Platform for UUP President

COMMENTS WELCOME!

W H Y?

UUP has been traveling downward in terms of member participation and effectiveness. It hit a new low when the President directed a Vice-President to be policed by a third officer when out of the office, an act absolutely unacceptable.

While active in UUP for thirty years, I have stayed apart from United Caucus politics and have supported term limits. I bring needed fresh leadership into our union, with the experience and determination to be a very effective leader.

P L A T F O R M

1. The Revenue Side of the State Budget

If the state does not have the tax revenues, it cannot respond to a demand to "invest in public higher education". The concept of raising taxes on the wealthy should be a simple one, but needs to be repeated over and over and over.

I would go further and ask economists among us (I happen to be one myself) to prepare a position paper and consider a separate mailing to all members, against the propaganda coming out of the Governor's office (to save postage, this mailing could be in conjunction with another mailed item). These economists should also examine why the New York stock transfer tax (a few cents per share of stock sold) is being rebated to the tune of $16 billion annually instead of staying on the revenue side of the state budget where it was from 1905 to 1979. (Detailed flyer is available upon request.)

Our UUP exposé can start with "Wealth in America: Who Gets What ….” It can demonstrate how the upper one percent of the American people take from the rest (both by legal and illegal means). It can include a graph showing the drop in percentage taxation for households with high incomes, even if the millionaires tax is retained!

Some of our 30-second ads could focus on the revenue side. We could also circulate a portion of Michael Moore's rousing speech in Madison. Put the wealthy on the defensive!

If we let the State tax millionaires at lower rates (or no taxes at all) than those below, then we are not in a position to build a strong coalition with other constituencies in the New York State. Our potential gain can be perceived as other groups' losses. The only way to build a strong coalition is to fight together for each other, not focus only on ourselves.

2. Defend SUNY as a System

Members are quite un-informed about the flexibility proposals and private-public partnerships. Outstanding investigative work concerning UB 2020 legislation could have been undertaken by UUP. We lucked out with investigative reporter Buck Quigley’s study The Great UB Heist artvoice.com/issues/v10n13/the_great_UB_heist written for Buffalo’s ArtVoice. He offered a clear, cogent analysis concluding that the real business of UB 2020 is not the public interest, but rather business itself, “the State University of New York at Buffalo is controlled by a handful of powerful, wealthy Western New Yorkers. Through legitimate board appointments, they enjoy a stranglehold on the various UB foundations, which are now self-perpetuating bodies, electing members from within, operating completely beyond state and public oversight.”

UUP itself should be doing such investigative work for issues concerning SUNY. We can draw in students, even offer stipends for their research work with us. We should work intimately with other unions, most especially the Professional Staff Congress of CUNY to defend public higher education.

3. Part-timers, Adjuncts, Contingents

These represent some 34% of SUNY faculty, yet here and elsewhere in the U.S. their employment conditions are often unconscionable in terms of low salary, job insecurity, lack of advancement opportunities, or even office space. UUP must commit that the next contract include their interests for acceptable salary minimums and improved conditions.

4. A Transparent Union

As President I would restore the two issues of The Voice that have been eliminated this year, unless the Executive Board or DA mandates something else. I pledge my own continued participation on UUPAD, the discussion list for UUP activists, and will encourage participation by other officers, currently quite rare or even non-existent. Sometimes officers cannot openly answer a question or make a comment, but total silence is no option for a transparent union.

I would encourage chapters to create discussion lists off SUNY servers and to create Facebook pages. I would fully comply with LMRDA disclosures rules.

5. Job Loss, Workload Increase, and Discrimination

The UUP President needs to go personally to all campuses with members facing job losses (e.g., Albany, Brooklyn HSC, Buffalo HSC, Morrisville, New Paltz, System Admin.) and join in solidarity with members and chapter leaderships. We need to fight speedups with realistic performance programs and evaluations, using the grievance process as necessary.

