Three facts
1.
Dr. Meadows, at a
department meeting recently, said several times that perception is reality.
2.
Dr. Meadows, at
the same department meeting, admitted that the college has a morale problem (which
he tried to water down by adding that any organization this size has a morale
problem, and a problem which he seems to think is the sole function of
salaries).
3.
At the last
bargaining session, April 5th, one of the administration
representatives began the session by putting on a stern face and leveling
several “charges,” for lack of a better term, at PSCFA. One of those charges
was that the union was responsible for lowering the morale of the college.
Well.
Most of the other charges
leveled at us were, upon closer examination, simply the result of
misunderstanding by one side or the other. Fine. That happens.
But to say that WE are
responsible for low morale at the college? To say that WE are the reason that
sometimes the bargaining sessions seem contentious? To indicate that various
vice presidents, department heads, secretaries, and faculty of the college are
walking around mopey-faced because of the union?
As evidence, we were offered
the following: 1. “Someone” (unnamed) from the union leadership had made snarky
comments to someone else (also unnamed) about the recent selective raises given
to selected admin/professional types (not faculty) and to Keegan employees; and
2. We had had the effrontery to actually print the raise graph for those
admin/professional types and Keegan employees in the last issue of this
publication. These anonymous comments were defined as “malicious.”
When pressed, the admin
person refused to be specific about who the “someone” was, what comments were
made, to whom they were made, or anything else—just that an anonymous
complainant made an anonymous complaint about the fact that an anonymous member
of the Association “leadership” said something “malicious” about the fact that
the administration chose to raise, without any explanation, the pay of twenty
people and Keegan employees.
The same administration that
has not given us any decent raise in …. how long?
The same administration that
has enough money (according to Dr. Meadows) to hire three (THREE) companies
(and then fire two of them) to come up with a new logo for the college.
The same administration that,
apparently, perceived a morale problem with SOME administrators and commenced
to study wages for administrators so that our administrators, SOME of them,
would not be all teary eyed when they got paid?
But didn’t bother to study
faculty salaries or career service salaries?
No wonder the maintenance
people are walking around with long faces and snarling at the union leadership.
No wonder we are booed when we walk past a secretary’s desk. No wonder we are
pelted with rotten fruit at All College Day functions (doubly sad because that
day is a real morale raiser, as we all know).
Yup, Ed, perception is
reality.
We imagine that if you were
to take a survey and ask “Who DO YOU PERCEIVE is responsible for the low morale
at the college—1. snarky faculty union leadership members or 2. top
administration or 3. (write in candidate)…. Come to think of it, instead of US
imagining, why don’t YOU imagine what the answer would be, what the perception
is. And therefore what the reality is.
As to contentious bargaining, all of the
people for the Association were surprised, nay, shocked. Yes, each side can be
somewhat heated while explaining its position. Both sides take shots at the
other in, what we thought was, good natured ways. Yes, Jennifer Brahier is a
math wonk. Yes, Keith Prendergast can be a smart-ass. Yes, Keith Samuels is
getting retirement pay AND Keegan pay ($30 an hour). Yes, a Tallahassee lawyer
paid more than any faculty member is on the administration side of the table.
Jibes were traded about those things and others. We felt that those jibes were
good-natured. Apparently not.
Apparently, because one of
the members of the Association leadership is snarkily going around lowering
morale by making anonymous comments to anonymous complainers, the
administration side of the table is hurt and dismayed. Feels threatened. Probably
kick the dog when they get home.
Wow, that last paragraph was
snarky. Please, all employees at PSC, buck up. Smiley faces, everyone.
Everything is fine, in fact wonderful, except for that snarky union thing.
Drink with an umbrella in it,
anyone?
Admin did not respond to our
proposals for Article 15 (salaries), but the state budget has not been
approved, so the delay on that is understandable, despite the $50,000+ that the
BOT approved for twenty selected admin/professional types, not to mention the additional outlay for the 2% increase for Keegan employees
BEFORE the state budget was approved.
At the last meeting, the only
major change (really, lack of change) in admin’s proposals is no change for
sick leave buyout. Obviously, studying sick leave buyout at other colleges and
finding that most pay up to 100% did not occur to the administration—just
studying salaries for admin/professional people so that upward adjustments could
be made for SOME.
Sorry, more snark snuck in
that last paragraph.
And you didn’t hear it here,
but the admin has hired three of the four horsemen of the apocalypse as admin
types, and is negotiating to hire the fourth.
Sorry, that’s probably
malicious.
We won’t lower your morale
any more because we have been put in our place—our happy place.
