On June
14, the PSC’s Delegate Assembly (DA) adopted a percentage-based
dues system for full-timers. The vote was 65 in favor, 3 against
and one abstention.
A similar
change for part-timers was approved by the DA on February 22.
Thus, as of this fall, all active PSC members will pay dues on a
percentage basis instead of a flat amount. (Retiree dues remain
unchanged.)
“Our old
dues structure was inequitable,” said First Vice President Steve
London. “A flat amount was charged, no matter the income
level.”
In fact,
under the old flat rate, those who earned the least paid the
highest percentage of their income as dues. For example, a College
Lab Technician making about $27,000 paid at a rate of over 2%, a
junior faculty member making about $45,000 paid over 1.5%, while
Distinguished Professors paid less than 0.66%. Under the new
system, all full-timers will pay dues of 1.05% of gross income.
For most members this means a smaller dollar amount. Someone
making $44,950 will see a dues decrease of $9.34 biweekly, while a
full professor at the top salary step ($86,619) will pay an
additional $7.63. The change was designed to be
“income-neutral” for the PSC budget.
The June
14 vote came after two special Finance Committee hearings in May
for members to voice their views, debates on the PSC Web site, and
discussions at two prior sessions of the DA.
“There
is no negativity at York” on the dues restructuring, reported
Jack Schlein, professor of biology. Senior faculty there, he said,
understand that the new system will be more fair. David Nasaw,
professor of history at the Graduate Center, said that most
higher-paid faculty there did not oppose the change because the
extra amount they would pay “is minute compared to what we get
from having a strong union.” Delegates from Bronx Community
College, the CLT chapter, College of Staten Island, City College,
Queens College, and elsewhere also spoke in favor of the change.
Timing?
Delegates
from campuses where there was more vocal opposition, including
Baruch, BMCC and Lehman, often supported the change themselves but
suggested postponing the decision. “The timing is bad,” Bill
Ferns, associate professor of computer and information systems at
Baruch, said at the May 24 special hearing, suggesting it would be
better to implement the restructuring at the same time as a wage
increase. This drew a sharp response from members of the CLT and
HEO chapters. “In terms of timing, I think it’s 20 years too
late,” said Jean Weisman, chair of the Higher Education Officers
chapter. “It’s time for fairness,” said CLT Bob Wurman.
Treasurer
John Hyland said that State and City payroll programmers had urged
the union to make all dues changes, both full-time and part-time,
at once to avoid delays in implementation.
The June
15 vote by the DA came after a spirited hour-long debate. The
change was “a contentious issue” at Baruch, chapter chair
Howard Ross told the meeting. Some at Baruch felt that for all to
pay the same percentage would be “a tax on success,” Ross
said, and a burden for those with children in college.
Weisman of
the HEO chapter responded that it was inconsistent for those who
oppose percentage-based dues to accept percentage-based gains in
salaries. Bart Meyers, professor of psychology at Brooklyn
College, agreed: “If you want a flat rate in dues, you have to
support flat wage increases.”
What's
The Most Equal Way?
An
argument often raised by those who wanted to stick with a flat
rate was that “every PSC union member should pay the same
amount, enjoy the same benefits and have an equal voice in the
union,” as Gopal Subramaniam put it in a posting on the PSC Web
site. Helene Silverman, chapter chair at Lehman, said at the June
14 DA that this was a common sentiment at Lehman.
Supporters
of the restructuring, such as James Saslow, professor of art at
Queens, countered that a fixed amount of money is not “the
same” for those at different income levels. They argued that the
most equal way to share the cost was for all to pay the same
percent. “At some point you have to put the economic arguments
aside and recognize that this is the moral thing to do,” Saslow
added.
To have to
pay dues on income from overload teaching would be a burden for
those who need this to make ends meet, said Michael Barnhart,
associate professor of history and philosophy at Kingsborough.
Many at KCC favored exempting overload income from union dues, and
Barnhart said that the Finance Committee’s arguments against
this were “weak.”
On the PSC
Web site, fourteen members signed comments in support of the
restructuring while eleven signed statements opposed. There were
even more anonymous postings, which ran heavily—and sometimes
vehemently—against the proposal.
In the
end, only a minority of delegates reported that their members
opposed the change, and the DA approved the restructuring by a
wide margin. In political terms the measure had broad support,
winning votes from both caucuses within the union.
back
to PSC HOME page
other
CLARION
articles