Share
Share
Lie #1: The NTT faculty union is a “third-party” organization or “outside entity.”
Nope. Our union is 100% faculty led.
We formed our union with SEIU Local 721 with a federally certified vote of nearly 90% approval from non-tenure track (NTT) faculty. Our 15-member Bargaining Action Team, which negotiated directly with LMU’s admin for nearly 10 months, are faculty members who were elected by their colleagues. The Bargaining Action Team spent countless hours writing all our proposals for negotiations, not to mention organizing and informing our faculty about where things stood in bargaining.
When LMU says it won’t recognize the union, it’s really saying it won’t recognize its own faculty members’ right to bargain collectively.
Let’s be clear on what this “third-party” or “outside entity” lie is: a cheap, union-busting tactic, one that is often recommended by outside “union avoidance” law firms and consultants and used regularly by all anti-labor institutions — such as the Trump Administration, Amazon, Starbucks, and Elon Musk’s Tesla. Unfortunately, LMU President Thomas Poon, Interim Provost Kat Weaver, and other administrators and board members have decided to stick to this smear tactic and abandon Catholic social teaching and the church’s clear stance on the acceptance of labor unions and workers’ right to collectively bargain. We find it disgraceful.
LMU sounds like these guys:
“We encourage you to speak for yourself. We do not believe that we need a third party between us.” — Amazon posters placed in warehouses during a union drive.
“…our values are not, and never have been, the result of demands or interference from any outside entity – Workers United or otherwise.” — Starbucks in a 2022 letter to the White House after officials met with employees involved in the union campaign known as Starbucks Workers United.
“I disagree with the idea of unions…” — Elon Musk, Tesla CEO and former head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which was recognized by the Trump White House.
Lie #2: NTT faculty union’s proposals would have led to increases in tuition, layoffs, and other budgetary problems.
No, they would not have. LMU administrators’ estimates about our opening bargaining proposals on wages and benefits are misleading and should be dismissed. Their claims are meant to drive a wedge between faculty members, students, and other LMU employees. We’ve dug into their calculations, and here are the problems we’ve identified:
- For one, LMU’s admin added about 100 faculty members to our unit arbitrarily in their estimates. It’s easy to report big numbers when you’re making them up.
- LMU’s admin also asserts that tons more NTT faculty would sign up for health benefits than is likely under our proposals. They estimated 80% when today it’s less than half. A lot of faculty members are on their spouses’ insurance or have other arrangements, so that’s not credible.
- They also assume that all bargaining members have certifications that would qualify them for an additional bump in salary under the proposals. Again, that’s not realistic when reviewing the certifications held by faculty today. These are made-up numbers.
Everyone should dismiss these figures and claims from the administration. They are wildly distorted.
We also want to underscore: LMU has only ever assessed our initial, opening proposals on pay and benefits. LMU was never obligated to accept our opening economic proposals, and we have been willing to bargain in good faith. But LMU administrators never presented counter-proposals on pay, benefits, or other economic issues, so we’ve had no ability to negotiate over these matters and come to a place that both the university and faculty feel is reasonable. Now, it’s clear LMU administrators never meant to bargain in good faith; they wanted to bust the union.
Our union’s fight for a fair contract isn’t all about pay, either. There is so much more we must bargain over — such as job protections, academic freedom protections, due process in disciplinary proceedings, fair evaluations, layoff protections, and fair processes for promotions. It’s shameful that LMU is refusing to bargain over these issues!
Lie #3: The university can’t afford our union proposals.
The university can afford to pay faculty members a living wage and offer fair benefits. LMU is one of the largest private universities in California, with $1.8 billion in total assets and over $697 million in total revenue in the fiscal year ending in May 31, 2024, according to its most recent 990 filing. The admin increased undergraduate tuition by nearly 6% this year — a higher rate increase than other large universities like USC. We have a simple question: Where is the money going if it’s not being invested in education?!
Our former President made over $1 million. We don’t know what President Poon makes, but we can probably assume it’s somewhere near that.
His position also comes with a major perk — the option to live rent free in a nearly $6 million residence that the university paid for. While the president has access to this perk, our faculty members who do the teaching can barely afford rent and other bills and many of us are working two, three jobs to survive. The administration knows that this situation is unjust and that it does not align with LMU’s stated values. Our opening compensation proposals were reasonable given the high cost of living in Los Angeles, and we dismiss any suggestion that they were outrageous. Living wages should be standard at LMU, not viewed as unreasonable.
