In a victory for some of the D.C. Metro Area's lowest-paid professionals, Montgomery College's adjunct faculty voted by a 365-105 margin in favor of representation by SEIU Local 500. We covered the struggle waged by the adjuncts to get an election over the last couple months. Following is the press release from SEIU announcing the victory.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT
John VanDeventer, (202) 730-7758
HISTORIC VOTE UNITES MORE THAN 1,000 PART-TIME FACULTY AT MONTGOMERY COLLEGE
By an overwhelming majority, instructors vote to join together for quality education
Montgomery County, MD – The Maryland Division of Labor and Industry announced this morning that an overwhelming majority of part-time faculty at Montgomery College (MC) have voted to join together with Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 500. Instructors voted over three to one in favor of the union.
“This is a win for the entire county,” said part-time faculty member Alan Stover in response to the election results. “The part-time faculty members at Montgomery College want a stronger voice for quality education for our students. We’re going to work to protect and improve the valuable resources we provide to our community.”
Part-time faculty members teach about half of all courses offered at MC. Recent surges in enrollment, coupled with strains on available funding, have forced adjuncts to do more with less to meet the increased community demand.
To address their growing concerns, the part-time faculty filed a request for a vote on representation with SEIU Local 500 in early March. Since that time, the instructors have received an outpouring of support from both students and community leaders. Over 400 students at MC signed a petition in support of the part-time faculty’s efforts to organize and elected officials from both county and state government have reached out to congratulate the instructors’ victory.
“It is your passion for excellence that has made Montgomery College such a valuable asset to our community,” wrote Montgomery County councilmember Valerie Ervin in a statement to part-time faculty at the college. “And I know that same passion drives you to unite together for a stronger voice in the services you provide.”
This vote is a first for part-time instructors in Maryland and only the second such effort in the Washington, DC metropolitan area after George Washington University voted to unite together with SEIU Local 500 in 2004. The instructors at MC hope this will start a trend for more adjunct professors in the region.
“The opportunities we now have to win improvements for ourselves and our students are endless,” said part-time faculty member Terilee Edwards-Hewitt. “This experience has been a real eye opener as far as the positive things we can accomplish for ourselves, Montgomery College, and our students when we unite together for a stronger voice.”
###
Service Employees International Union Local 500 represents over 17,000 women and men working in education, public services, community services and child care in Maryland and Washington, DC. Local 500 members serve the public at the Montgomery County Public Schools, Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, The George Washington University, Head Start organizations (Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Rosemount), Maryland Child Care Providers, National Children’s Center, Oxfam International, Public Citizen, and the United States Student Association.
Showing posts with label Montgomery College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Montgomery College. Show all posts
Monday, June 9, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Nancy Floreen Calls for Across-the-Board Spending Cuts
Montgomery County Council Member Nancy Floreen challenged all county agencies to present a plan to cut their budgets by 2% below the County Executive's proposal on her blog today.
Floreen contends that a 2% across-the-board cut would enable the council to chop the County Executive's property tax increase in half. However, because she would still break the charter limit, her proposal would require seven votes to pass. Floreen argues:
We'll find out soon enough. Zero hour for the budget is next week.
Floreen contends that a 2% across-the-board cut would enable the council to chop the County Executive's property tax increase in half. However, because she would still break the charter limit, her proposal would require seven votes to pass. Floreen argues:
As far as I am concerned, the proposed tax burden is untenable, particularly for the average homeowner facing increased fuel, food and health care costs. I am afraid that this budget is way out of line. In today’s economy, it is unaffordable... I know my colleagues have put their hearts into trying to limit spending. But I don’t believe we have gone far enough. Our neighbors in Fairfax County, the District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County are looking at budget increases of no more than 1.3%. We in Montgomery County need to join the rest of the region in looking toward a more sustainable budget.It is impossible to overstate the turmoil going on in Rockville right now over the budget. Two council members - Duchy Trachtenberg and Phil Andrews - oppose a property tax increase, enough votes to kill it. Council Member Trachtenberg is eyeing the county's labor contracts for savings. The County Council's Education Committee voted to restore $26 million for public schools and $9.1 million for Montgomery College last week. How can resistance to the property tax hike, increases for education, adherence to union contracts and Floreen's call for across-the-board cuts be reconciled?
