Human Resources, Divine Imperatives?

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.

I. Opportunities for Part-time Staff and Adjunct Faculty Created by Healthcare Reform

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?

Catholics Protest Sleazy Catholic Higher Education

Criticizing Catholic higher education leadership for an aggressive campaign against attempts by exploited faculty to unionize is like shooting fish in a barrel. 

Here, see what I mean:

Another scandalous event that occurred during this "Fortnight for Freedom" was Duquesne University joining the sleazy ranks of Catholic higher education institutions who have attempted to claim religious exemption from the National Labor Relations Board in order to avoid a union.

Easy, right? And if you’re not Catholic yourself, you don’t have to be the one who uses hurtful words like “sleazy,” because you can just quote from actual Catholic sources, like Iglesia Descalza, a Voice from the Margins of the Catholic Church. 

What, you’re going to object to voices from the “margins”? So how about this, from Father Geoff Farrow:

Apply Catholic social teaching to Diocesan employment (wage/benefit) practices AND then perhaps, they will have the moral authority to address general social issues. They would certainly look far less ridiculous to their clergy and the faithful.

Ok, I hear objections again. Father Geoff’s a priest, granted, and a suspended one, and he's one of those anti-war types, a progressive. Wants the Church to back off on some of the gay stuff, and the contraception stuff, and so-forth. So try this, from America Magazine—published by the Jesuits, no less!

Where the Catholic hospitals are seeking an exemption from the mandate so they can honor Catholic teaching on contraception, the universities seem to be seeking an exemption from the National Labor Relations Act so that they can violate Catholic teaching on labor.

What do you want? Beautiful, right? Case closed. 

It’s a little unfair, I realize, given that the Church is all centralized, and everything’s all written down, so the hypocrisy hunt is easy. 

And that’s not so, at least always, for secular colleges and universities. 

They're awful too, but not always so obvious: some of their mission statements, though, I tell you, are ripe for the picking. But they'll have to wait their turn. 

Right now, I am picking on the Catholic higher ed hierarchy, and I just hope they appreciate it. One way or another, they really are providing moral guidance.

And next time, I will have a look at some recent posts on Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities. There seem to be a number of ways that the “Catholic Social Teaching” deck can be shuffled and dealt.

What Kind of a Deal is Duquesne v. NLRB?

"Not only did they make a deal with us and go back on it, but they are disregarding their own canon law." That’s Dan Kovalik, who is the attorney for the proposed adjunct union at Duquesne, quoted in today’s Pittsburgh City Paper,

I like that, but if you have a look at the documents posted by Duquesne University, in regard to the Church hierarchy’s challenge to a National Labor Relations Board finding that the proposed union is kosher, so to speak, you’ll find that not everybody is on board.

For instance, right near the top of the amicus brief filed by a troika of high powered Church outfits*, we find this: “the arguments set forth in this Brief are about the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), not the natural rights of employees.”

They go on to say something about what Brother Kovalik was highlighting, but it’s not what we really have in mind: “The Catholic Church has long supported the moral right of workers to organize and bargain collectively  [but] under the First Amendment, Catholic colleges and universities must have the freedom to pursue those goals without excessive government entanglement.”

So that’s not natural law they’re talking about—or canon law either. Just the regular stuff for the rest of us, and for those who need it when they decide they want it.                                            

As, for instance, when the Amici get around to one of their favorite secularisms, a definition of “religious” that, if applied to a school, is found by some courts to come with a “Get out of NLRB Free” card. This is the famous “bright line” test we will be hearing much more about in coming months.

A real three headed pest of a test, devised in the course of a hearing in 2001-02 by the Ist Circuit Court (D.C.), in University of Great Falls v. National Labor Relations Board, it holds that the board can not claim jurisdiction over an institution that:

(1) “holds itself out to the public as

a religious institution”;

(2) “is non-profit”; and

(3) “is religiously affiliated.”

Well, we’ll see, of course, There is a lot of good stuff to draw on, if you like that sort of thing. You know, for the idea that government should take a hands-off approach to religion without, on the other hand, having any right to take part in defining what “religious” means in the first place.

Our stout Amici?  They eat it right up, gleefully concluding that “by its very nature,” almost any kind of government inquiry into the nature of religion “invites government officials to substitute their judgment about an institution’s “religious character” for the judgment of the institution and its religious community.”

I write almost any kind of inquiry, because government is apparently allowed to ask, “by the way, are your religious?” And then accept, without comment, whatever the answer may be.

Or so it seems.

Before concluding, however, I do want to point out that the three Amici are not limited, in their reliance on the “bright line” test, to only those cases when they wish to avoid a meddlesome government. They waggle the same weapon when catching the sniff of something tasty, something not at all to be avoided, something eagerly desired. 

Thus, consider the case pitting Colorado Christian University against the State of Colorado (2008), which had been so bold as to inquire about CCU’s religious character in determining whether or not students there were eligible to receive publically funded scholarships.

