1 _ _ ' ‘ =THE'PRESIDENTS OF'THEFACULL 5g 1,; " . OLLECTIVEBARGAININGUNITSI ' A . ~. 'UNITED STATESINSTITUTIONS‘ - >5: OFHIGHEREDUCATI‘ON. .2; ../-— ’ ‘L"I‘:I:'~f{-1~a~”. 5,3,.4'“ 4-H”, . I,“ . . .n ‘ ‘ , r .A . .‘ J ’ ....—"~.....’.-.1'.V -.,-.,.A —' ."...4.0h‘~~..-.r. 1' I;-v.cr.fl«..:,- r ‘ g . a {If} . r-f,.¢;,a.~. ..,,..i,,.~4 a..- . (”w-J7.- {Ha-ryha, «vi. . 4, .v «wrw’rp—Vfr. H; I":’:’ l”; - r . . a ‘ .r‘ .- 1" u;. ::_r;;.....’,”- ’— H-o». ,7, 1,. .- r- rho-«z.— I 4 .-w..._ J; 25., "4.5.“ ”ngfl‘flm..." ' ,r 7’ . 1,": n 1r..J‘/ru I'- “qr, I ~»:-,v.,-~;.-— n u-uru Jpn v-rr " , M‘IJI‘Vlfl-rvnlrnzv. . I nrr no ; :2». may r-D'fozxrt'r‘r’rn’ttr-npr jv..4}p:»:,.r ,;.~.4-1 .1 .v 1..» (—r (Zn-WC": ,- ,,'a.-g.-:.:,.,i:~rv,;zwr .rr 1:6,. r IV'F'I’VII’f-t‘ yt1v r ’(r’fi flJ - . ::~'.‘.-_ _. pr,” u-pawrzvmt ~1r n Ir it - v;w-:u ll!.l’npr. ‘ rip-vrnv lorvrry , WWW HIWWWHWW 319% LIBRARY Michigan State UniverSiW ‘ AP?) 31992 ABSTRACT THE PRESIDENTS OF THE FACULTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS IN UNITED STATES INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY Francis Adalberto Bernier The purpose of this exploratory study was to provide preliminary information about the faculty union presidential population as it presently exists in United States institutions of higher learning by means of describing the presidents' functions. A basic methodo- logical framework for achieving this purpose was developed through the production of a questionnaire. "Function," as used in this study, was defined as follows: "A description of the purview of the president's position as measured by the following variables: (1) institutional data; (2) collective bargaining unit data; (3) demographic data; (4) academic status of the presi- dents; (5) presidents' related experiences; (6) prepar- ation for office; (7) rationale for taking office; (8) nomination and selection procedures; (9) terms of appointment; (lO) job-related factors—-compensation, Francis Adalberto Bernier primary duties, time commitment, office structure, evalu— ation procedures and future plans." An instrument consisting of fifty-seven questions, fifty-two of which elicited closed-ended responses, was mailed to all faculty union presidents in office as of April 30, 1973. The rate of response was 61.53 per cent. Two methods were used in presenting the data. Response frequencies and their percentages were indicated for all responses elicited in each question. In addition, comparisons between responses to selected questions were presented on two-dimensional tables. Statistical treat— ment consisted of applying frequencies, percentages, pro- portions, and contingency coefficients (C). Major findings for each of the ten variables comprising the president's function include: (1) Insti- tutional Data--Two-year public community-junior colleges possess the majority of faculty collective bargaining units in the United States. One reason cited was the early involvement of these colleges in faculty collective bargaining. (2) Unit Data--More units are affiliated with the N.E.A. than with the A.F.T., A.A.U.P., or Independent units. In addition, most locals have been in operation for two or more years and have negotiated two or more contracts. (3) Demographic Data-~The stereo- typic faculty union president is a married male between thirty-one and forty years of age. (4) Academic Francis Adalberto Bernier Status—-Virtually all presidents possess a Master's Degree or higher in the social or natural sciences. A majority have been at their present institutions for three or more years and are on tenure. (5) Related Experiences--Virtually all presidents have been active members of their locals prior to assuming the presidency, a majority serving either as a member of a negotiating team, as vice-president or as a local's chief negotiator. Few indicated having related experiences outside the realm of the local union. (6) Preparation for Office-- Very few reSpondents indicated having received any formal training either before or since assuming the duties of office. (7) Rationale for Taking Office--Most respondents appeared to seek office for reasons which would benefit the membership as a whole as opposed to the gaining of a strictly personal advantage. (8) Nomination and Selection Procedures--While prescribed procedures are followed by virtually all of the local faculty unions, fewer than one-half of the respondents indicated having actively sought either nomination or selection. (9) Terms of Appointment-~Faculty union presidents are generally elected for one-year terms and have been elected either in 1972 or 1973. Though 87 per cent of all respondents are eligible for re-election, only 8 per cent plan to seek re-election. (l0) Job—Related Factors—-While vir- tually all respondents receive a full salary as an Francis Adalberto Bernier employee of a given institution, very few receive any form of material compensation for their union activities. Primary and most time—consuming duties are "interpreting the contract and institutional policy to members . . . ," "preparing for contract negotiations," and "union's liaison to the administration so that the terms of the contract are followed." Most presidents spend six or more workday hours and six or more evening/weekend hours per week performing union—related duties. A majority possess neither secretarial assistance or a private office in which to carry out their duties. A majority of locals do not possess systematic evaluation systems by which the president's performance can be assessed. Suggested solutions were offered to major problems the researcher felt surrounded the position of the faculty union president. Recommendations for further study included assessing selected psychological characteristics of the presidents, assessing attitudinal differences between selected presidents and their constituents through the use of a semantic differential, and suggesting that a more accurate means of identifying institutions possess- ing faculty collective bargaining units is needed. THE PRESIDENTS OF THE FACULTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS IN UNITED STATES INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY Francis Adalberto Bernier A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 'i $.33 "h 1% "a W Copyright by FRANCIS ADALBERTO BERNI ER 1 9 7 3 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 1905-1970 Name: Francis Adalberto Bernier Birthdate: March 14, 1940 Birthplace: Teaneck, New Jersey Wife: Sandra (Hayward) Bernier Wife's Birthplace: Bay City, Michigan Parents: Adalberto Barroso-Bernier, M.D. Beatrice (Bergé) Bernier Sister: Corinne (Bernier) Schnurer Brothers: William Edward Bernier, D.D.S. Kenneth John Bernier George Bergé Bernier 1909-1959 1935- 1938- 1943- 1945- Educational Data 195S-60 1960-61 1964-66 1967-68 1970-73 Marquette University Michigan State University Mich. State Univ. B.A. Special Educ. Western Mich. Univ. M.A. Counseling Mich. State Univ. Ph.D. Higher Educ. Professional Data 1961-64 1968-70 1970-73 1973- 2.1/4.0 1.4/4.0 2.2/4.0 3.7/4.0 3.7/4.0 Asst. Personnel Manager, Manistique Pulp & Paper Admissions Counselor, Western Michigan University Dormitory Head Advisor, Mich. State University Director of Admissions, Saginaw Valley College ii My father graduated from the Cornell University Medical School, married, started a family, and settled in Nahma, Michigan in 1944. Nahma was a very small lumbering community in the Upper Peninsula. It was made colorful by the fact lumberjacks would migrate from Canada to ply their trade. In 1952, our family moved to Manistique, Michigan, when Nahma was in threat of becoming a ghost town. Manistique is at the northernmost tip of Lake Michigan and boasts a vigorous tourist trade. Since 1958, when I first entered college, I have lived at several locations in Michigan. I returned to Manistique to work for a period of three years, have worked and studied in Kalamazoo for three years, and have worked and studied in East Lansing for six years. The high point in my life occurred on August 26, 1967, when I married Sandra Jean Hayward, a young lady whom I met at Michigan State. Sandy is a Spanish and French teacher. At the present time we own a home in Saginaw Township and have no children. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Professional: Dr. Laurine (Betty) Fitzgerald. Chairperson of my Doctoral Committee. Dr. Fitzgerald was my most cherished professional contact at Michigan State through- out the course of my doctoral studies. She gave unsel- fishly of her time and displayed humaneness at all times during my quest. The following men also served on my Committee and were willing to share their expertise at a moment's notice: Dr. Ted Brooks. Presently Dean of Administration at Texas WOmen's College. Dr. Alan Coe. Presently Director of Trumbull Campus-Kent State University. Dr. Richard Featherstone. Professor. Department of Higher Education. Michigan State University. Dr. James McKee. Professor. Department of Sociology. Michigan State University. Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker. Vice-President for Student .Affairs. Michigan State University. iv Personal: The foremost acknowledgment must go to my wife, Sandy, whose patience, understanding, unselfishness, intelligence, encouragement, and total dedication for the past seven years have helped give me strength and determination. Those who know Sandy can appreciate what I mean. To my father who taught me the virtue of hard work. To my mother who taught me the virtues of kindness and compassion. To my In-Laws, Roy and Tillie Hayward, who have accepted me as one of the family both in word and deed. To Roy and Sharon Hayward for the concern they show in our welfare. To my sister, Corinne, and brothers, Ed, Ken, and George, who have constantly shown the familial concern and affection so important to a person. In addition, Ken's determination to succeed has been an inspiration to me. To Myra and Uriah DePaz, who enthusiastically and unselfishly "adopted" our family and whose wisdom formed a cornerstone in many of my decisions. To Jim Tuinstra, whose convictions and patience helped give me the strength to earn a B.A. after getting academically dismissed from Michigan State. To Dennis Skog, whose unselfishness, kindness, and intelligence reach outlandish prOportions, and who has been a confidante, basketball partner, and sports hot-stover of mine since 1965. To wayne Gunderman, who, though we are separated by many miles, has remained a friend since 1952. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Area . . . . . . . . . Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . Nature of Study . . . . . . . . Need for Study. . . . . . . . . Definitions. . . . . . . . Limitations and Scope of Study . . . Overview of Study. . . . . . . . II. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Legal Background . . . . . . . . Why Faculties Organize . . . . . . Depressed Job Market. . . . Institutional Financial Difficulties Statewide Centralization of Systems and the Resultant Loss of Campus Autonomy, and Little Faculty Governance at "Emerging" Institutions. . . . Legislative Supervision of Faculty Working Conditions. . . . . Existence of Legislation Governing Collective Bargaining in the Public and Private Sectors . . . Organizational Rivalry Between AFT, NEA, AAUP, and Independents. . . Organizing at Two—Year and Four-Year Institutions. . . . . . Characteristics of Union Leaders. . . Duties of the Faculty Union President . RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . Summary of Chapter II . . . . . . 18 23 27 28 29 32 33 34 45 59 64 68 Chapter Page III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Population . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Design: Type of Instrument. . . . . 72 Design: Form . . . . . . . . . 73 Design: Content and Construction. . . 76 Design: Pilot Study . . . . . . . 77 Administrative Procedures . . . . . . 78 Production Costs . . . . . . . . 78 Mailing Costs . . . . . . . . . 78 Mailing Procedure . . . . . . . . 79 Usable Questionnaires. . . . . . . 82 Nonrespondents . . . . . . . . . 85 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . 88 IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . 90 1. Institutional Data . . . . . . . 91 Question l.lA . . . . . . . . . 91 Question l.lB . . . . . . . . . 91 Question 1.2 . . . . . . . . . 91 Question 1.3 . . . . . . . . . 92 Tables for Section 1. . . . . . . 92 Summary of Section 1. . . . . . . 95 2. Unit Data . . . . . . . . . . 97 Question 2.1 . . . . . . . . . 97 Question 2.2 . . . . . . . . . 98 Question 2.3 . . . . . . . . . 99 Question 2.4 O O O O I O I O . loo Question 2.5 . . . . . . . . . 100 Question 2.6 . . . . . . . . 101 Question 2.7 . . . . . . . . . 101 Question 2.8 . . . . . . . . . 102 Question 2.9 . . . . . . . 103 Question 2.10 . . . . . . . . . 104 Tables for Section 2. . . . . . . 104 Summary of Section 2. . . . . . . 109 3. Demographic Data . . . . . . . . 112 Question 3.2 . . . . . . . . . 112 Question 3.3 . . . . . . . . . 112 viii Chapter Question 3.4 . . . Question 3.5 . . . Tables for Section 3. Summary of Section 3. Academic Status . . . Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Tables for Section 4. Summary of Section 4. Ihfihlhkohth \IO‘U'IQUNH o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Related EXperiences . . Question 5.1 . . . Question 5.2 ._ . . Tables for Section 5. Summary of Section 5. Preparation for Office . Question 6.1 . . . . Question 6.2 . . . . Question 6.3 . . . . Tables for Section 6. . Summary of Section 6. . Rationale for Taking Office Question 7.1 . . . . Tables for Section 7. . Summary of Section 7. . Nomination and Selection Question 8. . Question 8.2 . Question 8.3 . Question 8.4 . . Tables for Section 8. Summary of Section 8. Procedures. 0 O O O O Page 112 113 113 113 113 113 115 116 116 117 117 118 118 121 121 121 122 124 126 126 126 127 128 129 133 136 136 138 140 140 140 140 140 141 141 143 Chapter Page 9. Terms of Appointment . . . . . . 143 Question 9.1 . . . . . . . . 143 Question 9.2 . . . . . . . . 143 Question 9.3 . . . . . . . . 143 Question 9.4 . . . . . . . . 144 Question 9.5 . . . . . . . . 144 Question 9.6 . . . . . . . . 144 Tables for Section 9 . . . . . . 145 Summary of Section 9 . . . . . . 145 10. Job Related Factors . . . . . . 147 Question 10.1 . . . . . . . . 147 Question 10.2 . . . . . . . . 147 Question 10.3 . . . . . . . . 148 Question 10.4 . . . . . . . . 149 Questions 10.5/10.6 . . . . . . 149 Question 10.7 . . . . . . . . 153 Question 10.8 . . . . . . . . 153 Question 10.9 . . . . . . . . 154 Question 10.10 . . . . . . . . 154 Question 10.11 . . . . . . . . 155 Question 10.12 . . . . . . . . 155 Question 10.13 . . . . . . . . 156 Question 10.14 . . . . . . . . 157 Question 10.15 . . . . . . . . 158 Tables for Section 10. . . . . . 160 Summary of Section 10. . . . . . 167 Summary of Section 4 . . . . . . . 172 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . 175 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . 176 Section l--Institutional Data . . . 176 Section 2--Unit Data . . . . . . 178 Section 3--Demographic Data. . . . 181 Section 4-—Academic Status . . . . 181 Section 5--Re1ated Experiences . . 182 Section 6--Preparation for Office. . 183 Section 7--Rationa1e for Taking Office . . . . . . . . . . 184 Section 8--Nomination and election Procedures. . . . . . . . . 185 Section 9--Terms of Appointment . . 186 Section 10--Job-Re1ated Factors . . 186 Chapter Page Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Recommendations for Further Study . . . 194 APPENDICES Appendix A. List of Institutions. . . . . . . . 197 B. Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . 198 C. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 199 D. First Follow-Up Letter . . . . . . . 205 E. Second Follow-Up Letter. . . . . . . 206 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . 207 xi Table 1. 10. LIST OF TABLES Collective bargaining laws and rights in public educational institutions in the Changes made from information previously fur- nished by the Chronicle of Higher Edu— cation--Apri1 30, 1973 . . . . . . Summary of mailed questionnaires: number sent, returned, and unused——August, 1973 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Comparison between institutional types: (Questions 1.1A and 1.1B) . . . . . Comparison between student enrollment (Question 1.3) and affiliation of local faculty union (Question 2.2) . . Comparison between institutional type (Question 1.1B) and affiliation of local faculty union (Question 2.2) . . Comparison between types of systems (Question 1.2) and the existence of master contracts (Question 2.3) . . . Comparison between year local faculty union was recognized as bargaining agent (2.1) and affiliation of local faculty union (202) o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Comparison between union security clauses (2.5) and affiliation of local faculty union (2. 2) O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison between the existence of depart- ment chairmen in faculty bargaining units (2.8) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . . xii Page 24 81 83 93 94 96 97 105 106 108 Table Page 11. Comparison between the year unions were recog- nized (2.1) and institutional type (1.1A) . 110 12. Comparison between the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) and institutional type (101B) 0 o o o o o o o o o o 111- 13. Comparison between age group (3.2) and insti- tutional type (1.1B) . . . . . . . . 114 14. Comparison between whether a person is on tenure (4.3) and length of time on tenure (4.4). . . . . . . . . . . 119 15. Comparison between time spent at present institution (4.7) and whether or not a person is on tenure (4.3) . . . . . . 120 16. Comparison between affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) and previous positions (Vice-president, Chief Negotiator, Member of Negotiating Team) held in present faculty bargaining unit (5.1) . . . . . 125 17. Comparison between the level (Local) which provided training (6.1) and the type of training received (6.2) . . . . . . 130 18. Comparison between whether a president has participated in additional training pro- grams (6.3) and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . . . 131 19. Comparison between the type of training (no training . . . ) received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . . . 132 20. Comparison between the type of training (intensive indoctrination by ex-president) received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . 134 21. Comparison between the type of training (workshops, seminars . . . ) received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . 135 xiii Table Page 22. Comparison between selected rationale for taking office (7.1) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . 139 23. Comparison between whether a prescribed nomination procedure was followed (8.1) and whether nomination was actively sought (8.3) . . . . . . . . . . 142 24. Comparison between whether a prescribed selection procedure was followed (8.2) and whether election was actively sought (8.4) . . . . . . . . . . 142 25. Comparison between the year selected as unit president (9.1) and whether the person was the first president of the local (9.2). . 146 26. Comparison between whether a person can be re-elected (9.4) and whether he has been re-elected (9.5) . . . . . . . . . 146 27. Comparison between selected types (released time) of compensation received (10.1) and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2). . . . . . . . . . . 7. . 161 28. Comparison between no compensation received as union president (10.2) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . 163 29. Comparison between whether other union officials are compensated (10.13) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . 164 30. Comparison between whether a president has been re-elected (9.5) with whether extra-curricular duties are assigned (10.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 31. Comparison between secretarial assistance obtained (10.11) and number of workday hours per week spent on faculty union activities (10.9). . . . . . . . . 166 32. Comparison between having a private office (10.12) and number of workday hours per week spent on faculty union activities (10.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 xiv Table Page 33. Comparison between who evaluates performance (regular elections/no evaluations done . . . 10.14) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) . . . . . . . . 169 XV CHAPTER I BACKGROUND Problem Area The growth of the faculty collective bargaining union is one of increasing importance in higher education. In 1965, Henry Ford Community College in Michigan negotiated the first collective bargaining contract in a post-secondary institution in the United States.1 The four-year institutions entered the faculty collective bargaining arena during the late 1960's. By early 1973, 286 two-year and four-year, public and private insti- tutions had named collective bargaining agents2 though not all of these institutions have negotiated a collec- tive bargaining contract as of the present time. The growth of faculty unionism in higher education can in part be attributed to the existence of a legal l"Roundtable: How to Live with Faculty Power," College and University Business, LIII, No. 6 (1972), 33. 