We'll find out soon enough. Zero hour for the budget is next week.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Montgomery College Agrees to Neutrality - Or Does It?
Regular readers will recall how Montgomery College told its adjunct professors that they were "not public employees" in order to avoid allowing them a union election. Now the college is claiming to be "neutral." But is it?
Two days ago, the President of Montgomery College sent out the following memo to adjunct professors:
The adjuncts are seeking an election prior to the end of the semester, which occurs in mid-May. The college states that it "must perform our organizational and legal duties," which include "making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law." If the college contests the definition of the bargaining unit - a common tactic used against workers who want a union - it can easily run out the clock on the semester. That would give the college all summer to plan a more aggressive campaign against the adjuncts in the fall.
If the college is genuinely neutral, it must agree to an election in the next couple weeks. Otherwise, its declaration of neutrality will be proven as baseless as its claim that the adjuncts are not public employees.
Two days ago, the President of Montgomery College sent out the following memo to adjunct professors:
MONTGOMERY COLLEGEIt is encouraging to hear the college proclaim its "neutrality" though I have heard such statements from anti-union employers many times over the years. The true test of neutrality is not what the college says, but what the college does.
Office of the President
April 14, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Part-Time Faculty
From: Brian K. Johnson, President
Subject: Service Employees International Union for Part-Time Faculty
Many of you are aware of the petition filed by SEIU Local 500, seeking to represent adjunct faculty for purposes of collective bargaining. I wanted to clarify the College's position in this matter. We are not anti union, we are neutral, and will respect the right of adjunct faculty to decide through a secret ballot vote on whether you wish to be represented by the union. Throughout this process we must perform our organizational and legal duties. This includes making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law. These steps followed in accordance with the requirements of Maryland law result in benefits to all concerned and eliminate tremendous legal and logistical problems in the future.
We are working with the Maryland State Commissioner of Labor and SEIU Local 500 to seek an expedited election process that will allow you to vote on this question as soon as possible. Information regarding the election procedures will be forthcoming from the Commissioner's office in the very near future.
Montgomery College has a rich history of harmonious labor relations with our employee unions. We are committed to that tradition continuing with SEIU or any other union, should they become your collective bargaining representative.
The adjuncts are seeking an election prior to the end of the semester, which occurs in mid-May. The college states that it "must perform our organizational and legal duties," which include "making sure that the unit proposed is authorized by Maryland law to do so and to make sure that the definition of the unit to be organized is sufficiently clear and appropriate so that elections can be conducted in accordance with the requirements of law." If the college contests the definition of the bargaining unit - a common tactic used against workers who want a union - it can easily run out the clock on the semester. That would give the college all summer to plan a more aggressive campaign against the adjuncts in the fall.
If the college is genuinely neutral, it must agree to an election in the next couple weeks. Otherwise, its declaration of neutrality will be proven as baseless as its claim that the adjuncts are not public employees.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
More Union Busting at Montgomery College
I’ve seen quite a few union-busting tactics in my time but the latest one used by Montgomery College against its adjunct professors ranks as one of the most creative.
A couple weeks ago, we ran a four-part series on Montgomery College’s efforts to break a union organizing campaign by its adjunct professors. The college’s adjuncts earn maximum pay of $10,560 per semester and do not have health insurance. When they told the college they wanted to vote on representation by SEIU Local 500, the college reacted by hiring an expensive “union-avoidance” attorney and sending out misleading propaganda to the adjuncts. But as we predicted, Montgomery College’s union-busting campaign had only begun.
It’s common practice for a union-busting employer to argue about the definition of the bargaining unit – that is, the group of workers who would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Some employers want to shrink the unit. Others want to subtract employees that they believe to be pro-union or add employees that they think are anti-union. But Montgomery College’s definition of the bargaining unit is simple: there isn’t one.