Wouldn’t these little subsidized cream puffs entangle our pals in the terrible volutuousities of this world?

Oh piffle, don’t be so sensitive. Gladden up, as our three jolly Amici do when quoting, from CCU v. Colorado, the 10^th Circuit Court’s opinion that the state’s inquiries into where public monies go, “were impermissible under the First Amendment,” and very likely to “embroil the government in line-drawing and second-guessing regarding matters about which it has neither competence nor legitimacy.”

But, at least, where the Church is involved, there are at least clear moral principles available, and for that, let us all be thankful, and work for the best.

 * Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Lasallian Association of College and University Presidents, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

Duquesne, St. Xavier, Manhattan College—Anybody Else?—and the NLRB

The recent success of adjunct organizers at Duquesne University was a welcome sign, not only because it showed that there is new energy in the movement to improve working conditions for the nation’s majority higher education faculty, but also because, initially, Duquesne indicated that it would not object to this on religious grounds.

(photo from this very thoughtful site)

According to Inside Higher Education, spokeswoman Bridget Fare noted that Duquesne works with other unions, “intends do the same” with the proposed adjunct union, and that “we’ll be letting the NLRB process take its course and proceed accordingly.”

Had Dusquesne stuck to this original intention, it would have been, if not a blow, at least no comfort, to legal teams working on behalf of St. Xavier College and Manhattan College, two Catholic colleges which have also recently been approved by NLRB for adjunct collective bargaining.

Instead, and very quickly, Duquesne made a formal objection to the National Labor Relations Board, which Ms. Fare then explained as something that the university, “founded and owned by the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, has concluded … was necessary."

Now, of course, NLRB has rejected Duquesne’s request—that the election be halted—and this means (assuming that the adjuncts do vote for a new union, which seems assured) that Duquesne will soon, like Manhattan and St. Xavier, be appealing the NLRB decision.

They will be strongly supported by the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, the Lasallian Association of College and University Presidents, and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.

Clearly, adjunct and contingent faculty will be watching carefully as this unfolds, and I am sure that in coming months we will all of us become familiar, if we aren’t already, with such cases as NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago (1979), which concerned K-12 parochial schools, but which gets harkened back to regularly, and also Universidad Central de Bayamon v. NLRB (1986).

It was during the course of this latter that a “three part test” of the religious character of a school, which will allow it to avoid NLRB jurisdiction, was formulated by now-Justice Steven Breyer, then of the 1^st Circuit Court of Appeals.

How do you know the place is “religious” in a substantial way?

First, it “holds itself out to students, faculty and community’ as providing a

religious educational environment.”

Second, it “is organized as a nonprofit.”

Third, it is “affiliated with, or owned, operated, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a recognized religious organization, or with an entity, membership of which is determined, at least in part, with reference to religion.”

Now, Duquesne is organized as a non-profit, and the rest of it—judge for yourself—seems tightly fitted to their probable arguments, at least judging by their mission statement:

Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic University, founded by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, the Spiritans, and sustained through a partnership of laity and religious. Duquesne serves God by serving students - through commitment to excellence in liberal and professional education, through profound concern for moral and spiritual values, through the maintenance of an ecumenical atmosphere open to diversity, and through service to the Church, the community, the nation, and the world.

Ok, so that’s that, except for a couple of things. One, obviously, is that the 3-part test seems ripe for a serious challenge. Isn’t it a bit broad?

Of course, the argument for Duquesne, and Manhattan, and St. Xavier, is likely to be that it is a crucial defense against what the founder and president of The Cardinal Newman Society, Patrick J. Reilly, calls “The NLRB’s Assault on Religious Liberty.”

Oh dear.

Really, can anything that the institution itself claims as religiously based be used to avoid NLRB? Are people who are associated with “recognized” religious institutions or “entities” always, no matter what in the world they are doing, acting in their protected religious capacity?

Those sorts of questions seem promising to me.

Also, at least in Duquesne’s case, the secular and the religious seem like part of a rather flexible wardrobe, with the one being slipped off and the other on whenever it seems like a good idea.

Indeed, in 1982, when Duquesne fought against a union for full-time faculty, the university discarded any type of religious argument and relied, successfully, on the 1980 NLRB v. Yeshiva University finding. That argument, we all know, involved a place with religious connections, for heaven’s sake, but didn’t rely on these for its entirely secular conclusion that full-timers were “managerial” and should be barred from collective bargaining.

It'd be fun if they did a similar switch now, wouldn't it? And argue that the adjuncts are managerial"? Well, they're not running the place, of course, but they are keeping it running—maybe "semi-managerial"?

Oh, it’s just the beginning, isn’t it? I hope in fact, that movements from within the church itself will begin to push things in a new direction, and it’s certainly easy to locate some support there, in Catholic social teaching generally, in Catholic doctrine connected to labor specifically, and in the ethical language that is so prominently featured in the chartering documents and mission statements of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

That’s something I will post on shortly.