Justice: Perception and Reality—Which costs less?

My last post here involved the Human Resources and Mission: Discussion Blog for Catholic Colleges and Universities, and I considered a discussion there about health care and its possible extension to part-timers—including most adjunct and contingent faculty—at Catholic institutions.

This blog has a whole bunch of cute little clueless trios. 

This post involves the same Discussion Blog, and the particular topic now is “Organizational Justice: A Core Competency for Catholic Colleges and Universities,” again written by Gary L. Miller, who has been working at DePaul University since 2003 in a number of human resources roles.

First, read the following, which is from the bottom of Mr. Miller’s essay. It’s a helpful summary of what he views as some key concepts, trends, and documents. (I have provided a link to Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus annus, and you will be quizzed on it next week. But, for right now, just try to listen and stop worrying about grades all the time. Learning should be fun)

The title of this column suggests that organizational justice should be a core competency for Catholic colleges and universities. In Centesimus annus, the Blessed Pope John Paul II states that “the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is found in its very existence as a community of persons who in various ways are endeavoring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of society.” While Catholic colleges and universities are not business firms, they can serve as models for employers of what it means to be a “community of persons”

Ok, that seems clear, so now consider the substance of the post, which is largely an interview conducted by Mr. Miller with Jed Babbin, an HR specialist.*

Mr. Miller introduces the topic this way: “Over the next few years, workforce trends will create new management challenges,” one of which being that “employee engagement levels are at record lows.”

Is that true? I’m not sure. Certainly the sharp uptick in the formation of adcon faculty unions, and the activity of adcon advocacy groups, would indicate that our “engagement levels” are at record highs.

Probably not what he means.

Anyway, if you work in the Human Resources department at DePaul, you probably do know something about the general topic,  given that the number of part-time faculty there has just about doubled between 1995 and 2009.

 “Low engagement levels,” in Mr. Miller’s view, “could translate into turnover,” as the economy recovers, and “record numbers of older workers will be retiring,” as a result of which, “the challenge to recruit and retain talent will intensify.”

As that challenge intensifies, then, “considerations for organizational justice,” will become  “central to any effective management response.”

Consider, in this regard, “the rise in the number of credit hours taught by adjunct faculty,” and also the fact that “some have asked…if these contingent faculty are being equitably paid.”

Yes, that does sound familiar.

But, in case you believe that “the contentious issues … center around compensation,” think again, and you’ll yourself asking if “these justice concerns are fueled by issues independent of actual compensation?”

Now, Mr. Babbin responds, and I must paraphrase, because the considerations are lengthy and technical. I gather, though, that I may safely report that organizational justice is a relatively new topic, that a lot of it involves perceptions, and perceptions are sort of about what people think about things as opposed to how things actually are.

So, for instance, there are studies indicating that if you behave in a manner that other people think rude or deceitful, other people might well come to the conclusion that you are in fact rude or deceitful.

One of the studies brought up by Mr. Babbin suggested that there is connection between the way that communication was “used to inform employees of an impending pay cut,” on the one hand, and the rate at which those employees resigned.

And there’s more!

That same study showed that the way managers told employees about an impending pay cut even affected the “rate of theft by those who stayed.”

So, as Mr. Miller asks, during the course of the interview, are these perceptions “as significant as, say, actual pay levels?”

Amazingly. one gathers, from Mr. Babbin’s response, “these drivers” substantially influence how folks think about “actual outcomes.”

Mr. Babbin also wants us to remember that we’re “talking about perceptions, not necessarily reality.”

Are you following this? Does it seem a bit sleazy? Because it sure does to me. Anyway, more tomorrow, about something that really needs a “religious exemption.”

* This Jed Babbin, by the way, is not the Jed Babbin who was an Undersecretary of Defense for George H.W. Bush and is a current editor for American Spectator.

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?