2"Where Faculties Have Chosen Collective Bar- gaining Agents," Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 1973, p. 4. framework which would appear to encourage its expansion. The essence of these legislative mandates is to allow faculty members in public institutions, through state law, the freedom to petition for and establish collective bargaining units. Private institutions are allowed the same privilege not through state legislation, but by virtue of the federally mandated National Labor Relations Act. Prior to the passage of enabling legislation, a collective bargaining unit could be established only with the approval of the governing board of a given institution. Another factor influencing the growth of unionism among faculties in higher education is the perceived sub- standard economic conditions being experienced by insti— tutions as well as by the faculty as a group. The essence of this concern is that the increasingly stringent economic policies of a given institution makes it neces- sary to seek to obtain a "rightful" share of available resources and that collective action may be the most effective method of reaching this goal. Additional factors which may encourage faculty collective bargain- ing, particularly at larger institutions, are the faculty's perceived loss of its academic freedom as manifested through such dimensions as predetermined curricular content, parameters placed on teaching methods, and of its perceived diminishing role in help- ing to determine such institutional policies as fiscal and employment goals. In View of the rapid increase in the number of faculty bargaining units in higher education, there is an attempt being made by scholars to provide substantive information on the various facets of collective bargain- ing so as to provide a base from which the newly formed units can then operate with a maximum amount of expertise. Information is available on such diverse areas as how to petition for and establish a collective bargaining unit, how to write a constitution, and how to negotiate a con- tract, with suggested content items. It is striking that practically all of the information presently given con- cerns the bargaining unit up to the point of the inception of its contract, but very little includes descriptions of administrative methods useful to the president and other elected leaders after a contract is ratified. The president, as chief administrative officer of his bargaining unit, is responsible for administering the terms of the negotiated contract on behalf of his con- stituency. Logically, the amount of success or failure experienced by the president will in large part be determined by the effectiveness by which he can carry out the terms of the negotiated contract. These results can be measured by such means as programs created, officers selected, and on—going administrative decisions made by the president. If it can be assumed that the president's performance is an integral factor in the realm of faculty collective bargaining, then it would appear important to develop an information base which will contribute to a better understanding of the position, not by solely examining his duties but by describing his overall functions. To summarize, the problem is that while faculty collective bargaining has experienced a rapid increase in number of units since 1965 and while the literature and research has attempted to keep pace with this expansion, a critical facet has remained virtually unexplored-—that of the functions of the president of the bargaining unit. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study will be to provide pre- liminary information about the faculty union presidential population as it presently exists in United States insti- tutions of higher learning by means of describing his functions. Variables examined are: (l) institutional data; (2) collective bargaining unit data; (3) demographic data; (4) academic status of the presidents; (5) presidents' related experiences; (6) preparation for office; (7) rationale for taking office; (8 V nomination and selection procedures; (9) terms of appointment; (10) job-related factors——compensation, primary duties, time commitment, office structure, evaluation, and future plans. Information about the institution and the bar- gaining unit is sought to provide a better understanding of the scope and nature of presidential functions. The study also hopes to provide a basic methodological frame- work which may be used in examining similar functions of other presidential populations or which may serve as a structural guideline from which additional personal or occupational components of the president may be described. Nature of Study This study will be an exploratory, descriptive survey. According to Kerlinger, the exploratory study "seeks what is rather than predicts relations to be found."3 Oppenheim states that: . . . descriptive surveys . . . tell us how many members of a population have a certain characteris- tic or how often certain events occur; they are not designed to "explain" anything or to show relation— ships between one variable and another. . . . The 3Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), . 388. job of such surveys is essentially fact-finding . . . though the data collected are often used to make predictions, for instance by comparing the results of surveys at different times and producing a trend . . . 4 ‘ Mouly says that "surveys are particularly versatile and practical in that they identify present conditions and point to present needs. They can provide the decision— maker with information on which to base sound decisions."5 In the analysis of the data, attempts will be made to explain the findings by reference to factors which may have influenced.the results rather than to ascribe causal relationships between variables. With respect to describing relationships between variables, it will be an objective of this study to heed the advice of Borg who suggests,"it is possible to describe relation- ships as instances of 'time-bound association,‘ that is, no inference is made about a causal relationship between the two variables."6 4A. N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Atti— tude Measurement (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), p. 8. 5George Mouly, The Science of Educational Research (New York: American BooK Company, 1963), p. 233. 6Walter R. Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: David McKay, Inc.,71965), p. 196. Need for Study Napolitano (1969), Wurster (1970), and Palmer (1972) have studied the attitudes of the faculty union president toward collective bargaining in academe. All three studies though focused exclusively on the elementary and secondary school levels. The applicability of the findings to the higher education arena has not been determined empirically. No evidence has been found which would indicate that the functions of the faculty union president have been described.7 In fact, the resources cited have indicated only the presenCe or absence of given attitudes on the part of the president. The primary need for the study lies in the fact that an initial base of knowledge and research methodology is needed from which further studies on the faculty union president could emanate. As stated earlier, the collec- tive bargaining arena in higher education is rapidly expanding both in terms of number of units and support- ing research. To this point, however, the faculty union president in higher education has not been empirically examined. 7A DATRIX REFERENCE LISTING compiled by the Uni- versity of Michigan Microfilms Office, search number 032792, May 29, 1973, represented a scanned list of dissertations written from 1950-70. Key words used in the search were "President," "Officia1(s)," "Officer(s)," "Organization," "Association," "Teacher," and "Union." Additional research was sought through the use of DISSER- TATIONS ABSTRACTS INTERNATIONAL, Xerox University Micro- films, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January, 1970 through June, 1973. An examination of the functions, as the term is defined in this study, of the present faculty union presidential pOpulation could serve practical uses for several sectors. Chapter II includes resources which illustrate that faculty union locals are given a large amount of operational autonomy from the state and national affiliates. Because of the probability of diverse styles being exercised in a milieu of local autonomy, caution must be employed in the interpretation and application of the population findings, particularly if they are applied to specific local bargaining units by the reader. The findings, therefore, are intended to serve not as absolutes, but as guidelines for persons or groups in understanding the functions of the president. Several examples of the uses which could be served by this study are that a current local president could be appraised of his comparative status and perhaps gain a clearer understanding of or, at least, reassurance as to the nature of his position, through an examination and conveyance of such measures as "job-related factors"-- compensation, duties, hours spent, method of evaluation, future plans, office structure; "unit data"-—number of contracts negotiated; "related experiences"--previous positions; "terms of appointment"; "nomination and selection procedures." Prospective presidential candi- dates could find the study especially useful in an examination of "rationale for taking office"; Fpreparation for office"-—training; "academic status"--rank, credentials; "related experiences"; "terms of appointment"; "job-related factors"--compensation, duties. Union selection committees could find the study as serving a useful purpose in deter- mining the selection criteria of candidates. Such factors could be taken under consideration as "academic status"-- tenure, rank, credentials; "related experiences"--previous positions outside local; "rationale for taking office." The members of an executive council of a local are essen- tially responsible for chairing committees and assisting the president in making broad administrative decisions for the local. In some cases they are responsible for evaluating the president's performance. A comparative description of "job-related factors" may assist them in understanding the position better before making a judg- ment. In addition, if any executive committee-becomes involved directly with contract negotiations, it may find the "unit data"--exclusivity, security, unit com- position, section helpful. The national and state affiliates (NEA, AFT, AAUP), with the increasing empha- sis being placed on membership drives, would seemingly be able to profit from having such information as "unit data." With the importance of the position held by the president in determining the course taken by his local, state affiliates especially may be able to profit from 10 examining "preparation for office" which includes the type of training received for office. Finally, the administrators of an institution might benefit from this study simply in gaining a better insight into the scope of functions undertaken by a president and through this, perhaps, acquire a degree of understanding which may have been previously found wanting. The benefits from acquiring this knowledge could be manifested in the harmonious relationship pattern between administration- union. Definitions Function of Faculty Union President.