Attacks on academic freedom must be fought with grievances brought up to arbitration decisions (UUP has not done this for 30 years). Discriminations must be aggressively addressed, as done on the UB campus after the Provost recommended promotions to many men who did not have backing from the highest faculty review body, while denying many women who had that faculty body’s recommendation.

6. AFT and NYSUT Dues

UUP should provide in The Voice a detailed report in plain English on AFT and NYSUT dues paid by UUP members out of their UUP dues. After all, these dues are estimated at $4,865,073 and $8,554,861, respectively, for the current fiscal year ending August 31, 2011 (2010-2011 Budget of the UUP Treasurer). There are direct and indirect offsets but a full report in clear English needs to go to members. Replies should be invited and the DA should carefully consider them.

7. My Salary as President

As UUP President, I could pocket some $50,000 additional salary relative to my campus salary. As described in my postcard mailed to Delegates on April 19, I will ask the Treasurer to reduce my two summer months salary to one-half pay, and will not request a living allowance. While in the office of UUP President, I pledge $25,000 of donations annually, to targets corresponding to UUP positions, to be documented at the May DAs; e.g., Link scholarships would receive $5,000 yearly. Details are on the April 21 blog.

8. “U.S. Labor against the War” (UUP Policy)

As UUP President, I would actively promote our members knowing UUP’s anti-war position held over many years and would invite activism. Vast war expenditures are immoral, drain our economy, and benefit the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned against.

Even though the AFT and NYSUT conventions passed resolutions for quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the labor movement has an anti-war coalition USLAW uslaboragainstwar.org UUP has joined, no AFT, NYSUT or UUP publications mentioned these anti-war positions.

The U.S. labor movement has a long way to go to integrate the anti-war message directly into the labor message even though the U.S. spends 43% of the global total on the military (www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/milex).


PAUL ZAREMBKA: Professor of Economics, SUNY at Buffalo (since 1976); NSF grantee; Senior Research Officer at ILO, Geneva; general editor of Research in Political Economy (since 1977); Fulbright-Hayes Teaching awardee; UUP Delegate since 1981; UUP Chapter President and Grievance Officer for Academics; listed in many biographical dictionaries including Marquis Who’s Who in America; recent keynote speaker, “The National and Global Impacts of Economic Crisis”, 37^th Eastern Community College Social Science Assoc. Conference, March 31-April 2, 2011.

A Personal Commitment as UUP President

I have always been bothered by union officers bringing in moneys rank-and-file don’t get. Some unions are worse than others. As UUP President, I could pocket some $50,000 additional salary relative to my campus employment. Why?

i) Under UUP policy, my academic-year salary would be “annualized” by adding two months. ii) I would be entitled to an additional stipend of $23,745. Furthermore, I could also claim a living allowance for moving to Albany when retaining a home elsewhere, up to $976 monthly. (Data from 2010-11 Budget of the Treasurer.)

I would prefer that UUP policies were less generous. Until policy is changed, I will ask the Treasurer to reduce those two summer months to one-half pay. Bearing extra living expenses, I will not request an allowance. While in the office of UUP President, I pledge annual donations totaling at $25,000, and to document the donations at the May DAs with an itemized list from income-tax filings. The targeted donations correspond to UUP positions.

PLEDGES of ANNUAL DONATIONS

($25,000 total, distribution subject to change within this list of six categories)

1. Eugene Link Student Scholarships, $5,000
2. US Labor & Veterans Against War, $4,000
3. Coalition of Labor Union Women, $4,000
4. New Faculty Majority (adjunct/contingent), $4,000
5. Africa/Asia/Latin America Labor Solidarity, $4,000
6. Association for Union Democracy, $4,000

Excerpts from Early Campaign Bulletins

Early campaign Bulletins resulted from specific issues that arose. They do not represent my platform. The platform can be expected toward the end of April.

