Setting the record straight about unionizing at Duke

We have followed the passionate discussions in The Chronicle and across campus regarding the unionization of Duke graduate students, and we have noticed that our experiences as members of the faculty union differ in significant ways from what is being said with respect to unionization and how it functions. As Duke faculty who have formed a union with SEIU, we want to set the record straight about our experience as members of a union on campus. In March, we voted by an overwhelming majority (6 to 1) to form a union so that we could collectively bargain with the administration over our working conditions. Much like the Duke graduate students, we also experienced a tough, public discussion about the merits of unionization. Now that we're at the bargaining table, we see how transformative the process is and are very glad we made the choice we did.

Much like other successful faculty unions across the country, we were told by some that a faculty union with one contract was just too complicated. It was said that while coming together with a collective voice may sound good in theory, in practice it is just too complex. The fact is that our working conditions are complicated—this is why having a strong unified voice to speak directly with the administration is so necessary. Duke is a competitive, decentralized institution where the administration expects each person to use their time and energy to lobby individually for the most basic improvements to their working conditions. In reality, while some of us can improve a good situation with a sympathetic supervisor who has access to resources, others must spend time pushing for the most basic support from a disinterested or disempowered administrator. Union representation puts in place a variety of basic protections and best practices, decided upon by unionized faculty, in consultation with each other and in legally-mandated negotiations with the administration. Specific clauses or exceptions can handle specific needs and practices of certain departments.

In fact, addressing different job responsibilities within a union contract is typical. For example, members of the California Faculty Association (CFA) negotiated a contract that covers lecturers, full-time faculty, tenured faculty, coaching assistants and librarians. Just this year, the CFA won salary raises of 10.5 percent over three academic years. The League of Voluntary Hospitals in New York covers 109 non-profit medical centers, hospitals, and nursing homes in the greater New York metropolitan area. As you might imagine, this contract covers many different job titles, and they are able to address specific unit or job title concerns through articles and side letters. 

Similarly, many faculty in the new union did not know about the conditions of faculty in other positions and departments until we began organizing our union. Chris Shreve, an instructor in the biology department, is one of many faculty members who became involved not only to better his own working conditions, but in solidarity with faculty in languages and the arts as well: “Our union has allowed us to compare our individual experiences and to inspire each other to strive for the best standards in providing a quality education for our students, which must necessarily include the best standards for our own employment.” Greg Herschlag, a Visiting Assistant Professor in Mathematics and Biomedical Engineering, further addressed some of the various concerns among unionized faculty working off of grants: “Some of our [union] members are primarily supported through external research grants; because the duration of such grants are not controlled by the university, exemptions have been added. Under these exemptions, the university would not be forced to sign extended contracts that go beyond the duration of these external grants.” All of these facets were fully recognized as we organized our union, and continue to be carefully examined throughout the negotiation and bargaining process.

Once we started forming our union, we began to see a flurry of changes from the administration—some longer contracts and raises for the summer classes we teach, for example—and that was before we even won formal recognition. As we continued to talk with colleagues across campus, we learned that many of our circumstances differed, which is to be expected, but they often differed in ways that were arbitrary and sometimes harmful to the individuals involved. We found that contract lengths were inconsistent in ways that seemed accidental rather than meaningful—some people had been renewed as “visiting” professors for 9 or 10 years on a semester-to-semester or year-to-year basis instead of having the stability of a three or five-year contract. Additionally, access to teaching technologies, benefits, and professional development differed markedly depending on department. It became apparent that should we win our union, we would be tasked with being careful stewards of the idiosyncratic but beneficial status quo in particular areas while generalizing to all faculty across departments some common best practices in teaching support, professional development, and working conditions that were not now universal.

Since September, we have literally been sitting across the table from the administration and discussing different situations in detail in order to enshrine the best solutions going forward. Unionizing has given us a legal mandate to have productive discussions with the university administration and institute changes that will help systematize and improve not only our particular situations, but also the situation for those who come after us. We do this hard work willingly and gladly because when we, as faculty, give voice to each other’s experiences and advocate for each other’s conditions, we are making the institution of Duke University a stronger, more vibrant, and more just community for us all.

To this end, we want to emphasize that continued participation is key to creating a productive union; it is only through communication with colleagues that you will learn about each other, understand more clearly how the university functions, and create a meaningful contract. The work does not end with the vote: the work begins with the vote. We imagine that you, like us, will find the work well worth it.

We invite any graduate student who would like to speak with a member of the faculty union to discuss their questions and concerns to contact us.