--A description of the purview of the president’s position as measured by the following variables: (1) institutional data; (2) collective bargaining unit data; (3) demographic data; (4) academic status of the presidents; (5) presidents' related experiences; (6) preparation for office; (7) rationale for taking office; (8) nomination and selection procedures; (9) terms of appointment; (10) job-related factors--compensation, primary duties, time commitment, office structure, evaluation, and future plans. 11 Agency Shop.--A provision in a collective agree- ment which requires that all employees in the negotiating unit who do not join the union, pay a fixed amount monthly, usually the equivalent of union dues, as a condition of employment. Bargaining Agent.--Organization selected by employees in a bargaining unit as their exclusive repre- sentative for collective bargaining purposes. Agents are either designated by an appropriate government agency or recognized voluntarily by the employer. Bargaining Unit.-‘An employee group having related skills and/or interests and which is deemed the appropriate unit for representation by a collective bar- gaining agent. Also, a group of persons bound together in a definable, legally recognized unit for the primary purpose of collectively negotiating with the employer such mutually binding items as wages, hours, and con- ditions of employment. A bargaining unit is also referred to in this study as "faculty unit" or "faculty union." Certification.-—Formal designation by a govern- ment agency of the organization selected by the majority of the employees in a supervised election to act as exclusive representative for all employees in the bar- gaining unit. 12 Decertification.—-Withdrawal by a government agency of an organization's official recognition as exclusive bargaining representative. Collective Bargaining Unit Contract.-—A binding agreement between employees in a bargaining unit and the employer specifying the principles and procedures which define their employment relationship. Usually it is written and is effective for a specified period of time. Exclusivity.--The stipulation that the bargaining agent chosen to represent a bargaining unit will be the sole representative of said unit. It is obligated to represent any person defined as being in the unit by virtue of his skills and/or interests, regardless of his formal membership status, i.e. . . . dues—paying. Faculty Union President.-—A person designated, usually through election, by the members of a bargaining unit as its chief administrative officer. His primary purpose on behalf of his constituents is to assure that the terms of a collectively bargained contract are sub- scribed to. Maintenance-of-Membership C1ause.--A clause in a collective agreement providing that employees who are members of the employee organization at the time the agreement is negotiated, or who voluntarily join the 13 organization subsequently, must maintain their membership for the duration of the agreement, or possibly a shorter period, as a condition of continued employment. Security Clause.-—Protection of a union's status by a provision in the contract establishing such con- ditions as "closed shop," "union shop," "agency shop," or "maintenance of membership" arrangement. In the absence of such provisions employees in the bargaining unit are free to join or support the union at will, and, thus, from the union's standpoint, are susceptible to pressures to refrain from supporting the union or to the inducement of a "free ride." Security clauses have been held to be illegal in most states with "right to bargain" laws. In the absence of a security clause, which would require all persons represented by the union to pay dues, unions often require that a "service charge" be paid by those persons who, while they are represented by the union, do not pay membership dues. This "service charge" usually is intended to help defray the costs of negotiat- ing a contract.8 Union Shop.--Provision in a collective agreement that requires all employees to become members of the 8Myron M. Lieberman and Michael H. Moskow, Collec- tive Negotiations for Teachers (Chicago: Rand McNaIIy and Co., 1966), pp. 415—30. A glossary of terms was used in part to derive definitions. 14 union within a specified time after hiring (typically thirty days), or after a new provision is negotiated, and to remain members of the union as a condition of continued employment. Limitations and Sc0pe of Study This study will focus on the present faculty union president population. Inferences made either to other groups at this point in time or to future faculty union president populations is conjectural due to the ever-changing nature of the collective bargaining arena in higher education. A strength of this study is that it provides an initial descriptive and methodological base from which additional studies may be completed and from which a more systematic tool for studying the faculty union president may be developed. No attempt will be made to measure the attitudes of the pOpulation studied toward their functions or toward collective bargaining in general. The study is limited to a description of the functions of the faculty union president with additional information on the insti— tution and the collective bargaining unit. The variables used to describe the function of the faculty union president do not preclude the possi— bility of other variables being as important in measuring "function." In the process of developing and validating the instrument and in the interest of limiting the scope 15 of the study, these ten variables were chosen as being most meaningful in describing the president's function. This study is not extended to an examination of presidents of faculty associations or other faculty governing groups such as senates. To do so would have allowed the entrance of such uncontrolled variables as differing organizational and operational philosophies than those practiced by unions. In the absence of an agency to identify existing bargaining units, the researcher reverted to the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 30, 1973) for a composite listing of same. The danger of misinformation exists in this case. During an American Association of Higher Education Conference held in Chicago on March 26-27, 1973, the researcher was informed of the recent formation of the "National Center for the Study of Collective Bar- gaining in Higher Education." The Center's director is Dr. Maurice C. Benewitz and is located at C.U.N.Y. Baruch College in New York City. Its primary stated goal is to develop skilled collective bargaining per- sonnel on both the faculty and administrative sides through institutes, lectures, and information files. The Center did not possess a listing of those insti- tutions engaged in faculty collective bargaining at such a time as to permit its inclusion into this study. 16 Although the majority of persons surveyed com- pleted and returned the questionnaire, those persons who did not respond represent a sizable minority (38%) and, as such, could affect the results of the study if their responses could be elicited. Overview of Study Chapter I of this study presents background infor- mation such as problem area, purpose of study, nature of study, need for study, definitions, and limitations and scope of study. Chapter II is divided into two parts though some overlapping is present. The two parts are related literature and related research. Chapter III is entitled "Methodology" and is concerned with a description of the population studied, the instrument used to study the population, and how the data received are analyzed. Chapter IV is the section in which the study's data are presented and explained. Chapter V includes a summary of the findings, discussion, conclusion, and recommen- dations for further study. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE The Stanford Project on Faculty Power and Decision Processes (1973) stated that the growth of unions represents deliberate tactics by faculty members to influence decision-making and to control power.9 The AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations (1967) suggested that faculty demand for greater participation in academic governance is growing (along with faculty unionism).10 Gabarino (1973) explains that unionism in higher education is underpinned by two basic assertions: 9Stanford Project on Academic Governance, "Faculty Power and Decision Processes: Institutional Factors, Pro— fessional Autonomy and Morale," Stanford University, Spring, 1973, p. l. (Mimeographed.) 10AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations, Campus Governance Program, Report of the Task Force, Faculty Participation in Academic Governance (washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, National Education Association, 1967), p. 10. 17 33v- 18 (1) that craft workers seek to control collectively the conditions under which they exercise their skill, and (2) large, complex bureaucratic organizational structures depersonalize and rationalize employer- employee relationships in general.11 To better understand the nature of this phenomena by which teachers are desirous of controlling their environ- ment, it is helpful to examine several key factors which have contributed to the evolutionary process of collec- tive bargaining in higher education. Legal Background The legal right for private sector employees to organize for collective bargaining purposes was granted many years before employees in the public sector were granted the privilege. The National Labor Relations Act (1935), also referred to as the Wagner Act, gave employees in private industries engaged in interstate commerce the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Grievance procedures and employers' unfair labor practices were specified. