Sunday, June 24, 2018

An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State? - New Labor Forum

NY State law: unions will have the option not to represent non-members in grievance hearings (often related to unpaid suspensions or firings) which can consume a large part of unions’ financial resources and attention. As a result of this provision, each union will assess which path to take: continue to represent those who do not contribute to the union in the hopes of recruiting them in the near future, or cease to represent them, in theory incentivizing them to join... New Labor Forum
Aside from the interesting points raised by this article, note that the co-author is Marc Kagan, whose sister on the Supreme Court is one of the people ruling on the Janus case. Guess which way she will go?

The key is the analysis of the new NY State law which offers some interesting opportunities to unions.

I didn't include the initial points so go to the link to read it all. But did include the stuff about the law. Here is an important point that Mulgrew referenced at the DA - I will go into his comments in a companion piece.
Within 30 days of employment or “reemployment” (or transfer into a new bargaining unit), the employer must provide the representing union with the name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location of the employee.[viii] Within an additional thirty days, the employer, “shall allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time




http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2018/06/22/an-odd-twist An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State?

June 2018

Historically, the New York State Budget bill, passed yearly at the start of April, has been a vehicle for much peripheral legislation that might otherwise get chewed up in the state’s torturous political quarrels. This spring, unions used this vehicle to make signing up members easier and relieve them of certain obligations toward non-members – so-called “free riders,” who hope to secure the benefits of membership without paying their fair share of the union’s costs.[iv] Another provision of this legislation in particular has extraordinarily favorable implications for organizing workers who, though they may be long-time employees, are contractually considered temporary and must be continually re-hired.
The legislation, part RRR of the 2018 Budget bill, has three components.[v] One modifies public employee unions’ “Duty of Fair Representation” which, in labor law generally, requires unions to treat all workers it represents the same: everyone, member or not, receives the same bargained compensation and working conditions. Those benefits of simply working in a represented workplace will remain, but now unions will have the option not to represent non-members in grievance hearings (often related to unpaid suspensions or firings) which can consume a large part of unions’ financial resources and attention. As a result of this provision, each union will assess which path to take: continue to represent those who do not contribute to the union in the hopes of recruiting them in the near future, or cease to represent them, in theory incentivizing them to join. Whether, in the long run, choosing the latter path and creating second-class citizens (some rights but not others) will be beneficial to unions and their members is unclear, but it will certainly impose potential costs on non-members and may cause some to calculate that paying dues is “worth it.”[vi] A second provision makes it harder for existing members to revoke their membership and stop paying dues. Similar to the “maintenance of membership” provisions of union membership during World War II, union membership cards are now allowed to stipulate yearly windows during which members may withdraw from the union.[vii]

The third provision will make union contact with new workers – potential members – easier, and thus facilitate signing them up. While some New York unions had already bargained for the ability to meet with incoming workers at HR orientations, the new legislation mandates this, albeit in somewhat altered form. Within 30 days of employment or “reemployment” (or transfer into a new bargaining unit), the employer must provide the representing union with the name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location of the employee.[viii] Within an additional thirty days, the employer, “shall allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time during his or her work time without charge to leave credits… provided however that arrangements for such meeting must be scheduled in consultation with a designated representative of the public employer.” The phrase “without charge to leave credits” means on paid time, whether in an actual orientation setting or otherwise. Although this meeting may come as late as sixty days after employment begins, it seems reasonable to assume that most NYS public employers will decide that the least disruptive method is to add these meetings to first day orientations.

In general, this legislation doesn’t “fix” the Janus problem – most unions expect some percentage of their members to leave – but, in an unusual twist, the requirement for meetings with “employed and reemployed” should make organizing and mobilizing CUNY and SUNY adjunct professors and other so-called part-timers much easier. Getting adjunct professors in a room together is a chance to get new members, but it is also a new opportunity to build collective power – again, to organize and mobilize.
CUNY and SUNY have to allow the union to meet with these workers, and to pay them for it. The most obvious path for CUNY and SUNY to fulfill this legal obligation is to invite these workers to the same orientations that full-time staff routinely attend. That would not only facilitate the required meetings but send a message of welcome from their employer they now hardly ever receive. Regardless, even if it is on the 60th day, even if management resists, at some point dozens or even hundreds of workers will be in a room together, seeing their co-workers across the campus for the first time, engaging in collective bonding. At their best, these meetings will keep the “Know Your Rights” section brief and move quickly to “building power to improve our wages and working conditions.”

But, actually, rights under this new legislation are even better for contingent employees. Contractually, after their first hire, all part-timers are temporary workers with specified lengths of employment.[ix] As contingent employees, when that period ends, they have no mandated right of return. (This is why Adjunct faculty are eligible to receive unemployment compensation.[x]) Although they are in a union, beyond the specific term of employment they are effectively “at will” employees. It is, of course, an outrage that in a supposedly social-democratic city in a wealthy blue state, and from institutions that claim to be vehicles of social mobility, the majority of the university faculty is treated (and, in most cases, paid) as though they worked at a low road employer like McDonalds. But precisely because of this contractual treatment, part-timers perpetually fit into the category of “reemployed” workers for whom the legislation mandates paid time meetings with the union.[xi]
So, we expect that these mandated paid-time meetings will include every “new” worker and every “reemployed” worker – meetings in some cases of a hundred or more long-time members and potential members in which we can plan, organize, mobilize, instill confidence, build solidarity, find potential activists, and engage members in a fight for a living wage and an end to contingent status.

We expect that the lawyers in CUNY and SUNY Labor Relations will seek to sabotage the letter of the law. No doubt there will be fights over its implementation, and likely case law will emerge. However, our interpretation is the most direct reading of the legislation. The application to adjuncts who are often rehired twice a year is striking, but there may also be applications for other CUNY and SUNY employees and beyond: perhaps substitute and non-tenure track appointments in school districts. The potential list may indeed be expansive. Unions in states like California, which have passed comparable legislation to New York, should comb their laws for similar interpretations. And for states considering new anti-Janus legislation, there is an opportunity to make organizing contingent public-sector workers like adjuncts easier by passing similar language. In New York, every union representing contingent workers should closely examine how renewal-of-work language is framed in their contracts. To the extent that we now have a tool to regularly meet with the most far-flung and the most oppressed, we must seize this opportunity.

Author Bios
Luke Elliott-Negri is active in the labor movement and is a PhD candidate in sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center.
Marc Kagan has spent years in the labor movement, especially at TWU Local 100, and is a PhD student in labor history at the CUNY Graduate Center.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating). Or because your comment is irrelevant or idiotic.