The Bargaining Action Team worked very hard on our proposals — doing countless hours of research into contracts at other Catholic schools — and bargained in good faith with the university all along. How dare they try to mislead our students and colleagues!
Lie #4: The NTT faculty union prevented changes in titles and boosts in compensation outside of bargaining.
This is a bald-faced lie. On pay, the exact opposite is true: The admin decided to hold our regular annual merit-pay increases hostage until we reached a contract. The elected Bargaining Action Team authorized filing an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charge over the matter with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) because we believed the admin could not unlawfully change its normal workplace practices — including those around merit pay. In short: The admin pulled back on its merit increases, arguing it couldn’t give them out while we were bargaining for a contract; we were fighting for them to be paid out as normal under the law.
The admin also withheld promotions that union NTT faculty members were eligible for until we reached a contract — essentially holding advancement opportunities hostage, too. We filed an ULP charge over this matter as well. It was clear to the elected Bargaining Action Team that the administration believed that holding advancement opportunities and merit increases hostage until we reached a contract gave them leverage at the bargaining table. They wanted to pressure us into accepting less.
How would you feel if you were owed a promotion or raise, but your boss suddenly said they’d no longer give it to you?
We should also note: Our union article on title changes mirrored a proposal drafted by the Working Group on NTTF Language, Titles, Ranks, and Categories, with the participation of Nancy Pluzdrak, VP of HR, and Associate Provost Heather Tarleton, and overseen by the Faculty Senate. The Working Group conducted research into best practices and gathered input from faculty across the campus. The proposal was passed by a vote of the full faculty of LMU.
Yet, the admin rejected our union’s similar proposal in bargaining and offered a counter that would have moved many NTT faculty members backwards in title — a proposal we could not accept!
Lie #5: Our union faculty tried to weaponize the Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC) and City Planning process.
This is absolutely false. Members of our elected Bargaining Action Team started attending NAC meetings because they are one of the only venues available in which we — or any LMU employee, student, staff member, or boarder community member — can interact with our top administrators directly and learn about their plans for the future of the university.
After attending some of these meetings, the Bargaining Action Team authorized sending a letter to the NAC requesting it hold future meetings in hybrid fashion (in-person and virtual) to allow more convenient attendance and expand access; to hold meetings when instruction is in session (not on off-semester periods or holidays or finals); to waive parking fees for in-person attendees; and to offer a public comment period at the start of meetings. Why LMU would bristle at any of these respectful requests is hard for us to understand.
As a direct result of our advocacy, the NAC meetings are now held in person and are more accessible to the public. LMU also offers free parking for attendees. This has led to real avenues for employee and community accountability. For instance, our request to expand access to NAC meetings helped provide a venue for staff, students, and community members to advocate for the university’s Children’s Center (LMUCC), which the admin was considering closing. The admin later affirmed its commitment to the LMUCC after campus and community advocacy at NAC meetings.
While attending meetings, faculty members also noticed other items of concern — namely that some of our admin and board’s reporting to the city and community groups might be out of compliance with community and city agreements — and we raised these issues.
Let’s be clear: This was NEVER intended to stop any of the university’s plans for growth, but for accountability’s sake. Failure to comply with city approvals carries with it potential for serious legal consequences.
As union members, we believe it is important for all employees, students, staff, and community members to have access to information about the administration’s plans for the university and to have a say in them. We also should have access to details on how the admin and board are conducting the business of the university and spending tuition and donation dollars.
If the admin is potentially putting these funds at risk, it is our responsibility and duty to raise alarm bells and demand answers. The idea that any of this was part of a nefarious plan to halt the university’s growth or the admin’s plans is an unfounded and ridiculous smear. LMU’s growth is good for NTT faculty, so the narrative that we wanted to stifle its growth is illogical.
Lie #6: LMU claims faculty can’t legally strike.
This is a claim that LMU is making to intimidate us into backing down. Here’s the truth: Our greatest shield is not the law alone, but our solidarity. When we act together, it is harder for LMU to retaliate and harder for them to ignore us.
It’s possible LMU administrators will continue to betray their supposed Catholic and social justice values by retaliating against its NTT workforce. It’s important to remember, however, that the administration can always act against us, including if we strike or don’t strike, or whether they recognize our union or not. Worker and union activism never comes without risk.
But we know the administration is afraid of our collective power, and of the growing support from students, alumni, staff, and the broader Los Angeles community.