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board was 11Joseph W. Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining," in Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, ed. by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973), pp. 2-3. ¥ .l1... 19 instituted to administer the Act.12 An Amendment to this Act occurred in 1947 with the passage of the Taft— Hartley Bill which not only forbade strikes by govern- mental employees but also specified unfair labor practices on the part of unions.13 In 1959, a second Amendment to the original wagner Act was passed. The Labor— Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, also referred to as the Landrum—Griffin Bill, required unions to disclose certain operational practices. In addition, members' Bill of Rights were specified along with minimal election procedures and union officers' fiduciary respon— 14 The intent of the Bill was to assure that sibility. democratic principles be adhered to both by the unions' membership and officers. While the legislation outlined refers to employee-employer relations in the private sector of our economy and only to those organizations engaged in interstate commerce, it is useful to note that they represent efforts to define matters considered essential to the implementation and administration of collective bargaining agreements. In this respect, they can be credited with providing an impetus by which public employee collective bargaining was nurtured. 1249 STAT. 449 (1935), 29 U.S.C. 151. 1361 STAT. 136 (1947), 7 U.S.C. 6289. 1473 STAT. 523 (1959), Public Law 86-257. 20 Collective bargaining in the public sector was enhanced primarily by the passage of President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10988 in 1962. The Executive Order generally provided for the participation of federal employees in the establishment of personnel policies affecting them. The action gave employees the right to form collective bargaining units and required governmental agencies to negotiate on a "meet and confer" basis with said employees. A strong management rights clause was also included.15 It is generally agreed that this Order served to lessen public resistance to collective bar- gaining in public employment. In an effort to strengthen the provisions of E0 10988, President Nixon in 1969 issued Executive Order 11491. In essence, this action provided for the establishment of the Federal Labor Relations Council to administer the program, thus reducing the power of authority previously invested in each agency. Also, an effort was made to revise employ- ment practices to standardize them with those used in the 16 private sector under the Wagner Act. While E0 10988 and E0 11491 involve employment concerns in the Federal 5George M. Johnson, Education Law (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1969), pp. 218-19. 16Michael H. Moskow, J. Joseph Loewenberg, and Edward Clifford Koziara, Collective Bargaining in Public Employment (New York: Random House, Inc., 1970), pp. 72- 21 government only, they did serve as guidelines for collec- tive bargaining legislation by the states. In the absence of enabling legislation by the states, the development of collective bargaining in public education was enhanced in the Norwalk Teachers' Association vs. Board of Education City of Norwalk (1951) decision which gave public school teachers in that district the right to organize. The school board, however, was not required to negotiate with the teachers' unit if it (the Board) construed the union's bargaining position as reducing managerial rights.l7 Since the landmark Norwalk decision, public school teachers in states lacking col- lective bargaining laws have continued to organize using sanctions such as the strike or withholding services to help achieve bargaining goals. A notable example are teachers in Illinois. Prior to the researcher's listing the state laws enabling public school teachers to form collective bar- gaining units and to negotiate, it should be noted that teachers in private institutions are under the juris- diction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which was established as the administrative unit for the Wagner Act discussed earlier. The NLRB, in 1970, extended its jurisdiction to include not only private businesses 17Michael H. Moskow, Teachers and Unions (Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1966), pp. 43-44. 22 engaged in interstate commerce but also private, nonprofit educational institutions having a gross annual operating revenue of at least $1,000,000. This criteria would include roughly 80 per cent of all nonprofit colleges 18 For the most and universities in the United States. part, rulings made by the NLRB are decided on a case-by- case basis and are involved with such matters as deter- mining the composition of bargaining units, determination of bargaining agents, sc0pe of bargaining, and investi— gating unfair 1abor practices. The parallel jurisdictional unit of the NLRB in public sector employment in the states is that unit established by a given state to administer the state's "right to bargain" law. Public employee bargaining laws in the states are broadly classified as “meet and confer" and "collective bargaining" rights. Both are similar in that they grant employees the right to organize and require employers to discuss a wide range of matters with employees. How- ever, some important dissimilarities exist. Among these, "meet and confer" laws usually do not extend exclusive bargaining rights to the union, do not provide adminis- trative machinery to decide union representation issues, do not require that employers bargain collectively or 18National Labor Relations Board, "NLRB Sets $1 Million Jurisdictional Standard for Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities," Washington, D.C., National Labor Relations Board, December 3, 1970, n.p. (Mimeo- graphed news release, R1183.) 23 sign written contracts, and provide no impasse procedure (e.g., arbitration, fact—finding, mediation) in the event an agreement is not reached. Table 1 includes an enumer- ation of which states have (or have not) passed legis- lation enabling public school teachers to organize and whether the terms of the law allow for "meeting and con- ferring" or "collective bargaining." To summarize, twenty—eight states had collective bargaining laws as of 4/30/73. Thirteen states had neither a bargaining law or bargaining rights for its teachers. Four states possessed "meet and confer" rights while twenty-three states required the employer to negotiate with the recognized employee union. An appendum to this table occurs with the passage of a collective bargaining law in Indiana.19 In addition, several states, notably Ohio and Illinois, have introduced legislation intended to secure collective bargaining legislation for teachers. California has introduced legislation in an attempt to strengthen the "meet and confer" clause of its collective bargaining legislation. Why Faculties Organize Angell, in comparing the demands of faculty mem- bers in selected two-year and four-year institutions, 19"Indiana Teachers Win Collective Bargaining Law," Teachers Voice (National Education Association, May 14, 1973), p. 7. 24 TABLE l.--Collective bargaining laws and rights in public educational institutions in the United States-—April 30, 1973 State Bargi1n1ng Bargaining Rights aw Alabama No None Alaska Yes Collective Bargaining Arizona No None Arkansas No None California Yes Meet and Confer Colorado Yes Collective Bargaining Delaware Yes Collective Bargaining District of Columbia No None Florida Yes Meet and Confer Georgia Noa May Bargain Collectivelyb Hawaii Yes Collective Bargaining Idaho Yes Collective Bargaining Illinois No May Bargain Collectively Indiana No May Bargain Collectively Iowa No May Bargain Collectively Kansas Yes Meet and‘Confer Kentucky No May Bargain Collectively Louisiana No None Maine Yes Collective Bargaining Maryland Yes Collective Bargaining Massachusetts Yes Collective Bargaining Michigan Yes Collective Bargaining Minnesota Yes Collective Bargaining Mississippi No None Missouri No Can Make Proposals to School Boards Montana Yes Collective Bargaining Nebraska Yes May meet and Confer Nevada Yes Collective Bargaining New Hampshire Yes Collective Bargaining New Jersey Yes Collective Bargaining New Mexico No May Bargain Collectively New York Yes Collective Bargaining North Carolina No None North Dakota Yes Collective Bargaining Ohio No None Oklahoma Yes Collective Oregon Yes Required to confer, consult, and Discuss (meet and confer) Pennsylvania Yes Collective Bargaining Rhode Island Yes Collective Bargaining South Carolina No None South Dakota Yes Collective Bargaining Tennessee No None Texas No None Utah No May Bargain Collectively Vermont Yes Collective Bargaining Virginia No May Bargain Collectively Washington Yes Collective Bargaining West Virginia No None Wisconsin Yes Collective Bargaining Wyoming No None20 aFor the purposes of this study, an affirmative answer under Bargaining Law indicates legislative action. In several states, Attorneys' General Opinions and court cases form the basis under which bargaining occurs. bUnder Bargain Collective y 0 Bar ainin Ri hts, an indication of "May +411— r May Meet and Confer" simply means that any one of the actions can take place only if both parties agree. In contrast, "Collective Bargain- ing" means that the employer must negotiate with an employee organization once it is formed. 20"Summary of State Labor Laws," Government Employees Relations Report Reference File, LI (Washington, D.C.: 1973), 501-21. p. 25. The Bureau EI’NaEional Affairs,’Inc., April 30, See also l"Negotiation in Higher Edu- cation," egotiation Research Digest, September, 1971, 25 stated that faculties essentially want the same things: more salary, fringe benefits, security, and shared 21 governance. An Ad Hoc Committee at Michigan State (1972) studying faculty bargaining concluded that faculty concerns in higher education fall into five categories: (1) (2) (3) (4) Procedures for faculty representation in academic governance; Educational policies such as admission standards, curriculum, grading standards, degree requirements, academic freedom, addition of new programs, and deletion of old ones, and selection of department chairmen, deans, provost, and president; WOrking conditions such as appointments, promotion, tenure, grievance procedures, course assignments and work loads, compensation, allocation of office space and furnishings, secretarial help, and parking facilities; Economic issues including total funding adequate to a high grade institution of higher education, allocation of available resources throughout all budgetary categories, and salary and fringe benefits; 21George W. Angell, "Two-Year College Experience," in Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, ed. by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1973), p. 105. (5) 26 Public issues such as the relationship between governmental agencies and institutions of higher education, and activity by the faculty in social concerns . 