Talk:Community College of Vermont

Union organizing campaign
I'm sensing a bit of bias in this description of the current union situations: "The college — which has about 700 part-time instructors teaching about 6,000 students at 12 locations around the state — is opposing the unionization effort and is using public money to produce anti-union literature."

'Using public money to produce anti-union literature' is a bit leading. The fact of the matter is, CCV is and has been run differently from the other state schools. That includes, among many other differences, a lack of a unionized teaching faculty. For the College to inform people of its mission, and why it does what it does isn't exactly anti-anything. Yes, much of the administration does not want a unionized faculty. That makes them against changing the fundamental identity of the College, not solely anti-union.

The pro vs. anti union debate that occurs nationally can be ugly and detrimental. The term 'using public money' has certainly not been included to encourage neutral thinking. I'm interested in hearing from people about this. I'll give it a few days, but I'm likely to reword it to reflect a more neutral POV.--Jonashart 14:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To state that a campaign run by a management of an enterprise (any enterprise) to encourage employees not to unionise is not anti-union beggars belief. What on earth can anti-union mean, if that is the case? Would you accept that Wal-Mart is an anti-union employer? Incidentally, your assertion that unionisation would alter the fundamental identity of the college is itself POV.

Paul Hardy


 * Having read a great deal of the literature from both 'sides', I'm not sure I can agree with your assertion that CCV is running an anti-union campaign. Rather, they are encouraging all 'eligible' (a problem for another day) folks to vote. Remember, it is the union folks who began by stating CCV is somehow falling short, and that the union will fix those problems. So when CCV, as an organization, asserts it's mission and goals in defense, I'm not sure it's anti-anything. At most, we could agree that the school admin. is generally (I say that because I doubt it is true of all faculty) against a union at CCV. That is different from being simply anti-union. In fact, there's a good chance that many admins support unions in other forms and other places. Just not at CCV. So, clarity of language is important: being anti-union and being against a union at CCV are two very different things.


 * Currently, CCV has no union. The design and mechanisms of the school function without a union. Thus, adding a union would change that fundamental nature of the school. Relationships between teachers and coordinators would change. Relationships between the school and teachers would change. That's not POV: that is included in the stated goals of the union organizers.--Jonashart 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that you believe your own argument. So, I can campaign against a union at A Corp, but because I have no involvement with B Corp and so do not argue against a union there, I am not anti-union? For the administration to be against a union at CCV is anti-union and cannot be anything else. Paul Hardy


 * Paul, you're describing one of the several inherent problems with this entire issue: the creation of an "us" vs. them" atmosphere. You're presenting a rather Bush-like "either you're with us, or you're against us" scenario. Since you don't live/work here (or at CCV), you'll have to take my word for it: there are people involved who, in other places/circumstances, have and would support a union. The fact is, many people believe a union just does not fit at CCV. That does not make them anti-union people. To continually characterize people that way is sadly political and extremely divisive.--Jonashart 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, people are not being characterised as anti-union. Workers have a perfect right to choose whether to be represented by a union or not. But a campaign against union representation, particularly one at the very least supported by management of a public institution, is anti-union if that phrase has any meaning. I'm not there, of course, but there would surely be no us-vs-them atmosphere if the administration took the position it ought to take in these matters, which is neutrality. Paul Hardy


 * I'm not sure what "neutrality" would look like in this matter. The union push is an effort by what can only be determined to be a minority, to drastically change the nature of the institution. This change would affect every employee of that institution. Thus, there is no neutral ground. The union drive is basically saying, "you're wrong, change". CCV's stance is, "sorry, we have no interest in changing in the way in which you've proposed". What would neutrality be here, disinterest?--Jonashart 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'disinterest' - the lack of an interest. The decision should be that of the workers and the workers alone. Employers, especially publicly-funded ones, should have no say in the matter. Paul Hardy


 * Even though they will directly affected? That's an interesting idea. Being involved with decisions and having a "say" is what's prompting this debate, as I recall. So, it's ok for some, but not all to be heard? We should bear in mind of course, that the teachers (workers, as you've called them), are also "publicly funded". But of course, neither the institution, nor it's employees are singularly funded by me, the local Vermont tax payer. Students do, in fact, pay tuition. So, is there some sort of scale for what can be defined as publicly funded vs. privately funded? At least, in your vision of who gets a say? I know in this case, many of the "workers" do not qualify to have their voices heard, even though they too will be affected.


 * Paul, you and I can debate these things for years. But it's not really serving the interest of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to continue this in another forum, but we've strayed quite a bit from what should be happening here. I had initially asked about your interest in the subject, and you returned with a vague answer about brotherhood. I suspect your interest in the Community College of Vermont is a bit more direct than that. As such, I will continue to monitor the article and make sure it remains as neutral as possible. Yes, there is a union campaign. Yes, the school basically opposes it. Those are the facts. Anything added or taken out to favor either of those positions will be redacted.


 * Bail ó Dhia ort--Jonashart 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing vague about my answer. I will be watching the article too. Slán go fóill. Paul Hardy

=More pro-union bias= I'm wondering why pro-union language continues to be inserted into this article. Moreover, such edits appear to be coming from outside the United States? As other edits made by this person are to another article focused on a union organization, the bias is not subtle.

I will continue to edit out such POV additions. Please bear in mind that the atmosphere surrounding the debate is bordering on contentious and Wikipedia need not be a place for that to continue.--Jonashart 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside the United States! You mean the other 95pc of the human race have gained access to Wikipedia? All heavens forfend! Paul Hardy


 * Paul, yes outside the United States. Outside Vermont. And certainly outside the CCV community. Why is the Ideas Institute (www.ideasinstitute.ie) interested in a unionizing effort of a small community college across the ocean? Or is it really SIPTU that is interested (www.siptu.ie)? Obviously, your organization has some interest in this, as it is apparently what you do. But, rather than making anonymous edits, it'd probably be fair to let people know who you are and why you are doing so.--Jonashart 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Brotherhood. And the class solidarity which you are yourself ably demonstrating. Paul Hardy


 * You'll have to explain that a bit more. "Class solidarity"? Definitely sounds political. Just what every teaching institution needs: teachers and faculty divided along political lines. Should be great for the students. Not that it seems to matter to many people. But you really haven't made clear what your organization's interest is in this.--Jonashart 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's political. Human beings are political animals, an insight I believe of the far-left agitator Aristotle. But it is no more political to support unionisation than to oppose it. Incidentally, lecturers at Oxford and Cambridge are represented by unions, to name just two of the world's great universities, so I think CCV's students could cope. Paul Hardy


 * Well, as you've stated, it is political: thus any effort of CCV to defend itself takes a political tone, as that's the landscape created by the union drive. While I appreciate your suggestion that by adopting a union, CCV has a chance of becoming the next Oxford, I find your conclusion revealingly misguided. Students should not have to "cope". Any organized effort that puts the student second, or in this case, about 5th or 6th, is inherently flawed.--Jonashart 13:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More Union fun
I'm not convinced that this sentence: "The college opposed the unionization effort partially through a mailing effort that was controversial partially because the school is publicly funded." is completely unbiased. Too many partials and not enough fact. There was lots of stuff going on then...not just the issue of CCV's response to the union drive. I will change it to be more inclusive. Or, the whole sentence should be nixed and replaced with something less detailed: a union was pushed for, and lost.--Jonashart (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Community College of Vermont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605143354/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/vermonts_60_percent_solution.php to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/vermonts_60_percent_solution.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)