In a letter to SEIU shown below, Montgomery College’s union-avoidance lawyer Darrell VanDeusen states, “The College has determined that the employees named in the SEIU’s petition are not considered public employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.” So since there are no eligible employees, there should be no election.
Section 16-412(a)(14) of Maryland law states, “Public employee means an employee employed by the public employer except: (i) Employees involved directly in the determination of policy; (ii) Supervisory or confidential employees; and (iii) Student assistants.” Which one of these exceptions applies to the adjunct professors? Conveniently, VanDeusen does not say. Perhaps a further exchange of letters will smoke him out.
But that would play into the college’s hands because the clock is ticking. SEIU Local 500 wants to hold an election before the semester ends and the adjuncts leave campus. And who knows if the college will allow the pro-union rank-and-file leaders among the adjuncts to return next year? After all, it’s hardly unknown for union supporters to suddenly receive unfavorable performance evaluations after many years of sterling service.
Now that its public employees are not really public employees, we should expect Montgomery College to say that it’s not a college. Or maybe that Montgomery County is not a county. Or maybe even that the institution does not actually exist on Planet Earth in contrast to the mistaken beliefs of some. Clearly, they will say anything to avoid a free and fair election for their adjunct professors.
So here’s our question for the County Executive and County Council: why are you allowing this deplorable farce to continue? And how much of our property tax increase will go to pay for all this union busting?
A couple weeks ago, we ran a four-part series on Montgomery College’s efforts to break a union organizing campaign by its adjunct professors. The college’s adjuncts earn maximum pay of $10,560 per semester and do not have health insurance. When they told the college they wanted to vote on representation by SEIU Local 500, the college reacted by hiring an expensive “union-avoidance” attorney and sending out misleading propaganda to the adjuncts. But as we predicted, Montgomery College’s union-busting campaign had only begun.
It’s common practice for a union-busting employer to argue about the definition of the bargaining unit – that is, the group of workers who would be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. Some employers want to shrink the unit. Others want to subtract employees that they believe to be pro-union or add employees that they think are anti-union. But Montgomery College’s definition of the bargaining unit is simple: there isn’t one.
In a letter to SEIU shown below, Montgomery College’s union-avoidance lawyer Darrell VanDeusen states, “The College has determined that the employees named in the SEIU’s petition are not considered public employees for the purposes of collective bargaining.” So since there are no eligible employees, there should be no election.
Section 16-412(a)(14) of Maryland law states, “Public employee means an employee employed by the public employer except: (i) Employees involved directly in the determination of policy; (ii) Supervisory or confidential employees; and (iii) Student assistants.” Which one of these exceptions applies to the adjunct professors? Conveniently, VanDeusen does not say. Perhaps a further exchange of letters will smoke him out.
But that would play into the college’s hands because the clock is ticking. SEIU Local 500 wants to hold an election before the semester ends and the adjuncts leave campus. And who knows if the college will allow the pro-union rank-and-file leaders among the adjuncts to return next year? After all, it’s hardly unknown for union supporters to suddenly receive unfavorable performance evaluations after many years of sterling service.
Now that its public employees are not really public employees, we should expect Montgomery College to say that it’s not a college. Or maybe that Montgomery County is not a county. Or maybe even that the institution does not actually exist on Planet Earth in contrast to the mistaken beliefs of some. Clearly, they will say anything to avoid a free and fair election for their adjunct professors.
So here’s our question for the County Executive and County Council: why are you allowing this deplorable farce to continue? And how much of our property tax increase will go to pay for all this union busting?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Four of Four
In Part Three, we began examining the FAQ sheet that Montgomery College sent to its adjunct faculty to spread propaganda about unions. We demonstrated how the administration tried to make SEIU Local 500 look like an intimidating, coercive organization and how they tried to attach questionable generalizations about unions to the local. Now, we expose how their questions and answers serve a third tactical objective:
3. Scare the workers and make them think the union is not worth it.
As someone who has been fighting law-breaking employers for more than 13 years, I’m accustomed to this sort of misleading propaganda from private-sector employers. But now a public institution has hired a “union avoidance” attorney to apply these same tactics to county employees – all through our tax dollars. How many thousands of dollars is Montgomery College spending on its union-busting campaign? How many students could be educated with that money? And why is Montgomery College being allowed to pay a “union avoidance” lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour at a time when the county is projecting a $297 million budget deficit and is raising property taxes to pay for it?
