One Theory to Account for the Vote Results

I’ve received the following information from two different correspondents (quoted below).  In both cases, the information originated from well-placed sources in the union, as one way of accounting for the ~7% swing between the number of professors who voted to authorize for a strike in January’s strike vote and those who voted to reject management’s offer, in the contract offer vote one month later.

Between the stike vote of Jan 12 and the offer vote of Feb 10 840 voters were added to the eligible voters list. This number was across the colleges. Don’t remember the precise eligibilty numbers (@10,200 and went to over 11,000) but I do vividly remember the 840 increase.

Were there 840 full-time faculty hires, you ask? Obviously not. They’re wondering and trying to investigate this possibility: that this 8% increase came from the possible conversion of part-time to partial load workers, with the commensurate large increase in pay, just before the offer vote.

Further supporting the theory that gerrymandering may have added a pool of new partial-load members (who might be particularly vulnerable to managerial influence, and in on the voting rolls comes from here:

Colleges padded the voters’ lists with 740 additional temporary appointments between January 13 and February 10 – just enough to turn the tide.

Actually, comparing the two files liked above, I count a difference of 856 eligible voters, which suggests that roughly 7.7% of the voters who were eligible to vote in favour of the latest contract offer had not been eligible to vote in favour of a strike, one month previously.

Coincidental, possibly; strategic, possibly.  Take a look at the breakdowns linked above, if you like — is it significant which colleges had a sudden, mid-semester need for additional unionized faculty?

I’ll post my thoughts soon — hopefully after receiving some of your own at

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

One comment on “One Theory to Account for the Vote Results

  1. prof says:

    Hmmm. I think we’re venturing into the realm of conspiracy theory here prof. 856 new partial loaders, all hired within 3 weeks, on the condition that they would give a yes vote, in a secret ballot, on a contract that threatens partial loaders more than other voters? Come on… That’s really pretty insulting to the intellegence of OUR collective wisdom! (Not to mention the ethical intent of our part-time colleagues.)

    I think the logic is pretty simple. 7% of those giving the mandate, did so very tentatively and reluctantly, with the hope that it would not eventuate in a strike. When management presented their ‘final’ offer, and the strike appeared imminent, they balked and changed their minds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s