Best Wishes: The Story of an Ever-So-Polite Union Takeover

by P.D. Lesko and Augusta Wilson

In the United States, part-time faculty represented within unified union locals (union affiliates that represent and bargain on behalf of both full-time and part-time faculty) frequently come up on the short end of the stick when it comes to negotiated pay raises. In the August 16, 2005 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington State adjunct activist Keith Hoeller writes:
“Little data is available on adjunct salaries nationally, and virtually none on adjunct raises. But the issue of raises for adjuncts may be as important as the wage issue itself, for the lack of raises explains in large part how adjunct salaries got so low in the first place, and why they stay so low despite recent gains in many states…..[However], denying raises to part-timers is just one more way for colleges to “save” money by stiffing the adjuncts. On the part of the…faculty unions, it is one more way of denying the part-timers the fair representation that federal law requires in return for the right to be the exclusive bargaining agent.”

The same month that Hoeller published his essay, on the other side of the Atlantic, the UK’s Association of University Teachers (AUT), that country’s largest education union, found itself in the middle of a scrum. A group of associate lecturers (ALs), as part-time lecturers are referred to in the UK, working for the Open University (OU), one of England’s largest universities, in Milton Keynes, UK, charged that the Association of University Teachers had not acted in the best professional interest of ALs when the union negotiated a modernization agreement that sought to reassess the pay schedules of 7,800 ALs at Open University. As a result, the ALs revolted.

The associate lecturers’ unprecedented action began with an e-mail message sent from Hilary Carberry, an associate lecturer in Voluntary Sector Studies at the University of Wales, to John Bennett. In that August 10, 2005 message, Ms. Carberry writes that a group of ALs numbering “almost 100” are “determined to proceed with the Petition to Remove OUAUT Officers and other members of the Committee.”

Never in the history of the AUT had there been a call for the removal of officers of a local branch.

Though many of the email messages between Hilary Carberry and John Bennett were signed “best wishes,” the messages make clear that the ALs were prepared to launch a serious challenge to not only their local union leadership, but to the AUT’s national leadership, as well.

Associate lecturers comprise 50 percent of the teaching base in the OU, and are based at OU campuses throughout the UK, Central and Western Europe. Like their full-time counterparts, OU’s 7,800 part-time faculty are responsible for conducting classes and providing one-on-one academic guidance to their students. An associate lecturer in the UK typically teaches two to three course per academic year, which usually lasts for nine months. The pay is moderate, ranging from £700 ($1,216) to £4,000 ($6,949) a year. The union’s new modernization scheme proposed to place part-timers at pay rates that were significantly lower than their full-time counterparts. In essence, critics of the proposal argued that the new pay scale placed associate lecturers at the same grade as junior lecturers, which was interpreted as a devaluing both the importance of the adjuncts’ academic contributions to the Open University, and their overall status.

In June 2005, members of the OUAUT received a ballot from the union that they felt underrepresented them. Concerned members promptly requested that another proposal be drawn up. A new ballot, the critics argued, should not place associate lecturers effectively on a junior lecturing grade. Although the ballot was generally accepted by the full-time faculty members of the OUAUT, a core group of 100 part-timers, represented by Hilary Carberry, argued that their interests had not been properly represented by the OUAUT.

Bad Blood

The relationship between part-time lecturers and the AUT has been historically contentious, and this latest dispute over pay grading is indicative of an earlier action over a proposed pension scheme. In 2002, associate lecturers took the AUT to task over a disagreement over a proposal which sought to modernize the pension schemes of the Open University’s lecturers. Many part-timers felt overlooked by the OU’s apparent unwillingness to provide them with a pension. Critics of the proposed pension scheme argued that many associate lecturers found themselves having to resort to state benefits in lieu of a pension that their full-time colleagues received. As a result, the OU offered a compromise. Employees were granted the right to claim a pension, retroactive to 1976 or the initial date of employment, whichever date was later.

Part-timers reported receiving an offer stating that those members who were under the age of 63 would be eligible for a pension and those over 63 could receive one depending upon circumstance. The pension plans of those under 63, however, were less carefully drawn out, although any pension set up under the ballot would not be retroactive. Those over 63 would gain a pension at a maximum of £250, based upon an average associate lecturer’s pay of £4,000. Many lecturers expressed anger at this figure of £250, claiming that it was far too low, especially when compared with the amount that they would have received if the schemes were backdated. Additionally, many simply felt betrayed when they learned it was the AUT that initially recommended the offer.

