Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are reports from strikers trying to refill medication that the medical benefit suspension has already unilaterally gone into effect. The university has gone ahead with their threats in that regard (which is especially shitty since it's pretty standard in the US to give employees a health insurance grace period on termination). I am really confused about what the university thinks they're going to get out of the…
What do you mean? The university is trying to teach a lesson by inflicting pain on those who stood against it. I thought that was clear. Do you maybe mean "what makes them think that this is legal?" I doubt they do. But they likely decided that value of sending a "don't fuck with us" message was higher than the cost of the likely mild consequences.
Then, the university has already lost. Systemically its convinced itself that some of the core providers of its value are its enemy in some way, rather than a cooperative part of its being.
It's always been clear cut to me, the relationship between workers and owners: one tries to get the most work for the least money, and the other, the most money for the least work.
What's surprising is a university was happy to jump feet first right into that dynamic. That's really how it wants its relationship with its junior faculty to be? The ones that are ostensibly applying the university mission at ground level?