22 While this list may not be all—inclusive, it is intended to provide the reader with a sensitivity to those things which may be of common concern to faculty members. With these concerns in mind, the problems presently confronting faculty members can be categorized as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Depressed job market; Institutional financial difficulties; Statewide centralization of systems and the resultant loss of campus autonomy, and little faculty governance at "emerging" state insti- tutions; Legislative supervision of faculty working con- ditions; Existence of legislation governing private col- lective bargaining in the public and private sectors; Organizational rivalry between the NEA, AFT, and AAUP. 22Michigan State University, "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Collective Bargaining," East Lansing, Michi- gan, January 31, 1972, p. 6. (Mimeographed.) 27 Depressed Job Market Since the inception of the 1970's, college enrollments have been declining. At the same time, the number of earned doctorates has increased roughly 250 per cent from 10,000 in 1960 to 27,000 in 1970. Though, to a certain extent, it can be said that a supply will create its own demand, it is as accurate to posit that, with the accompanying financial difficulties institutions are experiencing, the supply-demand ratio for faculty members is less than in years past.23 Some effects of this depressed supply-demand ratio are a limited number of jobs for new entrants and a lesser opportunity for established faculty members to move (or threaten to move) thereby reducing their "bargaining power." As this rate of faculty growth decreases and an overabundance of senior faculty members occurs relative to the number of incoming junior faculty, pressures are brought upon senior faculty in the form of forced early retirement, reduction in rate of salary progression, quotas for numbers in any given rank, and tenure quotas. In addition, increased work loads could further reduce the 23Allan Cartter, "The After Effects of Putting the Blind Eye to the Telescope" (paper presented at the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March, 1970), n.p. 28 demand for new faculty.24 All in all, the present employ- ment situation would seem to indicate a necessity for present and aspiring faculty members to be concerned about their economic security. The rise in the number of collective bargaining units, which coincides chrono- logically with the existence of the depressed job market, would indicate perhaps that faculty members are choosing this as a vehicle for greater job security. Institutional Financial Diffi- culties Some factors which illustrate the financial diffi- culties confronted by our public and private institutions of higher education are the sagging student enrollment caused in part by the absence of a baby—boom of the early 1940's, the increase in institutional maintenance costs, the dissolution of the draft, and the marked increase of persons entering terminal skills programs. In an effort to meet these increased costs and decreased student fees, institutions have resorted to increasing the fees of existing students and to requesting addi- tional revenues from state legislatures (or alternative sources in the case of private colleges). These sources 24Joseph W. Gabarino, "Precarious Professors: New Patterns of Representation," Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971, p. 4 (reprinted from Industrial Relations, Vol. X, No. 1, 1971). See also Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining," pp. 8—9; T. M. Stinnett, Turmoil in Teaching (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1968), pp. 34-39. 29 have, in turn, demanded greater operational accountability from the institutions which, in a circular fashion, has forced institutions to reduce, eliminate, or restructure some phases of their Operations in an effort to achieve this demanded efficiency.25 It is at this point of forced change in operations which threatens the job security of the faculty member. Statewide Centralization of Systems and the Resultant Loss of Campus Autonomy, and LittIe Faculty Governance at "Emerging" Institutions 4 WOllett eXpressed concern over the effect of statewide systems on collective bargaining in the following statement, "The establishment of state-wide systems of higher education has had a sharp impact on the role of the faculty on the individual campuses, even on those campuses that have well functioning procedures for faculty representation." He goes on to say: The creation of a coordinated, state-wide, multi- campus system moves the focus of decision-making . . . to a level beyond the reach of local pro- cedures. The multi-campus system further sets the stage for insidious comparisons and competition among the faculty of different components, and has a demoralizing impact on the faculty's sense of autonomy and control.26 25Myron Lieberman, "Professors, Unite!" Harper's, CCXLIII (October, 1971), 61-70. 26Donald H. Wbllett, "The Status and Trends of Collective Negotiations for Faculty in Higher Education," ‘Wisconsin Law Review, No. 1 (1971), 32. 30 An obvious concern of faculty members in state- wide systems is the legislative imposition of uniform sets of rules and regulations on all institutions within that system. Irrespective of the academic goals and other peculiarities of each, Gabarino cites efforts on the part of faculty members in the City University of New York (CUNY) and State University of New York (SUNY) systems to organize in an effort to return academic decision-making power to the individual campuses as well as to have more direct impact on decisions made by a "large, impersonal" employer in Albany. He also cites an effort.made by Rutgers University to organize to prevent "homogenization" with state teachers colleges 27 The effect of state-wide systems of in New Jersey. governance on the independence and authority of an institution's governing board and its chief adminis- trators is illustrated by Fisk and Puffer28 and serves as an example of the totality of the impact created by these systems. 27Joseph W. Gabarino, "Creeping Unionism and the Faculty Labor Market" (draft copy of paper prepared for a Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Report, forth- coming, Spring 1972), quoted in Carol Shulman, Collective Bargaining on Campus (washington, D.C.: AAHE, March, I972), p. 4. 28Robert S. Fisk and William C. Puffer, "Public University System: State University of New York," Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea and Associates, 1973, pp. 131-55. 31 In reference to the emerging university concept and faculty concerns, the AAHE—NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations (1967) concluded that faculty discontent was most evident in junior col- leges and in new or emerging universities.29 Gabarino, in explaining the conversion of teachers colleges to state universities, speaks to the broadening of edu- cational function and the accompanying change in the composition of the faculties and in their professional self-image.30 He further explains that the new faculty of these units had high expectations of professional independence and of professional influence over insti- tutional policy. These new faculty members saw the established faculty members as being slow to adapt to this new style and, hence, chose unionism as a means to hasten the process. The younger faculty members also at times saw the existing internal governance structure as dominated by senior faculty and opted for unionism in an effort to gain a more viable voice. Conversely, established faculty members could favor unionism if they felt the newly recruited faculty were getting preferential treatment in terms of rank, salary, and 29AAHE—NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations, p. 13. 30Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining," p. 11. 32 teaching load.31 In summary, the emerging university enhanced a move to an alternative form of faculty governance in some instances where the existing admin- istrative and faculty governance mechanisms were per- ceived as being inadequate to accommodate the demands of both the newly recruited and established faculty members. Unionism appeared to be the favored method of securing this power. Legislative Supervision of Faculty WOrkIng Conditions The essence of this concern lies in the fact that state legislatures exert influence of a financial nature (e.g., appropriations) over public institutions. The federal congress does too, to the extent if appropriates financial aid revenues to both public and private insti- tutions. This control on the part of state legislatures is manifested in such forms as "master plans," setting certification standards, setting work—load requirements, curricular demands, performances contracting and estab- lishing common wage structures (at multi—institutional systems). Shulman sees this form of control as con- flicting with the principle of faculty autonomy and 31Ibid., p. 12. 33 considers the issue as important as higher salaries in providing an impetus for unionization.32 Existence of Legislation Governing ColIective Bargaining in the Public and Private seEtors Neil Bucklew (1971) states that the existence of enabling legislation is the single most important pre- dictor of collective bargaining interest, and subsequent realization of a unit, on the part of staff employees (faculty). He cites research to substantiate this claim.33 As stated earlier, collective bargaining at public institutions of higher learning is regulated by state public employee relations legislation. At the present time, twenty-eight states have such laws. States not possessing such legislation do in some cases, notably Illinois, have faculty collective bargaining units. Collective bargaining in private institutions is regu— lated by the federally mandated National Labor Relations Act explained earlier. Though asserting that virtually no difference exists between private and public 32Carol H. Shulman, Collective Bargaining on Campus (Washington, D.C.: American Association for H1gher Education, March, 1972), p. 4. 