As a result, almost 600 associate lecturers threatened the OU with legal action, claiming they had been discriminated against on the basis of their part-time status. The AUT promptly responded by announcing that it would no longer pay the legal fees required to bring the case forward. The OU countered by simply withdrawing its offer of a pension plan.

A Flawed Pay Proposal

In this most recent dispute, associate lecturers again argued that the offer of a significantly lower pay raise than that offered to their full-time OU colleagues constituted a degree of laxness in the OUAUT’s regard of part-time employees. Critics argued that the pay proposal, and its subsequent administration, were terribly flawed; it was reported that members–both full-time and part-time–did not receive copies of the pay offer or the ballot.

ALs attempted to resolve their issues with local OUAUT officials. However, as Hilary Carberry wrote in an email sent to AUT national president Sally Hunt, ALs felt their efforts stymied:
“As you know, we have made sustained efforts over an extended period to resolve the issues, within the branch; however, senior Officers have refused to engage in any way in a dialogue, and have consistently acted in a way which, inter alia, disregards both the interests of Associate Lecturer members and the responsibility of Officers to be accountable. Further, in response to a request by you on behalf of OUAUT Officers, we waited for the letter from the AUT General Secretary: however…Sally Hunt’s ‘consultation exercise’ letter clearly does not constitute an ‘enquiry’ into the branch Officers’ actions.”

ALs called an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) for July 21, 2005 in an effort to resolve the growing tension. The EGM’s outcome was three-fold. A vote was taken that almost unanimously called for the cancellation of the ballot, to “declare a no confidence” vote in the results of the AUT’s negotiations, and to request a re-opening of negotiations with the OU. Members also voted to destroy all returned votes for the pay modernization scheme uncounted. Three members of the OUAUT Executive Committee and an AUT Deputy General attended the EGM, held in London.

Despite the outcome of the EGM, during the September 1st OUAUT Executive Committee meeting, the union’s disputed pay plan was voted on and carried. In a letter dated September 2, 2005, AUT Vice President A.V. Carr wrote Philip Marsh, Director of Human Resources at the Open University, “We [OUAUT] are now, therefore, in a position to formally accept the final offer and look forward to implementation at the earliest opportunity.”

Angered by the union’s acceptance of the disputed pay plan, as well as the Executive Committee’s refusal to abide by the votes taken at the EGM, an associate lecturer strategy group, headed by 11 ALs, including David Knowles and Lorraine Schneiter (both of whom were members of the OUAUT Executive Committee), urged associate lecturers to oust the OUAUT president and many of the Executive Board’s members.

Current President John Bennett declined repeated requests to comment on the pay dispute. Mr. Bennett wrote this in response to an email message from Adjunct Advocate: “Our stance remains that we do not wish to co-operate with you on this article….We have agreed to put past differences behind us, and we do not wish to be involved in your article either directly or indirectly.”

According to sources, OUAUT Executive Committee members were “advised” “not to get involved” in the pay dispute issue, or to answer questions from the Adjunct Advocate’s writers.

David Knowles took the “advice.” He serves as the Treasurer of the OUAUT, and was present at the meeting at which members of the OUAUT’s Executive Committee voted to adopt the disputed pay modernization proposal. When asked about the dispute, Mr. Knowles said, “I don’t think it would be helpful to go over old ground now. There is a new Executive [Committee] in place trying to work for the benefit of all OUAUT members.”

Associate lecturer Mary C. Taylor disagrees with the idea that the pay dispute is water under the bridge, and that union representatives should avoid discussing the dispute. She teaches at Queens College in Belfast, Ireland, as well as at the local branch of Open University, and is a regional representative for OU part-time lecturers. In response to questions regarding the pay dispute, Ms. Taylor writes, “I’m glad you’re interested. Maybe we can improve things for part-time lecturers in the US and UK by sharing info.”

Tom Saunders, another regional union representative for OU part-time lecturers, agreed. “It is good to know that part-time lecturers in the States are interested in our dispute.”

