The
remarkable fact that some Catholic officials are criticizing attempts to unionize exploited
adjunct/contingent higher education faculty, on “religious” grounds, invites
ridicule, or worse. One recent
Catholic poster even called it “sleazy.”
Why?
Because the anti-unionization push is coming from a church that, in its own
Catholic social teachings, has been on record for decades as being on the side
of the worker and in favor of workers’ rights to organize.
And
so, today, I want to look at some recent posts on Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities, in order to see how the “Catholic Social
Teaching” deck might get shuffled and dealt in the real world.
But please don’t miss my “heart”-felt gratitude to St. Anselm College, for their
celebration of the importance of faculty—I’m not just looking to criticize
religiously affiliated schools. I mean, credit where credit is due.
Now, I’ve chosen
three posts, two obviously connected to adjunct/contingent faculty problems,
and one not. I am thinking about “religious exemptions,” and when or whether or
not they are claimed. And also about
church-approved-and-administered policies, and whether or not these seem
to be in line with established teaching.
From a most interesting site, this picture. It'll tell you all about various "Doctors of the Church."
I’ll consider one
post each day—today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. Here’s the first. It’s from 2010,
but it concerns both adcons and healthcare, and many of us have been thinking about the connection, so it seems pretty fresh baked.
That’s the title of the
post, authored by Gary L. Miller, of the Office of Human Resources at DePaul University,
who is one of the two people who administer the hr-forum-ccu.blogspot site.
Mr. Miller begins with a
quote from Sister Carol Keehan, President and CEO of the Catholic Health
Association of the United States, who wrote in Summer of 2009—wow, really
thinking ahead!—that:
Catholic employers in
particular should support a reformed [healthcare] system not only because of
the economic consequences but because of the social justice implications.
And also:
[But, does the new act]
fully resolve the health insurance access issues for part-time staff and
adjunct faculty or must more be done? More must be done.
Time out for some history:
Sister Carol is one powerful sister, and she’s not always just totally thinking like some of her brothers over at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. On health
care specifically, there’s some good and fairly recent reporting in the
National Catholic Register.
Back to Miller’s post—read
it all for the details, but, essentially, one reads about several proposals to
cover part-timers, and the burdens thereof, on employees and institutions, and
one particular solution is found such that “the university would have a plan
for those part-timers who need it.”
And why should the
university do so? Again, have a look at the whole post to see the details, but basically
the idea—Miller’s— is that the university has a moral obligation to do so:
…. the new healthcare
law envisions the federal government, state governments, insurers and large
employers (those with more than 50 employees) all working together to achieve
the important goal of near-universal medical coverage, a goal that serves the
common good of the entire country. Because we know the government isn’t going
to be helping these part-timers who fall in this gap, their access to health
insurance becomes the responsibility of employers.
So, there you have it:
1) no reference to a religious exemption, 2) a clear connection made to a moral
imperative flowing from a specific body of religious teachings, and 3) a plan
to achieve goals in line with #2.
There also seems to be
an equivalence between a secular drive for “the common good” and a religious
drive for the same thing, so that there is no secular/religious clash at all.
Wouldn’t this be a simpler world if
we saw that sort of thing more often? But don’t get all excited. At least one of the commenters
saw what I saw, and didn’t like it much:
Catholic Social Teaching
would take a more nuanced view of the common good….The subsequent debate in
Congress after the passage of the 2010 health care provisions would suggest
that the goal of universal coverage does not comport with all parties
understanding of the common good. How will Catholic institutions respond?
But that’s not really
the question. The real question, in many of these areas, certainly including
the current and apparently accelerating campaign by adjuncts to improve their
working conditions at Catholic schools, is this;
How will the various
factions of politically and socially active Catholics respond, and which bunch
will prevail?
Tomorrow? “Organization
Justice” in Catholic colleges and universities. How does that work, or does it?
No comments:
Post a Comment
We will look at comments before publishing them.