Quote:
Originally Posted by kerry
It has nothing to do with average performance and everything to do with the managerial class reducing the costs of labor. The situation I describe is similar to a situation in which Ford and GM in Detroit saying that we are going to cut our workforce in two. Half will be paid at 1/4 the rate of the other half and will only be hired half time. The half that are paid 1/4 of the rate and only work half time at GM are in need of money so they go get another half time job at Ford. Vice versa with the Ford workers. Labor costs are dramatically reduced even though the size of the workforce has not changed. Of course the auto unions would not let this happen whereas in the last 20 years this is exactly what has happened in higher education.
The Reagan years produced a corporate culture in which it became acceptable to fire workers and hire them back as consultants with no job security and lower labor costs to the company. Higher ed followed suite.
It used to be that corporate power controlled it's labor costs with guns and the Baldwin Felts agency. Nowadays, guns are not as socially acceptable but the basic relationship between management and labor remains unchanged, only constrained by legal limits and the ability to pay lawyers.
|
Of course they are going to reduce the cost of labor, that's their job and their responsibility to the owners/stockholders. I'm not sure I would use the US auto industry as an example of successful union action, things didn't turn out so well for them. I do understand that manufacturing workers are (unsuccessfully) trying to hold on to the last little bit of work in the US, but I still have trouble understanding the motivation of professional workers.
Sooner or late we all figure out that it's easy to make money; but it's harder to make money doing something we really enjoy. I'm not sure I could enjoy a job where I felt the employer was being forced to pay me a fair wage. If they don't feel like they are getting a very good deal, I probably belong someplace else. I quit my last job ten years ago and became a consultant because I was able to double my income and I like the freedom. Job security is overrated, I'll take the cash. Anyone can figure out how to make themselves indispensable to their employer; if they are a commodity that can be easily replaced, they are probably in the wrong job. I feel that folks with the advantage of an advanced education are capable of looking out for themselves in the job market.
US higher education is in an international competition for the best students (and doing pretty well), if they lose talented people due to cost cutting they will have to adjust their tactics or they will lose market. The folks doing the teaching are the product being sold to the students, I find it unfortunate that they would have to resort to a union to have their employers recognize their value. If that is the case, maybe they should consider teaching elsewhere in the world.