What will Montgomery College do next? Union-busting campaigns usually do not end with FAQ sheets. Common tactics include captive audience meetings, one-on-one interrogations by supervisors, promised improvements (which may or may not actually materialize), threats of job cuts and even firing union supporters. Is this what the college’s adjunct professors have to look forward to?
Montgomery College’s union busting campaign is an absolute abomination in a progressive county like Montgomery. Adjunct professors and any other public employees should be free to choose, or not choose, union representation without being subjected to taxpayer-subsidized propaganda and fear. The County Executive and the County Council should immediately take measures to terminate Montgomery College’s “union avoidance” attorney and compel the school to let its employees make their own labor decisions in peace.
3. Scare the workers and make them think the union is not worth it.
Q. How long does it take for a union to negotiate a contract?The FAQ sheet neglects to mention that many first contracts are not reached because of “union avoidance” programs of the kind that Montgomery College is now running. And the SEIU action at Carlyle, a troubled company by any measure, involved a campaign at nursing home chain Manor Care. Local 500 does not organize nursing homes and did not participate in the picket action against Carlyle. And Local 500 does not require picket duty of its members because most of its employers are in the public sector and in Maryland are are not subject to strikes. Montgomery College is well aware of this but nevertheless tries to smear Local 500 by talking about the actions of a different SEIU group on a different campaign.
A. Recent studies show that contract negotiations usually take more than one year when employees are represented by a union, and that unions are successful in negotiating an agreement within a year only 25% of the time.
Q. Will I have to walk a picket line?
A. That is a possibility. Although there is a “no strike” provision in the law, a union may require members to picket in an effort to get its point across. Many unions also require their members to serve picket duty at other companies where they have a strike. The SEIU is known for its frequent picketing of businesses that it is trying to get to accept its positions.
For example, look at the article in the Washington Post on February 18, 2008 titled “A Stubborn Union Storms the Gates at Carlyle Group,” which reported on the SEIU’s picketing on Pennsylvania Avenue. The Post noted that picketers “swarmed through the Carlyle building, jumping on and off elevators, running up stairways and trying to get into Carlyle offices in an effort to confront [a] Carlyle co-founder… After some heated moments, security and D.C. police escorted the union from the premises.”
As someone who has been fighting law-breaking employers for more than 13 years, I’m accustomed to this sort of misleading propaganda from private-sector employers. But now a public institution has hired a “union avoidance” attorney to apply these same tactics to county employees – all through our tax dollars. How many thousands of dollars is Montgomery College spending on its union-busting campaign? How many students could be educated with that money? And why is Montgomery College being allowed to pay a “union avoidance” lawyer hundreds of dollars an hour at a time when the county is projecting a $297 million budget deficit and is raising property taxes to pay for it?
What will Montgomery College do next? Union-busting campaigns usually do not end with FAQ sheets. Common tactics include captive audience meetings, one-on-one interrogations by supervisors, promised improvements (which may or may not actually materialize), threats of job cuts and even firing union supporters. Is this what the college’s adjunct professors have to look forward to?
