3 ms·

What do you mean? The university is trying to teach a lesson by inflicting pain on those who stood against it. I thought that was clear. Do you maybe mean "wha

What do you mean? The university is trying to teach a lesson by inflicting pain on those who stood against it. I thought that was clear. Do you maybe mean "what makes them think that this is legal?" I doubt they do. But they likely decided that value of sending a "don't fuck with us" message was higher than the cost of the likely mild consequences.

munk-a 4y ago
Oh - as far as I'm aware it's quite legal for them to be doing all this. But, especially in the US where healthcare is not guaranteed universally, cutting such an essential service is just going to create an even bigger wave of bad PR. A lot of people in the US have very strong feelings about the healthcare system and Temple just decided to highlight how cruel it can be in their dealings with a strike and bring that debate into the middle of their labor negotiations - that isn't a good thing for Temple as it's more likely to attract big names and get political. But legally, they're certainly in the clear - after Reagan forced air traffic controllers back to work it's been pretty clear that unions in America have essentially no guaranteed rights.
komali2 4y ago
> on those who stood against it Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being. It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work. What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?
- bruceb 4y ago
  >That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? How many people apply for each position? For many areas (not CS) its a buyers market not a sellers one in terms of faculty labor.

munk-a 4y ago

Oh - as far as I'm aware it's quite legal for them to be doing all this. But, especially in the US where healthcare is not guaranteed universally, cutting such an essential service is just going to create an even bigger wave of bad PR. A lot of people in the US have very strong feelings about the healthcare system and Temple just decided to highlight how cruel it can be in their dealings with a strike and bring that debate into the middle of their labor negotiations - that isn't a good thing for Temple as it's more likely to attract big names and get political. But legally, they're certainly in the clear - after Reagan forced air traffic controllers back to work it's been pretty clear that unions in America have essentially no guaranteed rights.

komali2 4y ago

> on those who stood against it Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being. It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work. What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?

bruceb 4y ago
>That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? How many people apply for each position? For many areas (not CS) its a buyers market not a sellers one in terms of faculty labor.