Many important decisions about our careers at Pitt occur inside a black box, leaving many with questions about whether these decisions are being made in an even-handed way. This state of affairs creates an atmosphere where favoritism can trump merit, where discrimination can flourish. What criteria are used to determine who gets a promotion, or who gets funding for their project? Who decides how big the raises are from year to year? How is it determined which NTS faculty members are renewed and which are not, or which tenure candidates get tenure? Often, these criteria are opaque or seemingly non-existent, relying the discretion and good will of those with the power to decide.
Does that mean that administrators are routinely making these decisions in bad faith? It is impossible to say, because much of the information we’d need to make that assessment isn’t disclosed. Of course, many administrators, Deans, Chairs, and so forth are doing their best to be fair and even-handed, but their interests and priorities do not always align with those of the faculty. Under the status quo, when unfair decisions occur it can be difficult to even access the evidence we need to appeal these matters, and the appeals process itself often relies on the same people who made the original decision.
A union can improve this situation by putting us on more even footing with the administration. We can bargain into our contract a mandate that the criteria for important decisions about our careers be made available to us, and that we have a say in establishing those criteria, without inappropriately standardizing them across departments. We can also bargain for a transparent appeals process when we have reason to believe those criteria have not been followed. Having a union would also give us the option to file grievances in instances in which the internal processes fail, which would allow us to bring particularly difficult questions before a neutral third party.
To learn more about how unions have improved working conditions for faculty at other universities, visit http://www.pittfaculty.org/contracts.html
Does that mean that administrators are routinely making these decisions in bad faith? It is impossible to say, because much of the information we’d need to make that assessment isn’t disclosed. Of course, many administrators, Deans, Chairs, and so forth are doing their best to be fair and even-handed, but their interests and priorities do not always align with those of the faculty. Under the status quo, when unfair decisions occur it can be difficult to even access the evidence we need to appeal these matters, and the appeals process itself often relies on the same people who made the original decision.
A union can improve this situation by putting us on more even footing with the administration. We can bargain into our contract a mandate that the criteria for important decisions about our careers be made available to us, and that we have a say in establishing those criteria, without inappropriately standardizing them across departments. We can also bargain for a transparent appeals process when we have reason to believe those criteria have not been followed. Having a union would also give us the option to file grievances in instances in which the internal processes fail, which would allow us to bring particularly difficult questions before a neutral third party.
To learn more about how unions have improved working conditions for faculty at other universities, visit http://www.pittfaculty.org/contracts.html