From the first ten Bulletins the following are useful for understanding, in part, where I would strive to take UUP as President. Five topics were follow are

1. Michael Moore in Madison, Wisconsin: "America Is NOT Broke"
2. The Revenue Side of the State Budget
3. The Voice
4. A Transparent Union
5. "U.S. Labor against the War -- Withdrawal of Troops" (UUP Policy)


1. Michael Moore in Madison, Wisconsin: "America Is NOT Broke"

Michael Moore: "America is not broke. Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich...."
www.truth-out.org/michael-moore-america-is-not-broke68265

Moore is speaking truth, but the mainstream media won't be covering Moore saying that 400 über-rich have more wealth than the entire lower half of the U.S. population combined (www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNuSEZ8CDw).

What could UUP do about this? We should get off the ever-repeated defensive slogan "Save SUNY" we have had for years, the same slogan as state support goes ever downhill! We should move into the offensive with our message. Why not start with a group of SUNY economists voicing a strong UUP message about the state of the State, coming up with a new slogan at the same time?

2. The Revenue Side of the State Budget

UUP policy is that the so-called "millionaires tax" must be retained. This policy is reported to our members in the February/March of The Voice in a p. 8 article. The report ends regarding those high-income New Yorkers by saying, "Delegates directed the UUP leadership to work with existing coalitions to convey to members of the Legislature their support for the higher tax rates".

The same issue of The Voice has considerable discussion of UUP advocacy against cuts to SUNY -- see the three-page article "We're in for the fight of our lives". Yet, in that long article, there is no discussion of advocacy on the revenue side, the "millionaires tax"!

The next issue, the April issue, has only tangential references to the "millionaires tax".

If the state does not have the tax revenues, it cannot well respond to a demand to "invest in public higher education". Or, if it were to do so, it has to come at the expense of others.

This concept of taxing the wealthy should be a simple concept, but it is a concept that needs to be repeated over and over and over. As President, I would ensure that this message is repeated over and over and over.

I would go further and ask economists among us (I happen to be one myself) -- led by a fiscal-policy expert such as our VP-Academics Fred Floss -- to elaborate a position paper on this issue for our members. I would consider a separate mailing to our entire membership in order to educate them on its importance, against the propaganda coming out of the Governor's office (this mailing could be in conjunction with another mailed item, to save postage). These economists could also examine why the New York stock transfer tax is being rebated to the tune of $16 billion annually instead of staying on the revenue state of the state budget where it was from 1905 to 1979. (I am talking about only one or two cents per share of stock sold.)

The March issue of NYSUT UNITED has an elaborate full-page story, "NYSUT to lawmakers: Keep the millionaires' tax". It includes a graph showing the DROP in % taxation for households with incomes higher than $633,000 against any other income group including those in the $16,000-$33,000 range, even if the "millionaires tax" is retained!

Our UUP expose can start with "Wealth in America: Who Gets What and How Wealthy Were the Forbes 400 Richest Billionaires in 2008 Relative to America’s Bottom Half?" (www.clms.neu.edu/publication/documents/Wealth_in_America.pdf). It can also demonstrate how the upper one percent of the American population is taking from the rest of the population (both by legal and illegal means), often acting like bandits. UUP can do more than its share to expose this. Indeed, our 30-second ads could include 5-8 seconds on the revenue side. We could also circulate a portion of Michael Moore's rousing speech in Madison. Put the wealthy on the defensive, for once!

Emphasis on the revenue side goes further to help. If we let the State let millionaires run with the money, then we are not in a position to build a strong coalition with other constituencies in the New York State negatively affected by the state budget. Our potential gain can be perceived as other groups' losses. The only way to build a strong coalition is to fight together for each other, not focus only on ourselves. That approach should be sustained by repeated calls for the "millionaires tax", AND supporting the budgetary demands of others, not merely our own. Of course, we also continue demands for state funding public higher education.

Phil Smith has a statement in The Voice: "we need you to keep doing what you’ve been doing: spreading the word that public higher education must be a priority in New York" (April, p. 3). The statement lacks the vision I am promoting here.