Montgomery College’s union busting campaign is an absolute abomination in a progressive county like Montgomery. Adjunct professors and any other public employees should be free to choose, or not choose, union representation without being subjected to taxpayer-subsidized propaganda and fear. The County Executive and the County Council should immediately take measures to terminate Montgomery College’s “union avoidance” attorney and compel the school to let its employees make their own labor decisions in peace.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Three of Four
When Montgomery College administrators sent a memo to adjunct faculty warning them against joining SEIU Local 500, they attached a document called “Typical Questions That Are Asked During a Union Organizing Campaign.” An FAQ document is a typical opening shot in any union busting program. Provided by the “union avoidance consultant,” the FAQ sheet spins the labor law, spreads misleading propaganda and scares the workforce. Montgomery College’s document is no different and seeks to accomplish the following tactical objectives:
1. Make the union look like an intimidating, coercive organization. Here are a few questions and answers in the FAQ sheet designed to do that:
2. Make questionable generalizations about other unions and insinuate the specific local union in the organizing campaign is guilty of them. Here are a few examples from the FAQ sheet:
SEIU Local 500’s bylaws specifically guarantee all members the right “to receive a fair and open hearing in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws on any charge brought by him/her or against him/her.” Furthermore, SEIU Local 500’s bylaws do not require political contributions (which are voluntary) and specifically allow member votes before raising dues or assessments. But of course, Montgomery College is not going to tell its workforce these facts.
We’ll finish looking at the FAQ sheet in Part Four.
Correction: An adjunct professor wrote me to state that not all adjuncts receive $880 per credit hour as the Gazette reported and I cited in Part One. According to this adjunct:
1. Make the union look like an intimidating, coercive organization. Here are a few questions and answers in the FAQ sheet designed to do that:
Q. Do I have to let a union representative into my house?So union representatives are “paid salespersons” who threaten, coerce, pressure, bother and needle workers. And management is the voice of reason merely informing workers of their right to be left alone.
A. No. A union representative has no more right to enter your house than any other paid salesperson.
Q. Do I have to sign a union authorization card?
A. No. You don’t have to sign such a card to teach at Montgomery College. Under the law you have the right not to join a union and no one can threaten or coerce you into joining.
Q. What difference does it make if I sign a union authorization card?
A. If you and other part time faculty feel pressured to sign a card and actually do so, it increases the chances that the union will be able to file a petition for an election. If that should happen, you should expect even more pressure from the union to vote for it if an election is held.
Q. The union organizers say that everyone else is joining the union. Why shouldn’t I join too?
A. It is a common organizing tactic of unions to claim that “nearly everyone has signed” union membership application cards and they want only a few more employees’ signatures to make it 100 percent. Actually, they may have very few people signed up and they use a “don’t be last” approach to get enough signatures to legally petition for an election. Many employees sign to keep from being bothered and needled by the organizers. This is why the law relies on the secret ballot vote as the true test of employee’s choice.
2. Make questionable generalizations about other unions and insinuate the specific local union in the organizing campaign is guilty of them. Here are a few examples from the FAQ sheet:
Q. Will it cost me anything to belong to this union?The FAQ sheet does not mention that the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 guarantees union members the right to vote by secret ballot on local dues and assessments. Union members also have rights to free speech, due process in any disciplinary procedures and to sue their unions in court.
A. In all likelihood, yes. Unions collect monthly dues, and besides that there are a lot of other charges such as initiation fees, assessments and contributions to organizations and causes a union may sponsor or support. Unions also fine and suspend members who violate any of the union’s many by-laws and rules forbidding any “disloyalty” to the union.
Q. What can the union fine its members for?
A. It depends on the union’s internal rules. Most union constitutions and by-laws provide that the union can fine you for almost anything – for not attending union meetings, for trying to come into work if there is a strike, or for talking back to an officer of the union.
Q. Is it true that a union may require its members to pay more than dues each month?
A. Yes. The union may require a member to contribute to the international union, as well as to pay charges for political contributions, informational clinics, building funds and other special project funds. If a member refuses to pay these special assessments, your union membership may be suspended or you may be fined by the union or even expelled by the union.
SEIU Local 500’s bylaws specifically guarantee all members the right “to receive a fair and open hearing in accordance with the provisions of these bylaws on any charge brought by him/her or against him/her.” Furthermore, SEIU Local 500’s bylaws do not require political contributions (which are voluntary) and specifically allow member votes before raising dues or assessments. But of course, Montgomery College is not going to tell its workforce these facts.
