(Note: The UCONN Health Center's medical faculty voted on November 19, 2009 and The union supporters won by two votes, 223 to 221 to be part of the CSC-AAUP)
Morton Tenzer writes:.
I didn't forget your inquiry about the significance of the vote to unionize at the Health Center for the state conference. Of course it means we will add a large chapter which will improve the conference's finances We will have another voice at the state capitol. But the significance goes far beyond Connecticut. The vote has been hailed as the most important in higher education in the last ten years by the head of the Collective Bargaining Conference. It is the first time a medical school faculty has voted for collective bargaining, and it is hoped that other professional school faculties in medicine, law, and ohers may begin to consider collective bargaining more favorably.
The story of the vote fulfills the old adage "If at once you don't succeed,try,try again." From the outset of the law permitting collective bargaining in 1976 efforts were made to organize at the Health Center. On two different occasions in the seventies and eighties I remember giving talks there on the value of CB to the faculty, emphasizing the strengthened role in governance that it brings. The last effort by the UConn chapter in the nineties took a great deal of effort and expenditure ($50,000 if I recall correctly) and failed anyway. There were always too many very well paid doctors who thought unions were beneath them. What happened in 2009 that led to a different outcome? Fierst , there was the Great Rcession at the national level which increased the insecurity even of the wealthier members of the society and specifically hit the Med School with cutbacks in state funding. Then the new health Insurance reform working its way through Congress also threatened the income of doctors and hospitals who deal with Medicare patients. Finally, there were rumors that the Governor and other political leaders were considering merging the Health Center with Hartford Hospital, turning the institution into a private venture. This led to the bare majority willing to try to better secure their future with a collective voice.
Okay?
Mort .
12/3/2009
I thought that Mike Hogan would be a short time president when he was appointed. By choosing someone his age (63 at the time) after the long period of Austin's presidency, it seemed that the Board of Trustees wanted someone who could serve maybe five years before they would commit to someone for the long haul again. As it turned out he was not popular with the faculty or the unions on campus. After some enthusiasm from the students they cooled off. He never won over Hartford and he made a number of public relations gaffs- insisting on an expensive alternative to the official president's house as his domicile, spending extravagantly on refurbishing his office, and receiving an unnecessarily high salary in a time of cutbacks and furloughs for the staff. The feeling on campus this spring was that he was on his way out, but the promptness of his departure was a surprise. He did accomplish some things, notably securing funding for the expansion of the Health Center, but he won't be missed.
Morton Tenzer
5/13/2010
I don't have the time for a full piece, but very simply: Ever since the passage of the Higher Education Act in 1972 the primary source of federal funds for higher education has been student financial aid because Congress decided then to support students, not institutions. Billions of dollars have been appropriated annually for Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans, predominantly the loans. Of course the student aid was an indirect way of funding the institutions too by supporting increased enrollments while avoiding the sticky issue of federal funds for religious colleges and universities. The AAUP's lobbying agenda in Washington has always been primarily focussed on student aid because that is where the money is. The guaranteed student loan program allowed banks to make student loans with no fear of loss. As the amounts appropriated grew it was estimated that the banking industry was getting $6 billion for their services, money which could go to the students if administered directly by colleges and universities. The new law, bitterly fought by the banks, ends this program and provides these funds more directly to the students, thus adding loans to an additional couple of hundred thousand students, and making possible their enrollment in post secondary education.
Morton Tenzer
9/15/2010
Two Companion Pieces to the Fall Program of 2010 by Mark French.
We have two companion pieces that may be of interest. The first is from Mort Tenzer, in response to the question as to why EA members should be concerned that the student aid money should go to students, not banks. He coordinated the 11/17/2010 program with Mark French's address "New Era In Student Aid: Money for Students, Not Banks." Go to: http://eact.info/cscnews/mtcommentaries/html and look for the 9/15/2010 writeup. The second is a response to the presentation by Mark French. It is from Flo Hatcher, CSC-AAUP executive director, as follows:
From: "Keith Hatcher" <keith.hatcher@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:55:04 -0500
Dear EA members: I thought Mark French's presentation today was exceptional. He is certainly well informed about the many facets of the student loan industry and its impact upon students, their families and educational institutions. He was well prepared for your meeting today and I was impressed with his honesty and willingness to entertain other ideas. His impressive student loan background allowed for an "insider's" take on a number of issues too.
It was very well done and I was pleased to be able to attend. Also, it was great seeing all of you again. Keep me up to date with news-I often check your site to see current items and I appreciate the members' hard work.
I hope that you all have a pleasant Thanksgiving holiday. Thank you. Flo