CUNY Adjunct Alert

Produced by CUNY Adjuncts Unite!
P.O. Box 1360, NYC 10163 212/642-2143 http://www.soc.qc.edu/adjunct

PSC Seeks to Obstruct GSUC Student Activists;
: or, The Taylor Laws Work Both Ways

As some of you probably know, several of the adjunct i pennicte efforts in CUNY have come under the close scrutiny of the

F ond Powers That Be. On several occasions over the past several years potential violations of New York State’s Taylor Laws (§209-
_a)--in particular the “Improper Employer Practices’ ’--have been cited in attempts to curtail certain adjunct organizing activities

by GSUC students, in particular, attempts to recruit adjuncts into the union. Now, finally, the official accusations have arrived.
Last month the PSC notified CUNY, who notified the GSUC, that certain activities of the Doctoral Students’ Council (DSC)--in
particular their Adjunct Project--violate the law. In the letter received by the GSUC, this newsletter, Adjunct Alert, was
mentioned specifically as violating the Taylor Law. In response to these charges, we thought this might be a good time to set
the record straight on a few points.

The DSC Adjunct Project, founded in 1994, is an activity of the DSC, established to advocate on behalf of, disseminate

information to, and educate the GSUC student adjunct on issues pertaining to their academic employment. Unlike CAU!, with

whom it is occasionally confused, the Adjunct Project is not a political organization. Although there has, at times, been
ideological sympathy between CAU! and the Adjunct Project, and even an occasional overlap of personnel, they are indepedent
of one another, and are distinct in their purposes and conceptualization.

Adjunct Alert, as the masthead has always stated, is the product of CAU’, an indepedent coalition of CUNY part-timers,
founded in 1997. GAU! is not an organization of CUNY, and therefore does not fall under the purview of the Taylor Laws
which concern only the relationships between the union and CUNY (or its official agents, such as the DSC). The Adjunct
Project does come under the purview of the Taylor Laws, but has never violated those laws.

Through all of these implicit (and now explicit) legal threats, however, one salient point that seems to have been neglected
is that the Taylor Laws work both ways. governing what the union must and must not do, as well. In fact, the second paragraph
of §209-a concerns “Improper Employee Organization Practices” and, in excerpt, reads as follows:

It shall be “mp practice for an employer organization or its agents deliberately (a) to interfere with,
restrain or ¢oerce public employees in the exercise or the rights granted in section two hundred two, or to
cause, or attempt to cause, a public employer to do so; . .. (c) to breach its duty of fair representation to
public orp under this article.

Perhaps it’s time we examine the real source of possible Taylor Law violations: those who have worked hard in recent
years to “interfere with . .. the exercise” of employee rights. Paragraph one of §209-a prevents employers from discriminating
“against [certain] employees [e.g. adjuncts] for the purpose of . . . discouraging membership” in the PSC. For obvious reasons,
§209-a doesn’t explicitly prohibit the union from engaging in that same discrimination. After all, what union would attempt
to prevent the members of its bargaining unit from joining the union? And yet, by attempting to prevent CAU! from
encouraging adjuncts to join; by allowing a shortage of yellow application cards just prior to the December | enrollment
deadline for voting eligibility; by refusing to release those yellow cards in quantity to adjunct organizers attempting to recruit
new members; by refusing to respond to letters and calls from adjuncts; by continually failing to provide adjuncts with a decent
contract; by negotiating across-the-board percentage salary increases which widen the gaps between the ranks, making adjuncts
relatively worse off than before; by failig to ensure job security for part-timers; by refusing to recruit new members Ge
adjuncts) in any meaningful way; by refusing to establish and maintain adequate records of part-time faculty; by refusing to
address adjunct issues in any meaningful way; and by its discriminatory practice of selective enforcement of Agency Fee, isn’t
it the PSC that | is violating the Taylor Laws? /

UAW Backs UC Academic Labor Strike Berkeley. Although the exact dates are being kept secret,

Graduate and undergraduate students employed throughout by the time you read this a simultaneous strike at all eight
the University of California system are planning a strike UC campuses may have occured, unless the University
this fall, according to the Association of Graduate Student

Employees (ASE)/United Auto Workers Local 2165 in Cont'd on next page

This issue of Adjunct Alert was produced by Eric Marshall. Marcia Newfield and Alex Vitale. Back issues of Adjunct Alert may be found at our website.
/ E> 515
/ ' yap

Le

is
wa


UC Strike cont’d
administration drastically changes its attitude.

Last October, the eight campus locals received a big
boost in morale when Steven Yokich, president of UAW,
announced that UAW would pay them strike benefits
should they be forced to walk off their jobs this winter.
Ricardo Ochoa, president of the UC-Berkeley local
ained that, “people were concerned about losing pay
_ When they’re already living close to the line... When we
~ were told we'd have access to the strike fund, it gave us all

more courage and our organizing effort more momentum.”