We’ll finish looking at the FAQ sheet in Part Four.
Correction: An adjunct professor wrote me to state that not all adjuncts receive $880 per credit hour as the Gazette reported and I cited in Part One. According to this adjunct:
Please take note of the fact that $880 per ESH (estimated semester hour) is the MAXIMUM that an adjunct can presently earn at Montgomery College. The minimum is $810 per ESH. The next level, $850 per ESH, can only be obtained after a teacher has taught at least 6 semesters (three years) and has accumulated a certain amount of professional development credit by taking various workshops. In three more years, the teacher can advance to $880 per ESH; once again professional development credit has to be earned. These courses must be taken during the adjunct's own time, so of course there's no compensation. Also, it's up to an adjunct to petition for the next pay level by submitting the appropriate form along with proof of professional development credit to his or her respective department. There is no such thing as automatic advancement. If an adjunct doesn't follow the above procedure, he or she will remain at the same pay level indefinitely.So after six years and much training on the adjunct’s own time, the professor may earn up to $10,560 for four courses in a semester. Nice.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part Two of Four
On March 3, Mary Kay Shartle-Galotto, Executive Vice-President for Academic and Student Services and Marshall Moore, Vice-President for Administrative and Fiscal Services sent a memo warning adjunct faculty not to support SEIU Local 500. This document has the fingerprints of a “union avoidance consultant” all over it. The memo begins:
Later in the memo, Shartle-Galotto and Moore claim that adjuncts received an 8 percent salary increase in the 2007-08 academic year. They neglect to mention that the college's adjuncts receive as little as one-third of regular faculty pay for the same work. They also fail to mention that their hired “union avoidance” attorney, Darrell VanDeusen, could be making more in 30 hours of billing (perhaps $12,000- $18,000) than adjuncts can make teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
But Montgomery College is not merely selectively releasing information. They attached a list of “frequently asked questions” about unions to their memo which was probably drafted in consultation with VanDeusen. We’ll take a look at that list in Part Three.
As some of you may already know, organizers of the Service Employees International Union Local 500 have approached the part-time faculty at Montgomery College and have asked them to sign union authorization cards. If a sufficient number of part-time faculty sign these cards, the union intends to submit a petition for a representation election to the State Commissioner of Labor.So Shartle-Galotto and Moore admit to maintaining “good relationships” with their other unions but nevertheless say “the College does not believe” that unionization would be in the interest of adjuncts. Why not? They refer to “many complicated facets to this issue – and some misunderstandings.” They talk about the “sizable fee/cost factor” of unions but avoid mentioning that U.S. union members were paid on average 30% more than non-members last year. They also do not want their adjuncts to know that while 69% of U.S. unionized employees have access to a defined benefit pension plan (which the adjuncts do not have), only 15% of non-union workers have similar access. And their discussion of “standardizing” the workforce omits the fact that any employee classifications are a subject for collective bargaining in which the employer has full rights of participation.
Montgomery College has always maintained good relationships with its full-time faculty and staff unions; however, the College does not believe that the unionization of part-time faculty would best serve the interests of this faculty base, the College, or our students. There are many complicated facets to this issue - and some misunderstandings - that part-time faculty members should understand and reconcile before they commit themselves to union representation. Unions can promise a lot - namely wage increases, better benefits, job security - but the union may not always be able to deliver everything it intends. Faculty should also be aware of the sizable fee/cost factor involved with any union membership.
Part-time faculty members are a diverse group of people with many different goals and priorities. We have faculty who work for a variety of different industries and institutions, and this diverse, real-world perspective is something we highly value in this faculty base. Unionization would almost necessarily standardize the treatment of this population, which could result in difficulties with the assignment and scheduling of classes, not to mention possible difficulties involving full-time faculty relationships.
Later in the memo, Shartle-Galotto and Moore claim that adjuncts received an 8 percent salary increase in the 2007-08 academic year. They neglect to mention that the college's adjuncts receive as little as one-third of regular faculty pay for the same work. They also fail to mention that their hired “union avoidance” attorney, Darrell VanDeusen, could be making more in 30 hours of billing (perhaps $12,000- $18,000) than adjuncts can make teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
But Montgomery College is not merely selectively releasing information. They attached a list of “frequently asked questions” about unions to their memo which was probably drafted in consultation with VanDeusen. We’ll take a look at that list in Part Three.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Montgomery College’s Union Busting Campaign: Part One of Four
Management calls them “union avoidance consultants.” Labor people call them “union busters.” But whatever term you use for them, you can count on them showing up whenever workers dare to tell the boss that they are thinking about forming a union. All across the country, thousands of lawyers, consultants and outright shysters rake in billions of dollars working for anti-union employers. They spread fear and propaganda and some of them even assist employers in breaking labor laws just so workers will be too scared to choose union representation. And now Montgomery College has hired a “union avoidance” lawyer of its own.
Montgomery College’s union busting started when the college’s adjunct professors approached SEIU Local 500 to discuss representation. Many of us remember college faculty as being tenured, comfortable residents of the ivy tower. But today’s college professors are increasingly part-time, paid by the class, with few benefits and no job security. Montgomery College’s faculty is now mostly comprised of adjunct professors who, unlike tenured faculty, have no union representation. According to the Gazette, the college’s adjuncts are paid $880 per credit hour taught, with most classes worth three credit hours. Full-time faculty can make up to $3,038 per credit hour. SEIU reports that adjuncts do not have health benefits or defined benefit pensions. When SEIU began gathering authorization cards from workers for a state representation election, the college acted quickly to put an end to it.
Montgomery College hired Darrell VanDeusen, a lawyer with Baltimore law firm Kollman & Saucier. VanDeusen, recently named as one of Maryland’s “Super Lawyers” in Baltimore Magazine, describes his practice as “providing advice in matters such as compliance with anti-discrimination laws, union avoidance and collective bargaining, family and medical leave and fair labor standards.” The law firm also states that VanDeusen “has defended employers in hundreds of charges before the EEOC and other state and local fair employment practice agencies” and “has argued cases in state and federal courts that have interpreted the law in favor of employers.” SEIU states that the going rate for top “union avoidance” lawyers in Maryland is $400-600 per hour. If that is true for VanDeusen, he could earn more in 30 hours of billing ($12,000- $18,000) than an adjunct professor could earn teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
What is Montgomery College getting from VanDeusen? We’ll take a look in Part Two.
Montgomery College’s union busting started when the college’s adjunct professors approached SEIU Local 500 to discuss representation. Many of us remember college faculty as being tenured, comfortable residents of the ivy tower. But today’s college professors are increasingly part-time, paid by the class, with few benefits and no job security. Montgomery College’s faculty is now mostly comprised of adjunct professors who, unlike tenured faculty, have no union representation. According to the Gazette, the college’s adjuncts are paid $880 per credit hour taught, with most classes worth three credit hours. Full-time faculty can make up to $3,038 per credit hour. SEIU reports that adjuncts do not have health benefits or defined benefit pensions. When SEIU began gathering authorization cards from workers for a state representation election, the college acted quickly to put an end to it.
Montgomery College hired Darrell VanDeusen, a lawyer with Baltimore law firm Kollman & Saucier. VanDeusen, recently named as one of Maryland’s “Super Lawyers” in Baltimore Magazine, describes his practice as “providing advice in matters such as compliance with anti-discrimination laws, union avoidance and collective bargaining, family and medical leave and fair labor standards.” The law firm also states that VanDeusen “has defended employers in hundreds of charges before the EEOC and other state and local fair employment practice agencies” and “has argued cases in state and federal courts that have interpreted the law in favor of employers.” SEIU states that the going rate for top “union avoidance” lawyers in Maryland is $400-600 per hour. If that is true for VanDeusen, he could earn more in 30 hours of billing ($12,000- $18,000) than an adjunct professor could earn teaching four courses in a semester ($10,560).
What is Montgomery College getting from VanDeusen? We’ll take a look in Part Two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
