Today, University staff members have the opportunity to vote on unionization, and though I am a member of the faculty, I would like to urge all staff members to seriously consider voting in favor of establishing a union.
I have never been a fan of unions, disinclined as I am towards all forms of collectivism, where the individual always runs the risk of disappearing within the group. And as major labor unions, such as the Teamsters, have amply demonstrated, the possibilities for corruption are no less than in any other large organization that controls huge amounts of money.
But before they became political action committees and extensions of the mob, unions did win the American worker his rights, and 29 years at UNM have convinced me that the only hope for the University worker, both staff and faculty, is unionization.
Why? Because we are all getting screwed - by the university administration and by the state political apparatus. The statement of Susan Carkeek, director of Human Resources, that UNM has a great working relationship with the staff is one of those delightful Alice-in-Wonderland statements periodically issued by the administration. It is like Heinrich Himmler assuring the world that the German government has a great relationship with the Jews.
But this is bureaucratic America: Proclaim the silly statement enough times and it will begin to take on the aura of truth.
For three decades I have watched a succession of administrations make promises to the staff, yet not only is the position of the staff no better than it was in the early '70s, but the only action I have seen on the part of Scholes Hall has been to do everything possible to prevent the staff - and faculty - from forming any effective union.
More than a decade ago (the chronology has become a blur), the university spent an immense amount of money fighting a losing legal battle to get UNM exempted from the new state law that permitted state employees to form collective bargaining units. More recently, they dragged their feet as much as possible in the negotiations leading to today's election, issuing a propaganda barrage about how terribly disruptive and unpleasant confrontation would be.
To judge from the actual history, the administrative solution to problems with the staff is simply to make nonsense statements, like that of Ms. Carkeek, and more empty promises. For example, in 1996 the University announced that it would link staff salaries to market averages, and, surprise, five years later eight out of 10 staff members are still below the market average and the gap between general staff income and that of top administrators continues to grow. "A great working relationship?" Why then is there an annual 30 percent turnover of staff?
A number of objections to unionization have been aired recently.
"You will lose your individual rights." Well, you run that risk in any organization that is designed to represent the group, and the members must be careful to ensure that the internal mechanisms of the union protect individual interests. Merit can still function within a union environment, and in any case, so far as I can tell, when in it comes to individual raises in the current system, "patronage" seems a more appropriate term than "merit."
"Unions are corrupt." Now, here is an example of compelling logic: "Some, perhaps many, unions are corrupt, therefore all unions are corrupt." By that logic, we must conclude that since past UNM administrations have been occasionally caught in corrupt practices, then this and every other administration must be corrupt. Even more reason to form a union.
"State employees cannot strike, so why bother with a union?" The power of collective action is not limited to job action. Union-organized public demonstrations against UNM's practices, for example, would certainly have some effect; the administration is very sensitive about the University's image among the public, which for the most part has no idea what goes on here.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
And besides, job action is still an available tactic in the form of sick-outs and work slow-downs. Anything that has the potential to embarrass the university regents and administrators has the potential to get results. And in the end, are they going to fire several thousand strikers and thus shut the institution down?
"The CWA has not improved the lot of its members." Hey, what can I say? The CWA stinks, which is even more reason to form another unit.
And what is this "We're all on the same team" crap? The faculty has heard this one before, the claim that we must present a united front, especially to the real enemy, the state government. We are manifestly not all in the same boat: Administrators continue to draw huge salaries regardless of the actions in Santa Fe, and Scholes Hall has been redecorated a hell of a lot more times than Mesa Vista.
Vote for a union! It can hardly be any worse. And maybe the faculty will get the message.