Sue Hawthorne has taught mathematics at the Open University for more than six years. When asked if she thought the pay dispute had been settled satisfactorily, she wrote, “Certainly not.”

Lorraine Schneiter serves on the OUAUT Executive Committee. She is an associate lecturer and the OUAUT union representative for Central Europe. About the dispute, she wrote this from her home in Switzerland: “Although associate lecturers received their back pay in December 2005, there is still no sign of the third point on the salary scale that [associate lecturers] were promised when we were assimilated onto the new pay spine.”

She believes that the reason for the OU’s failure to meet the demands of the associate lecturers is straightforward: “The only reason advanced by management for this failure to preserve ALs’ salary levels was ‘affordability.’”

Schneiter feels particularly disappointed by the union. “In June 2005, the OUAUT sent out a newsletter to its members outlining its own position … and declared its commitment to negotiate hard on our behalf.”

Part of the distrust felt by members towards the OUAUT, and their readiness to mount a campaign against them, during the recent pay dispute, Schneiter points out, was due in part to the 2002 pension program dispute.

The Way Forward

During the Annual General Meeting held in November 2005, several of the most vocal associate lecturers involved in the pay dispute were elected to the Executive Committee of the OUAUT, including Hilary Carberry, who is now a Vice President of the OUAUT local.

Associate lecturer Sue Hawthorne sees the November elections as “settling some scores” between OU’s ALs and the AUT. Even so, associate lecturers have stated that they feel that the relationship between them and the OUAUT has been jeopardized, perhaps irreparably.

“The behavior of the three OUAUT senior officers was disgraceful. The biggest single mistake was separating ALs from full-time staff by settling in respect of the latter group and then hanging [associate lecturers]–the most vulnerable group–out to dry… They then abused their positions to try to ignore expressions of anger and concern… They were arrogant and duplicitous,” said one lecturer, who asked to remain anonymous. He also feels that the pay dispute has not been satisfactorily resolved. “The offer was accepted in the teeth of evidence that the ballots had been fatally flawed and that, when ALs were presented with the facts impartially, they understood that they had been shafted.”

Lorraine Schneiter, however, remains guardedly optimistic about future relationship between associate lecturers and the union.

“I hope that with the merger of the NAFTHE and AUT, the new union officers will be more willing to listen to the needs of its members,” she said.

Schneiter also hopes that the future relationship between associate lecturers and their branch of the OUAUT will improve for the benefit of both parties.
“I think that the OU has underestimated the level of resentment that built up over the last three years, and I believe that if they carry on down this route, they will ultimately ‘kill the goose that laid the golden eggs’ that is to say, the delicate balance between well-designed material and first-rate tuition that made the OU much more than a correspondence college,” said Schneiter.
Some associate lecturers feel that their academic roles have been eroded by the recent contract dispute, because it reinforced the ‘casual’ approach to part-time academics. According to Schneiter, “The OU is undergoing a comprehensive revision of its student support system and as part of that revision, it is looking at [associate lecturers’] role. The university has been forced to take a more managerial and market approach to education, but I hope that in doing so it will not lose sight of its noble heritage.”

The lecturer who requested anonymity also feels that the academic role of associate lecturers has been compromised by this latest dispute. He hopes that the new OUAUT local will be “led by a unifying President [who] will be able to make sure that these sorts of things never happen gain.” The new Executive should also “for the first time” understand the role that part-timers play and “aspire to cannot be underestimated.”

To whit, for the first time ever, in February 2006, the Open University branch of the AUT posted a Web survey for its part-time membership to complete (http://ucu.open.ac.uk/als.html). AUT officials writing on their Web page hoped that, “the 1000s of academic and related staff on such contracts will provide us with valuable information about their working terms and conditions and what is important to them.” When viewed shortly after the survey closed, the webpage had received 376 views. Results of the survey, which closed on February 28th, have yet to be released.
A lecturer who asked not to be identified, perhaps best sums up the feelings of those involved, and the alleged lack of support for part-time academics by the OUAUT, when he says, “…the former President… made a big ‘thing’ about the fact that ALs did not have academic status. It’s bad enough,” he continues, “[when officials from the] OU say or imply this sort of thing; when an officer of one’s own union says it, it really gets home…but if the OU and the former officers wanted to find ways to de-motivate [us], they couldn’t have done so more effectively.”