Over 9,000 graduate students are employed,
including TA’s, readers, tutors, and associates, throughout
the UC system. With over half of them participating, the
decision to authorize a strike received 87% support. For
years these workers have been trying to get the university
to recognize their campus associations and bargain a
contract providing better pay and benefits, and basic
workplace rights. The university has consistently
maintained the position that they are all students who just
earn a little money on the side, and are not workers at all;
they have refused to recognize the associations, despite a
number of work stoppages on various campuses.

Student employees won an important legal victory
last year when the Public Employees Relations Board
(PERB), which administers the state’s Higher Ed
Employee Relations Act, held that the 500 graduate student
workers on the UC-San Diego campus were employees

_ within the law. The PERB rejected a university appeal of
the balloting, which again claimed that the student
employees were not covered by the law. Despite the
rejection, the university sent a letter to the union saying
that it would bargain for some of the student workers, but
not others. In Los Angeles, an administrative law judge
also ruled that graduate student employees are covered by
the act. UC is appealing this decision as well. “UC is acting
as though the law just doesn’t apply to them, and people
are angry at their arrogance,” says Ochoa. ‘We’ ve just had
enough.”

The Bay ‘Area Chapter of Scholars, Activists, and
Writers for Social Justice (SAWSJ) are circulating a
petition to support the employees and help pressure the
university in bargaining. For information contact Ellen
Starbird (aanz@sirius.com).

Come to the Next Meeting of
CUNY Adjuncts Unite!
Friday, Dec. 18th @ 3pm
Room 400 25 W 43rd St

next Friday meetings: Jan. 8 & Feb. 5

CAU! Petition FAQ’s

Q: Won’ t this proposal undermine the strength of the union by
adding people who are only temporary and part-time?

A: No. The size of the union has been shrinking dramatically over
the past 15 years. As a result, the union’s clout in Albany and at
City Hall has been declining. By adding adjuncts to the union. its
membership would swell to well over 10,000. Also, by adding
more members we would increase the dues base of the union
(even with a substantial reduction in part-timer dues), providing

y

more resources for ty g and other political activities. Finally,
including adjuncts in the union would help overcome the deep
divisions that currently exist within the faculty which makes us
more vulnerable to outside attacks.

Q: If all the adjuncts joined the union wouldn’t they have a
majority, and therefore take over the union?

A: Not likely. In UUP (the SUNY faculty union), which enforces
Agency Fee for adjuncts, for example, only about 60% are
members. Although that number would likely be much higher i in
CUNY, it is improbable that adjuncts would comprise much more
than 50% of the PSC. Even so, it would mean that the various
political factions within the union would have to compete for the
adjuncts’ votes and include the adjuncts in their discussions.

Q: Isn’t it wrong to force adjuncts to pay against their will?

A: No. It’s wrong to enforce the legal and contractual provision
of Agency Fee selectively. Full-timers have two choices: dues or
fees. Part-timers should have the same choices. Agency Fee
enforcement induces people to join the union. Membership gives
them a voice and a vote. Adjuncts should have this inducement.
Q: But aren’t dues too high for many adjuncts to afford?

A: Yes. Let’s lower them. With more adjuncts voting in PSC
affairs it seems likely that this would happen.

Q: Why should adjuncts’ dues be based on a percentage of their
income, but not full-timers’ dues?

A: We agree. Full-timers dues should be based on a percentage of
their income as well. UUP and many other unions do this. But
that isn’t really the concern of CAU’ or this referendum.

Q: Perhaps adjuncts shouldn’t even be part of the PSC; why don’t
they go form their own union?

A: This would be a lose-lose situation. As has been discussed in
previous Adjunct Alerts, leaving the PSC would be a long, and
major undertaking leaving adjuncts without representation for

years. For full-timers, this would further reduce the already

dwindled PSC membership rolls, further weaking the union by
smaller numbers, and more limited perspective. It would also pit
the two unions against one another in competition for resouces.
Q: How do we know that this is really what adjuncts want?

A: Good question. In fact, we don’t. The hundred or so adjuncts
who have been part of this referendum campaign represent a wide
range of CUNY adjuncts. But there is really only one equitable
way to find out: get adjuncts into the union, give them a voice.
then hear what they want. If they don’t want Agency Fee. they'll
say so. Making the decision for them, “in their best interest.” is
discriminating against them. It is undemocratic and immoral.

CUNY Adjuncts Unite! Contacts

Baruch - Jim Feast 718-449-0677
BMCC Shirley Rausher 212-721-0099
Bronx CC Ingrid Hughes 212-254-0635
Brooklyn Vinny Tirelli 212-642-2143
CCNY Rob Wallace 212-650-8179
CSI Harry Cason 212-838-1374
Hostos Anna Lopez 212-427-3874
Hunter Mark Halling 718-596-0654
Hunter Soc. Susanna Jones 718-243-0660
John Jay Michael Seitz 212-229-9180
Kingsborough CC _ Jerry Karol 718-330-0916
LaGuardia Costas Panayotakis 718-852-2069
Lehman Kyle Cuordileone 212-491-2653
Medgar Evers Eric Lehman 212-674-1767

NYC Tech. Wendy Scribner 212-982-0097
Queens Eric Marshall 212-642-2143
Queensborough CC Howard Pflanzer 212-496-7452
York MikeVozick 212-874-7650