Matt Reed is worried about unions in discussions of the financial stability of colleges:
Internally, for instance, many public colleges (including my own) are unionized. Collective bargaining agreements, and sometimes state laws, can greatly narrow the strike zone for any prospective downsizing. When you have to do layoffs by seniority, and your salaries are mostly determined by seniority, the most expensive employees are the most protected. That makes the math harder.While I get that this creates problems, there are bigger issues that everyone wants to ignore. I want to talk later about health insurance costs, and how that creates a relatively large crisis.
But the idea that job security is a problem suggests that there is already an assumption of neoliberal ideals of a lack of security in life. Keep in mind that wealth provides options and people with lots of money have an implicit security -- you have options if working is optional or if you can cover a gap without problems. Why have we evolved from seeing people as resources to liabilities? Why would you not want to keep your most experienced employees?
It is also worth noting that institutional loyalty is much harder to develop if senior managers are constantly worried about high seniority employees. How can you be loyal to a place that sees you as a barrier to efficient lay-offs.
Now I do get the main point -- that colleges are meant to be grown and shrunk in slow and organic ways. It is not a style of organization that works well with either fast growth or fast shrinking. This suggests that maybe stabilization of finding (both directions) should be a piece of the conversation. After all, doesn't it make sense to be able to plan?
No comments:
Post a Comment