According to Dean of Arts and Sciences Joanne Berger-Sweeney and Dean of Academic Affairs for Arts and Sciences James Glaser in their Sept. 16 Daily op-ed, unionization may not have been the best move.
"We have worked to make Tufts an employer of choice for part-time faculty," the deans wrote. "And we have done so without a union."
Berger-Sweeney and Glaser also emphasized a loss of flexibility that would occur with the implementation of a union, due to the fact that a third party will now be involved with interactions between the administration and the part-time faculty. They emphasized this lack of direct discussion in an online resource that they wrote titled, "The Upcoming Union Election - And What it Means to You." Like the op-ed, the resource was published before the vote took place and asked that part-time faculty consider how their interactions with the administration might change.
"Do you want a single national union representative to handle those matters for the group - and become the only group of unionized faculty at Tufts - or do you want to preserve your right to discuss such matters directly with your chairs and deans?" they wrote.
But how do Glaser and Berger-Sweeney feel about this decision, now that part-time faculty have confirmed their desire to unionize despite the deans' so clearly expresseing their disapproval of such a movement?
"Even the strongest advocates of this, I'm sure, recognize that there are costs and benefits to every decision and every new situation, and we felt it was important for us to point out what some of the costs to making this change would be," Glaser said. "But at the end of the day, that was not persuasive to roughly 65 percent of the people who voted. They were persuaded by other arguments instead."
Berger-Sweeney emphasized that the administration will move forward with negotiations.
"We stated before the election, and we stated again after the election, that we will work with the bargaining if it is elected - and it was," she said. "I don't know what much more to say than that."
Glaser echoed this sentiment.
"Let's be really clear: The administration supports the right for part-time lecturers to decide for themselves if they want to unionize and collectively bargain. ... We don't resent people for exercising that right or for making the decision that they did," he said.
Despite this, Glaser said he does not believe that unionization will improve the current situation.
"We don't believe that is going to lead to a necessarily better situation ... but it is what it is. ... We will bargain in good faith, and we are still seeing our colleagues and having friendly conversations with them," he said. "From our perspective - and I would be surprised if you found it on the other side - there's not deep-seated anger or resentment."
Berger-Sweeney admitted that she was slightly surprised by the vote's outcome.
"Maybe I was a little surprised that they chose to unionize after we actually listened and tried to put forward a new system," she said. "I thought what we'd put together was a very reasonable and fair package."
Although Glaser did not express surprise, as evidence that the union might not have been necessary at Tufts, he did state that the benefits that part-time faculty receive are competitive when compared with those at other universities in the area.
"The fact of the matter is that there [were] in place strong benefits, competitive course rates, and we've had faculty who have been here for many, many years, and we have had very little turnover - which is some evidence that what we were offering in benefits and compensation was competitive, or we would have lost people," he said. "That's the way a market works."
Glaser noted, however, that there may be some benefits to unionizing.
"Obviously, [adjunct faculty] feel that there is leverage they can gain by collectively bargaining - and perhaps that's so," he said. "We'll be finding that out over the next six to 12 months, I think."
Berger-Sweeney and Glaser both agreed that the bargaining process would be less personal.
"The implications of the union contract are that the administration will be bargaining solely with the union and not with individuals," Berger-Sweeney said. "If you want my tongue-in-cheek answer, it is that there are going to be a whole lot more lawyers in the room than there were before."
Both deans claimed that negotiations involving unions tend to be more confrontational than non-unionized negotiations.
"Just any union situation is going to be more confrontational - it doesn't mean that people can't negotiate and work together, but ... having worked before in a unionized environment, what is collectively good for the group isn't necessarily good for every individual involved," Berger-Sweeney said.
Glaser argued that the presence of lawyers could increase administrative costs and explained that these increases in spending are inevitable on both sides when it comes to unionization.
"There will be dues that have to be paid to the union, and the reason that you have those dues is because it costs money for people to represent you," he said. "You need union lawyers and union representatives. ... From the administration's side, we will also have to put resources into negotiating the union contract - those are resources that we didn't have to spend before. It will be costly to the school."
Senior Bennett Gillogly also expressed concerns about rising costs and wondered where the money would come from to pay for them.
"Tufts is already one of the most expensive schools in the country," Gillogly told the Daily in an email. "In one way or another, the costs for higher pensions, more benefits and the associated lawyers fees are going to be paid for by our already skyrocketing tuition."
Glaser, however, suggested the cost for such expenses would not fall on students in a notable way.
"This is a very big institution," he said. "I can't say exactly where the resources will come from to address the new administrative burdens that this will place on us; I'm thinking that it will probably not be something that is visible to the students on a day-to-day basis."
In terms of Tufts' course offerings and rigorous curricula, both deans seemed doubtful that unionization would reduce opportunities for students.
"We have to offer Spanish, we have to offer writing, we have to offer math courses - these are courses that are often taught by our part time faculty," he said. "We will need to do that in the future, we have had to do that in the past - I don't think our curriculum is going to change."
Berger-Sweeney was less certain but said that a strong curriculum is a priority for her.
"I have no idea of the implications on the curriculum, except to say I'm committed to having an extremely strong curriculum in the School of Arts and Sciences," she said. "I am always mindful of the students who are here right now. The students who walk in the door deserve the best educational experience that we can possibly provide for them."
Berger-Sweeney added that negotiating with part-time faculty will not change this priority.
"As the dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, my primary goal and role is to ensure that we have an excellent education for the students," she said. "That's why we're here - that's why we're all here. And we will keep that in the forefront of any and every negotiation that we enter into. We're not in this to save money, lose money - anything about money - we are in the job of providing an excellent education to students, and that's what's going to be our primary motivating goal as we enter into bargaining."
Glaser likewise emphasized the dedication of part-time faculty to students.
"The lecturers are professional people, they're faculty people - their dedication to the students has never been questioned here," he said. "I know very well because I supervise the departments, I see the teaching evaluations, I know what kind of value they bring the university - and they bring value to the university."
