presented to the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor COCAL XIV Conference, August 5, Querétaro, México
by Arnie Daniel Schoenberg, San Diego Adjunct Faculty Association (sdafa.org)
Intro
Before we pat ourselves on the back, let’s deal with the remaining problems. I beg the question that unions are good, and contingent faculty are better off with a union than without one. But, this doesn’t mean we should refrain from criticizing unions when they fail their members. It is possible to be pro-union and critical of union corruption at the same time. Constructive criticism of unions will hopefully make them stronger.
Corruption can take many forms, but it usually involves the furtive exchange of money and power, and deviation from moral precepts. The following is based on my experience in 2-year community colleges in San Diego, California, where faculty are represented by corrupt unions that represent both contingent and tenure-track faculty (wall-to-wall unions). Many contingent-only unions are ineffectual and there is occasional corruption within them, but here I focus on the systemic corruption found in wall-to-wall faculty unions where the union does have power but fails ethically to use their power to improve the working conditions of their most vulnerable members. These corrupt unions instead use contract negotiation and selective grieving to enshrine privileges for tenure-track faculty. Unions conspire with management to channel the surplus-value of contingent labor to tenure-track faculty and administrators. They resist change and stay in power through a patronage system.
My experiences are not unique and can be generalized to most of the world, considering the glaring contradiction that contingent faculty are both the majority of faculty and lack equal pay for equal work. If unions lived up to their principles, this wouldn’t happen; our economic inequality is a direct consequence of the lack of union democracy and union corruption.
“If you have a problem with your Union leadership, just organize and vote them out!”–sage advice from the well-intentioned but clueless outsiders. The ideology behind this advice comes from a long tradition of blaming the victim for their own oppression. But, it is useful to provoke us to examine why this corruption has continued for so many decades.
Patronage System
To maintain power, the union leadership funnels money to its officers through Committee on Political Education (COPE) funds, release time, and other emoluments. These officers are then beholden to the leadership, and because almost all wall-to-wall unions are led by tenure-track faculty, the union sustains the exploitation of contingent faculty.
An example from my union is the slate of candidates for union leadership that has run essentially unopposed for more than two decades. The consistency comes not from the quality of the candidates but from a patronage system that enforces unity. Over the last decade, the union leadership has funneled over 1 million dollars to fellow Executive Board members to buy their support. Executive Board members vote to give money to their fellow slate members with a quid pro quo understanding that their turn will come around later. Over 90% of votes at union meetings are unanimous. The only allowance for separation between the Union coffers and voting to give it to themselves is that prospective recipients need to leave the room while the vote is happening–as if this farce of integrity somehow makes it less corrupt.
Millions of dollars of membership dues that could be used to support contingent faculty are transferred to the COPE fund and then to Executive members for political campaigns unrelated to the districts represented by the union. The Union leaders buy allegiance from their board members.
Besides COPE money, other donations go to pet projects such as a newspaper or “worthy causes” run by Executive Board members.
Another component of the patronage system is the assignment of release time. Release time is where the union bargains with the administration to pay the wages of faculty directly for doing union work; their time is “released” from teaching so they can serve the goals of the union. Decisions about who gets release-time are controlled by tenure-track faculty, and go predominantly to tenure-track faculty. The union leadership buys the patronage of those receiving release time.
“I can hire half the working class to kill the other half”
-apocryphal
Release-timers
Paying contingent faculty organizers is necessary but invites corruption. It is necessary to have professional organizers who can take time away from teaching to dedicate to contingent issues. However; when the hiring and firing is controlled by tenure-track faculty, these “release-timers” are often chosen for the ability to demobilize and disorganize contingent faculty. They become token representatives who sell-out the interests of contingent faculty in order to ingratiate themselves with tenure-track leaders and continue receiving release time. They function more as gatekeepers than organizers.
For example, my union’s main contingent faculty organizer has a long history of demobilizing contingent activism and voting against the interests of part-time faculty at union meetings. They initiated a blocklist of adjunct organizers who were not allowed to participate in union events and actively blocked my attempts to bring Frank Cosco to a union meeting to present the Vancouver model. Union money corrupts many contingent leaders into acting in their own short-term self-interests, at the expense of long-term change for contingent faculty.
Company Unions
Wall-to-wall unions represent the direct supervisors of the contingent faculty. This is called a Company Union or a Yellow Union. The department Chair makes hiring, firing, and class scheduling decisions for their contingent underlings. In this situation, the union leadership must choose whom to represent: the prestigious colleague they interact with daily, or the powerless transient who might not come back to teach again next semester. A union that values solidarity and stands on ethical principles would of course support the most downtrodden, but the corruption of an Old Boys network can easily overcome ethical principles.
For example, a group of contingent faculty from my college were hounded by a vindictive Chair, and when they threatened to complain to the union, the Chair told one of the contingent faculty members that they “will be sorry for having made accusations against me to the Union;” that they were “a defenseless adjunct with no real power” and the union was not going to protect them because the union president and I “are good friends and he will always be on my side” (https://www.sdafa.org/city-language-adjuncts/). Contingent faculty in wall-to-wall unions remain represented by their supervisors leading to systemic corruption.
Orwellian Gymnastics
The ideological contortions required for a union to both spout progressive rhetoric but oppress their largest bargaining unit verges on the absurd. The 2018 US Supreme Court Janus decision allowed employees to stop paying union dues, and many contingent faculty leave corrupt unions that don’t represent them. My union refuses to account for these losses, and in the tradition of double-speak, contingent faculty who quit the union are labeled as “not yet joined”.
One “progressive” union board member did a survey on the difference between contingent-only and wall-to-wall unions and when the data was critical of wall-to-wall unions, they refused to release the results.
Contingent Blocklists
One way for contingent faculty to build strength within a wall-to-wall union is to establish an official committee dedicated to contingent issues. You might think a union would welcome and encourage activist members. But, when my contingent committee began mobilizing contingent faculty to press for issues within the union (such as an interdistrict health insurance plan, legislation regarding pay equity, and tenure-track overload limitations), the union leadership arbitrarily dismantled the committee for being “too negative” and began a blocklist of contingent activists. The current contingent committee is only open to Executive Board members, and meets secretly, if at all. When committees report back to the general union meetings, all other committees encourage participation from the rank and file, except the union’s official contingent committee.
Systemic Corruption
This corruption occurs daily and is tolerated at all levels, and there is nowhere for contingent faculty to turn for help. National mega-unions refuse to interfere in the internal business of their locals, which are controlled by tenure-track faculty. Legislators are beholden to the financial contributions from these unions, and will never address fundamental issues like equal pay for equal work. Public regulatory agencies such as the Public Employment Relations Board refuse to hear complaints that unions fail to represent their members. Contingent-only unions are afraid to help lest they be accused of “poaching.” Corruption is so rampant that it is considered normal.
¿Y tú levantas himno de victoria
en el día sin sol de la batalla?
-Ricardo Gutiérrez
Conclusion
Unions are great, but they would be better if their leaders were less hypocritical. For most contingent faculty in wall-to-wall unions, the union is the problem. The union is the main force dividing and conquering contingent faculty. The wall-to-wall union is the institution most responsible for protecting the privilege of tenure-track faculty at the expense of contingent faculty. Our struggle is to call the hypocrites out, hold them to their stated principles, and achieve real solidarity and real unity.