In terms of federal labor law protections: In the past, ULP strikes have been legally protected, and workers could not be permanently replaced. But with the current NLRB under the Trump Administration, there is uncertainty about how those rules will be applied. LMU administrators know this, and they’ve decided to join the Trump administration’s war on faculty and workers.
It’s important to note: Our legal counsel will fight any retaliation against NTT faculty. And our attorneys will seek to the courts help in enforcing laws that protect our free-speech, political activity, and worker rights. This isn’t all about ULPs. Our labor fight is part of a much bigger movement to fight back against the authoritarianism that is taking hold in our nation and on our campuses. We have rights in fighting back against that.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: Are we willing to take a risk to get the admin back to the table to do the moral thing, or do we give up and let Poon, Weaver, and the board win a major battle to advance the authoritarianism that is taking hold in our nation and on our campuses since Trump took office?
For more info on our ULP strike authorization vote, see our ULP strike FAQ.
Lie #7: LMU claiming religious exemption from labor law is good for faculty and will lead to direct dialogue.
This is the same argument made by every union-busting employer. We started a union because the status quo wasn’t working and led to us falling further behind on job security, advancement, working conditions, and wages in relation to the cost of living in the LA area. LMU wants to maintain that status quo and ensure that we can’t fight collectively for what we deserve. As the union saying goes: “United we bargain, divided we beg.”
LMU is now offering some minor improvements to appease us after attempting to bust our union. But all these new, small improvements can be revoked if they are not in a union contract. Only through unionization can we negotiate for fair contracts and better working conditions on an ongoing basis. Only with a strong union can we create the lasting changes that we need and deserve. That’s why LMU must recognize our union and return to the bargaining table to negotiate in good faith.
Lie #8: LMU has bargained in good faith.
LMU’s admin dragged its feet from the beginning, waiting months before finally scheduling a first bargaining session with the elected Bargaining Action Team. Over the roughly 10 months we bargained, the admin never offered a single counter on our major economic proposals around wages and benefits. When they did offer counters — largely on non-economic items — they’d often reject our proposals entirely and offer us the status quo, sometimes just directly copying current policies that did not advance our pay, benefits, or working conditions.
Despite the admin telling us they wanted to make progress on our contract over the summer, they were slow to schedule bargaining sessions and eventually stopped sending their availability at all. Finally, the admin and board walked away from the table. That’s not bargaining in good faith.
Lie #9: LMU’s stance on unions aligns with Catholic teaching.
The exact opposite is true. Faculty members in our Department of Theological Studies said in two letters to President Poon and the board that the admin’s refusal to recognize our union blatantly violates Catholic social teaching. One of their letters says this: “Our main concern as Catholic theologians is with the claiming of a religious exemption as a Catholic university, foreclosing recognition of unions now and into the future. Catholic social teaching articulates not simply the rights of workers but their specific right to organize. This originated in Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum.” The letter’s authors later state that the university’s stance on unions “sounds to us more like the anti-union politics and rhetoric of partisan talking points, and less like fidelity to the tradition that founded the university.”
The Catholic Labor Network sent a letter that says much the same to LMU’s admin and board and to LA Archbishop José H. Gomez. The letter says: “Catholic social teaching does not require that a Catholic employer grant every economic demand made by its employees, but it does call for such an institution to bargain with the representatives that its employees have chosen. We prayerfully request that you honor the Loyola Marymount University’s Catholic identity by returning to the bargaining table as Catholic doctrine requires.”
Joseph McCartin, a history professor at Georgetown University and executive director of Georgetown’s Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor, told the publication National Catholic Reporter: “There is no way to square what [LMU administrators] are doing with Catholic social teaching.” More from the article, titled Loyola Marymount’s rejection of union defies Catholic teaching, say labor leaders:
In addition to the fact that the Catholic Church has recognized the rights of workers to form unions since Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, McCartin noted that the U.S. Catholic bishops addressed the issue of labor unions and Catholic institutions in their 1986 pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All.”
In that document, the bishops wrote in Paragraph 353 that “all church institutions” must “fully recognize the rights of employees to organize and bargain collectively with the institution through whatever association or organization they freely choose.”
The late Pope Francis stated: “There is no union without workers, and there are no free workers without a union.”
Let’s call the admins’ invocation of religious exemption what it is: An absurd and fraudulent excuse to deny us our right to a union. This has nothing to do with religious freedom or expression. It’s a cynical, absurd, and shameful attempt to wipe away the rights and protections of faculty members and other employees on campus and end their ability to fight for better wages, benefits, and working conditions.