33Neil S. Bucklew, "Employment Relations of Staff Employees in Institutions of Higher Learning," Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, XXII (MarCh, 1971), 61. 34 institutions relative to collective bargaining problems, Gorman34 does make several distinctions between the NLRA and states' enabling laws. Strikes are often prohibited under state law but are legal under the NLRA. Public institutions' contracts are dependent upon the state legislatures' appropriations while private institutions must seek out other sources. State laws also limit the "terms and conditions of employment" negotiated, and some provide for more liberal grievance procedures than the federal model.35 Finally, in the complex question of "unit determination," the states are willing to establish guidelines whereas the NLRB up to this point has refused to establish such guidelines rather deciding . 36 each on a case-by-case bas1s. Organizational Rivalry Between AFT, NEA, AAUP, and Independents In the face of problems (these problems are dis- cussed in the next section) perceived as not being resolved satisfactorily, teachers have turned to external 34Robert Gorman to Bertram H. Davis, Memorandum on "Statutory Responses to Collective Bargaining," January 4, 1968, quoted in Shulman, Collective Bargaining on Campus, pp. 9-10. 3SIbid., p. 32. 36See issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education from January, 1971, to June, 1973, for individuaI rulings by the NLRB on the "Unit Determination" question. 35 organizations in an effort to protect their rights. Community college teachers, many of whom are former secondary or elementary school teachers, initially turned to the organization they are most familiar with, the National Education Association. Faculty members at four-year institutions having organized after their counterparts in the community colleges had done so, appear to have followed the example shown by the com— munity colleges. In this regard, Coe observed in his review of literature that a "demonstration effect" was operable in some cases wherein nonunionized faculties upon seeing the effectiveness of unions at other insti- 37 Coe also refers tutions would then choose to unionize. to a "spin-off effect," wherein teachers who had had a successful eXperience with unions while teaching in the elementary or secondary levels had tried to parlay this experience to their present community or four-year college settings.38 The extent of the rivalry can be highlighted by enumerating their enrollment figures and then their philos0phies. The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 30, 1973) lists 286 colleges and universities as possessing 37Alan Charles Coe, "A Study of the Proceedings Used in Collective Bargaining with Faculty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 43. 381bid., p. 44. 36 faculty collective bargaining units. Of these 286 institutions, 69 are represented in multi—institutional settings. Therefore, to avoid confusion, 217 is used as the number of institutions with collective bargaining. The NBA has organized 18 four—year and 86 two-year institutions; the AFT, 18 four-year and 45 two-year; the AAUP, 17 four-year and 3 two-year. Finally, indepen- dent unions are present on 7 four-year and 23 two-year institutions. In summary, 60 four-year institutions have faculty collective bargaining units while 157 two- year schools possess same.39 The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) was founded in 1915 and had as its initial goals the protection of academic freedom of individuals and the development of college teaching into a profession closely modeled on medicine and law.40 The Association saw itself as a national spokesman for the profession (in higher education) leaving the local internal governance structures such as faculty senates free to handle operational matters. According to Gabarino,41 39"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining AgentS:' Chronicle, p. 4. 40Martha A. Brown, "Collective Bargaining on the Campus: Professors, Associations, Unions," Labor Law Journal, XXI (March, 1970), 169. 41Gabarino, "Precarious Professors," p. 15. 37 the AAUP's greatest strength is its favorable image among faculty as a whole as well as among administrators. Among its weaknesses is the credibility gap which is arising as a result of its entering the local frays as a collective bargaining agent, hence, jeopardizing the prestige it had built as a spokesman for all faculty. The matter of perceived loss of "professionalism" is an important issue here. A departure from its original stated goals occurs too in the widening of its membership to include persons other than teachers in its local membership chapters. The composition of these chapters are in conformity with the rulings made by the NLRB and the states' labor relations regulatory agencies regarding unit composition. In part because of the above, and in part because of the principle of "exclusivity" which simply means that the teacher organization which wins a representation election will represent all the members of a teacher's unit, the AAUP membership showed a decline of 5,692. According to new President Bertram Davis, a more substantial decline can be anticipated in 1973 unless intensive efforts are made to find new members.42 The governing council of the AAUP in a position statement on collective bargaining stated: 42"AAUP Annual Report," Bertram Davis, President, reprinted in Educators' Negotiating Service, Division of Educational SerVice Bureau, Inc., WaShington, D.C., June 1, 1973, pp. 2-5. 38 The longstanding programs of the Association are means to achieve a number of basic ends at colleges and universities: the enhancement of academic freedom and tenure; of due process; of sound academic government. Collective bargaining, properly used, is essentially another means to achieve these ends, and at the same time to strengthen the influence of the faculty in the distribution of an institution's economic resources. The implementation of Association- supported principles, reliant upon professional tra- ditions and upon moral suasion, can be effectively supplemented by a collective bargaining agreement and given the force of law.43 Operationally, the AAUP is a newcomer to the collective bargaining realm compared with the AFT and NBA. It is the smallest of the three in terms of total bargaining units, but the largest in terms of total union and non- union membership in higher education. It has only been since the spring of 1972 that the AAUP membership has voted to actively pursue collective bargaining. The National Education Association (NBA) repre- sents the largest number of collective bargaining units of any organization in higher education. The NBA was founded to "elevate the character and advance the interests of the profession of teaching and . . . pro- mote the cause of pOpular education in the United States."44 Traditionally, the NEA has been dominated by secondary and elementary school teachers and it was 3"University Professors Want Specialized Col- 1ective Bargaining Model," Educators' Negotiating Service, February 15, 1973, p. 104. 44Brown, "Collective Bargaining on Campus," 173. 39 not until its 1972 annual convention that it voted to make organizing on college campuses an “NBA priority."45 This is not to ignore the long-time activity undertaken by NEA affiliates at community-junior colleges. The essence of the convention vote was to heighten the organizing activity at four—year institutions. Since 1972, an internal reorganization has taken place wherein higher education collective bargaining organizational revenues were combined with those at the elementary and secondary level in an effort to provide a more substantial financial and advisory base than had existed previously. "Association executives maintain that it does not mean a downgrading of higher education's status in the organi- zation.“46 The thrust of collective bargaining activity by the NEA in higher education is carried out by its state-wide affiliates, the National Faculty Association (community-junior colleges) and the Association of Higher Education (four-year institutions). The American Federation of Teachers (AFT), an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, is the second largest organizer of teachers' unions. Concentrated mainly in urban areas, it extols an adversary relationship between employee and employer excluding administrators from its membership and 45"Campus Unionizing Given NEA 'Priority'," Chronicle of Higher Education, July 31, 1972, p. 4. 461bid. 40 attempting to represent as diverse a cross-section of employees in its units as possible. Gabarino calls it the most militant of the teacher organizations and cites its tie with the orthodox labor movement as a source of strength and weakness--strength insofar as it takes a pragmatic approach to everyday problems such as work— loads, hiring procedures and personnel action and, hence, would be appealing to a nonunionized group seeking resolution to those perceived problems—-weakness in that in the opinion of traditionalists, the espoused adver- sarial concept negatively affects such notions as "shared authority" and aligns the "professional" teacher with the less prestigious common laborer.47 Independent internal organizations represent the smallest number of faculty collective bargaining units. They are usually chosen because either they have long represented the faculty at a given institution through another vehicle such as a senate or because the faculty simply does not wish to become affiliated with one of the three external unions. An independent internal union has the same rights and responsibilities under law as the NEA, AAUP, or AFT. Its major strength, perhaps, is the fact it permits collective bargaining without interference from groups outside the institution. 47Gabarino, "Precarious Professors," 16. 41 Its major weakness48 is in the fact it has limited resources (being restricted usually to one institution) in which to carry out the services a local bargaining unit requires. It is of interest that all of the inde- pendent unions in higher education are on small campuses where activities are more manageable with limited resources. The increasing intensity of the competition between the national organizations to win representative elections has led some people to feel that the philos0phi- cal differences relative to collective bargaining have practically vanished.49 In light of this, some efforts have been made to affect mergers among the groups. The most noteworthy mergers have taken place on the local and state levels in New York. The Legislative Conference (NEA) of the City University of New York united with the United Federation of College Teachers (AFT) in August, 1972, to form the "Professional Staff Congress." This action unites 5,500 teachers of the C.U.N.Y. system. In May, 1973, a merger affecting 195,000 teachers in the State University of New York (S.U.N.Y.) was finalized with the United Teachers of New York (AFT) joining the 48Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining," p. 15. 