3. The Voice

The Voice is the only UUP publication going to the membership. Last academic year we had separate issues of The Voice for February and for March. This year the February and March are collapsed into one. Last academic year we had separate issues for December and for January. This year they are collapsed into one. Why I don't know, but it did lead to the LMRDA violation that potential candidates received notification considerably past the deadline for any statements to appear in the April issue. As President I would restore the number of issues of The Voice to what it had been, unless the Executive Board or Delegate Assembly mandates something else. I would ensure full notice for deadlines for candidate statements.

4. A Transparent Union

As UUP President, I pledge to continue participating on UUPAD, the discussion list for UUP activists. I will encourage participation by other officers, also. Yes, sometimes a President or other officers cannot openly answer a question or make a comment. It depends. Total silence is no option for a transparent union.

Query to other announced officer candidates: If you are elected, will you participate in UUPAD? By now, three years after its founding, you know what UUPAD is. Phil and Eileen, I already know your answer, given that you have been completely silent for the past three years. Fred, would you participate as President or in retaining your current position as Vice-President for Academics? Raul as Secretary, and Ed at Membership Development, would you? (No, I am not asking you take on whatever comes on this list, but rather your basic pre-disposition toward participation.)

5. "U.S. Labor against the War -- Withdrawal of Troops" (UUP Policy)

This is the title of the UUP Position Statement adopted by the DA. It is on pages 8-9 of the latest manual we received at the Winter DA.

UUP was instrumental in getting both NYSUT and AFT to adopt similar anti-war resolutions at their conventions, a very important achievement within the labor movement (cf. what happened during the Vietnam War). However, our membership would hardly know, given the virtual absence of coverage in The Voice.

As UUP President, I would actively promote our membership knowing UUP's anti-war position held over many years and would invite activism. Massive war expenditures are immoral, draining our economy, and strongly benefitting the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned against.

Even though the NYSUT convention easily passed a resolution for quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the labor movement has an anti-war coalition USLAW http://uslaboragainstwar.org/ which UUP (as one example) joined, it meant nothing when organizing a rally.

The U.S. labor movement is ahead of where it was in the Vietnam era, but it has a long way to go to integrate the anti-war message directly into the labor message.

The labor movement in its practices (paper resolutions are not enough) is letting successive U.S. administrations get away with the military budgets being untouchable, when the U.S. spends about the same about as ALL other countries combined!

UUP's The Voice is late

As of April 2, I know of no member of UUP who has received the April issue of The Voice, so who could even know to go to this site? I provided the UUP Secretary with names of ten persons who did not get the issue. When it does arrive, input from members will of course remain welcome regarding issues that could be carried into my platform.

This academic year UUP has reduced the number of issues of its only publication going to members by collapsing the December and January issues into one, and then also collapsing the February and March issues into one.

I intend to restore the frequency of publication of The Voice upon election.

Upcoming Platform for UUP President

This site will have Paul Zarembka's platform for President of the United University Professions (UUP), the union for faculty and professional staff of the State University of New York. Please return closer to the election time, the May 6-7 Delegate Assembly of UUP.

In the meantime, you may post your suggestions for a high quality union as 'comments' to this message. They will be welcomed as input for the platform.

Thank you.

Academic Freedom in UUP

On Academic Freedom: The Buffalo Chapter Agenda Item for the UUP Delegate Assembly, February 4-5, 2011
by Paul Zarembka, January 29, 2011

The Buffalo Chapter agenda item for the Winter DA calls for UUP accountability and prospects with regard Article 9 Academic Freedom in the compelling context of voting about leaving AAUP.

The item criticizes no unionist and does not depend upon the history below. It asks our UUP President to provide a report, including future defense of academic freedom under existing contract language. It gives him an opportunity. The resolution also calls upon our VP-Academics, assisted by our VP-Professionals, to follow up by arranging a workshop at the Fall 2011 DA. It promotes information and discussion.

The Buffalo Chapter resolution does not mandate anything except being quite serious about Article 9, after we vote about leaving the premiere association concerned with academic freedom, AAUP. Below is the background, from my perspective. No one else is responsible for it.


History within UUP and the Academic Freedom Case at Buffalo

Since 1980, UUP has not carried through to arbitration any Article 9 Academic Freedom case.

The recent academic freedom case at SUNY-Buffalo for a Polish adjunct faculty member arose a year ago and was grieved at Step 1, UUP-represented. I am the chapter Grievance Officer for Academics. Denial at Step 1 was no surprise. However, President Phil Smith killed the grievance before even going to Step 2.

The argument Phil (himself or via Martin Coffey) made to me -- without reference to the Step 1 decision contents -- was that, since the grievant was a full-time but temporary employee, the university was free to dismiss him mid-appointment, did not need to give under the contract a reason to dismiss, and the faculty member had no academic freedom rights that could be won (nor, presumably, even a "settlement"). This Jagiellonian University faculty member was on a full-year teaching award to Buffalo granted by the Kosciuszko Foundation, the fourth teaching award this faculty member from Krakow had received to the U.S. These awards represent prima facie evidence of high teaching competence.

In this case, the UB campus administration provided reasons that rose to violation of the academic freedom of a foreign guest. (So much for hospitality.)

Under contract law, Article 32 Notice of Non-Renewal cannot empty out other articles. Article 9 is without delimitation to a class of members. If an article such as Article 9 were legally empty for contingent members, then so would other articles bearing on contingents such as Articles 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 39.

To clarify, suppose a set of contingent UUP members with fine records find their salaries suddenly dropped, contrary to wording in the contract (quite similar to something that has happened at Buffalo). When complaints are made, the members are non-renewed. Grievance on their behalf for retaliation would then be fully appropriate up through arbitration. Who would argue otherwise? The only difference from an Article 9 case is that academic freedom is less concrete than dollars in a paycheck. Or, suppose an adjunct becomes involved with UUP activism, goes to meetings under Article 11 rights, and becomes non-renewed against her right to go to UUP meetings. Who would argue against defending her through arbitration?

When I continued to argue the importance of the Buffalo case and asked Phil for a Step 2 filing extension, Phil did agree to request from SUNY an extension past the ten-working-day deadline. SUNY refused. I then asked that the UUP filing take place immediately. Phil refused, and that decision was conveyed to me via Martin Coffey.

I am very sorry to have to report what I witnessed: Phil's behavior represented an excuse for doing nothing for an adjunct and for academic freedom beyond the chapter level. He did not even give the adjunct grievant, devastated by his experience at Buffalo and back in Krakow, the minimal courtesy of a letter.

The Academic Freedom Case at Binghamton

The Fall 2009 Delegate Assembly passed a strong resolution supporting the academic freedom case of adjunct Sally Dear, named in the resolution. The Buffalo Chapter agenda item mentions her developing case, although it was adopted before her UUP-represented grievance filing of early December.

After the filing and after a Chronicle of Higher Education article of December 14 in which Dear reported the Binghamton chapter not being supportive of her, the Binghamton Chapter passed a statement, "The Exec Board of UUP Binghamton supports the principle and protection of academic freedom as defined by Article 9 of the Agreement for all faculty, including contingent, qualified rank, and tenure stream faculty. The exercise of academic freedom should never be used as a cause for disciplinary action or non-renewal of an appointment" (www.uuphost.org/binghamton).

Dear's Step 1 hearing was held on January 25, with the campus decision due February 8. Although contingent faculty member Sally Dear was non-renewed, she was determined by the Labor Relations Specialist assigned to her case to have her Article 9 Academic Freedom contractually violated and grievable. The LRS is implicitly rejecting the Binghamton campus President's statement and those in UUP who might argue that non-renewal Article 32 provides a campus carte blanche against a UUP contingent.