Gunduz Caginalp
It is clear that a union will benefit Pitt faculty. What is less obvious is that it will also benefit teaching and scholarship. The major universities have evolved into big businesses over the years, while the university hires an unending stream of high-paid administrators. There is now a large scale tug-of-war for resources among administration, athletics, construction, teaching, research and scholarship, etc. Without a union, faculty will continue to be among the weakest of these entities as more aggressive groups grow and flourish at their expense. More money will flow toward activities that are peripheral to the core mission of the university. And as fewer resources go into teaching relative to enrollment, either faculty salaries will decrease in purchasing power or class sizes will increase. Meanwhile, the percentage of faculty who are in secure positions (e.g. tenured) diminishes. This is undesirable from the perspective of learning. Without job security, faculty, particularly adjuncts, are not in a position to maintain high standards of grading. And although students may initially be happy with the looser standards, ultimately they lose.
Without collective bargaining, the administration is also able to make impositions disadvantageous to both the faculty and the university. An important example is the intellectual property agreement that the university has asked us to sign; under its terms, we are compelled to cede ownership of much of the intellectual property that we have spent our lives developing, even ideas developed during time periods such as the summer when many of us are not paid. If we refuse, the university will not process our applications for government grants. As a result, both parties lose not only overhead funds, but also the scholarly activity—including that of graduate students and post-docs—those grants would normally support. From the perspective of economic justice, the situation is a mockery, since salary raises and promotions depend on obtaining these grants that the university refuses to process.
--Gunduz Caginalp, Math
Without collective bargaining, the administration is also able to make impositions disadvantageous to both the faculty and the university. An important example is the intellectual property agreement that the university has asked us to sign; under its terms, we are compelled to cede ownership of much of the intellectual property that we have spent our lives developing, even ideas developed during time periods such as the summer when many of us are not paid. If we refuse, the university will not process our applications for government grants. As a result, both parties lose not only overhead funds, but also the scholarly activity—including that of graduate students and post-docs—those grants would normally support. From the perspective of economic justice, the situation is a mockery, since salary raises and promotions depend on obtaining these grants that the university refuses to process.
--Gunduz Caginalp, Math
