegial" but instead the same as any other employer.

In closing, I wish the AAUP good luck; I am rooting for you,

Editor's note: Dominic Barbato of Canton served as president of the Graduate Student Senate at Ohio University last school year.