49"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. See also Gabarino, "Emergence of Col- Iective Bargaining," p. 16. 42 New York State Teachers Association (NEA) to form the "New York State United Teachers." Additional local mergers of NEA—AFT affiliated groups have taken place in Los Angeles, Flint, San Francisco, St. Paul, and St. Louis. The possibility of merging organizations on a state—wide basis is being discussed in Michigan, 50 Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Hawaii. Nationally, leaders of the NEA and AFT and the NBA and AAUP have had discussions about merger.51 The AAUP professes a lack of interest in merging at the present time, rather opting for developing its own collective bargaining machinery. The AFT appears to be most strongly predisposed to merg— ing but has found the NEA reluctant to become affiliated with the AFL-CIO. The AFT refuses to disassociate with the AFL-CIO. Another concern expressed by the NEA is the possible submerging of its interests if the AFT's (AFL-CIO) predominantly urban membership "dominates" the NEA's mainly nonurban membership.52 Despite its stated reluctance to associate itself with the AFL-CIO through the AFT, the NEA consummated an affiliation with two 50"A Major Step Toward Teacher Unity," American Teacher, Official Publication of the A.F.T., January, 1973, p . l, 3. 51Philip W. Semas, "National Education Association Fears AAUP in Bargaining," Chronicle of Higher Education, July 3, 1972, p. 5. 52"Teacher Unity," American Teacher, p. l. 43 AFL-CIO unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (A.F.S.C.M.E.) and the Fire Fighters to form the Coalition of American Public Employees (C.A.P.E.). The group serves mainly as a lobby and political action group with the principal goals of "seeking the enactment of favorable public sector collective bargaining statutes and the creation of a cabinet level post for education."53 On December 11, 1972, a group representing nearly one-third of the total NEA membership, the National Council of Urban Education Associations (NCUEA) joined with leaders of the AFT to form the National Coalition for Teacher Unity, "to prod the leadership of the NEA into . . . opening up good faith merger negotiations with the AFT."54 It is perhaps important to note that a total membership vote taken at the NEA spring, 1973, convention rejected the notion of a prOposed NEA-AFT merger. However, another vote taken in July, 1973, approved the opening of talks with the AFT in September, but with the following stipulations: 53U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Directory of National Unions and Employee Associations 1971, BuIletin 1750 (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1972), p. 61. 54"Teacher Unity," American Teacher, p. 1. For a discussion of the social, economic, and political impli- cations of a merger of two or more of the national organi- zations, see also Myron Lieberman, "The Union Merger Move- ment," Educators' Negotiating Service, Special Report, September, 1972. 44 1. Members of a merged union must not be required to join the AFL-CIO. 2. Officers must be elected by secret ballot. 3. Minority groups must be represented on governing boards.55 It appears then that while the philosophical differences between the major national organizations appear to be diminishing, internal strifes within the groups appear to be the most effective deterrent to immediate merger. Two additional factors which in the opinion of some have stimulated faculty organizing are: inappropriate reactions by administrators on some campuses about the 56 and the prospect of faculty collective bargaining, indifferent or hostile attitudes of administration, governing boards, legislatures, and governors toward faculties which may lack political and/or economic power.57 A period of disappointment relative to membership gains for the three major teacher organizations occurred in 1972-73. Among the reasons for this disappointment are: 55"Two Largest Teacher Unions to Hold Merger Talks," Chronicle of Higher Education, July 16, 1973, p. 6. 56Bertram Davis, "Unions and Higher Education: Another View," Educational Record, XXXXIX (Spring, 1968), 143. 57WOllett, "Status and Trends," p. 31. 45 1. Many large states still do not have legislation allowing faculty members at public colleges to bargain collectively . . . most faculties are unwilling to go through the battles required to win bargaining rights without legislation. 2. The major growth in collective bargaining has been at the community colleges. But with facul— ties organized at almost 200 of the nation's 1,200 two-year colleges, the growth rate is slowing down. 3. Faculties are "naturally deliberate" even in a period of job shortage and stringent institu- tional financial condition.58 Organizing at Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions Collective bargaining began at two-year insti- tutions before it was begun at four-year schools. Some reasons have already been pointed out. Many community- junior college teachers were former elementary or secon- dary school teachers, so they perhaps were more favorably disposed toward the collective bargaining arena because of their involvement with bargaining on the two initial levels of education. Many community-junior colleges are a part of a K—l4 school district which, if the elementary 58"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. 46 and secondary teachers were organized, would make the college teachers' involvement practically automatic. Another reason the senior colleges followed the two-year institutions was the feeling that the aura of "profes- sionalism" posited especially by the AAUP ran counter to collective bargaining dictates, which were thought to be based on the industrial model's adversarial relationships. Such notions as academic freedom, faculty self-governance, and faculty autonomy were not thought to be in the province of collective bar- gaining. Another aspect of this notion of "profes- sionalism" which may have hindered the collective bar- gaining movement in four-year institutions was a feeling that they were not only "above" partaking in collective bargaining but must also be somehow distinguished from colleagues on the community-junior college, secondary, and elementary levels. The growth of unionization on the four-year campus is in some part due to the efforts made by the NEA, and AFT to shift their organizing emphasis to the four-year college in recent months and because of the participation of the AAUP in the collective bargaining arena. This may have had the effect of dampening the "anti-professional" feeling on the part of some faculty toward collective bargaining. Another factor to consider is the "domino effect" spoken of by WOllett wherein there is a tendency to follow the 47 example of another institution, if that institution is perceived to be successful in a given enterprise (in this case, collective bargaining).59 Making comparisons between organizing efforts at two-year and four-year institutions is virtually impossible as writers' perceptions differ according to the particular institution being examined. It is perhaps more meaningful then to examine this phenomenon on a general scale in order to present an idea as to some of the variables involved. The AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Represen- tation and Academic Negotiations (1967) states that the greatest faculty discontent is at the junior college level. There was considerable faculty dissatisfaction over the complete control by the administration of cur- ricula and promotions and the rigid application of rules governing the conduct of professional duties, such as the requirement that each faculty member spend a fixed number of hours on campus. The new status and prospective growth of these institutions make it unlikely that junior college faculties will long accept such limitations on their role. . . . Similar develOpments have taken place in the new or emerging four-year colleges and universities . . . and to a limited extent, to the few private institutions examined.60 Ruff examined the organizing efforts made at community colleges in New York State and concluded that: 59Wollett, "Status and Trends," p. 9. 60AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations, pp. 10—13. 48 Teacher militancy, . . . began with teacher dis- satisfaction concerning low salaries and the gen- erally poor economic status of the profession, and has been nurtured by many factors. The rapid increase in the size and consolidation of the school districts with the attendant impersonality of employee relations, increases in the number of male teachers who "demand" more in terms of wages and fringe benefits than do their female counter- parts, increased [rivalries between the teachers' organizations have] . . . spurred both teacher expectations and demands. . . . In addition a "new breed" of teacher [has emerged] . . . who desires more participation in the educational decision making process. This militancy, which began . . . in secondary schools, has spread into higher edu- cation, and into community colleges in particular 61 . . . [and is caused by] some of [these] same forces. Ruff goes on to say that: The community college faculty member's militancy and propensity toward collective bargaining is intensified more than that of his colleagues at four-year colleges and universities because of his closeness to a single community and the secondary school models rather than to professional associ- ations in the disciplines and greater limitations on his role as a professional educator.62 Angell, in a comprehensive study of faculty col— lective bargaining in public two-year colleges in New York State and Michigan, stated that: Primary reasons for organizing [were] low salaries, unilateral decisions by trustees and administrators, lack of communication between administration and faculty, and a general feeling of being treated as high school teachers rather than as members of 61Raymond T. Ruff, "A Description and Analysis of Faculty Grievances and Faculty Grievance Procedures in New York State Community Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1972), p. 14. 6ZIbid., pp. 15-16. 49 a college faculty. . . . