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 firstname.lastname@example.org.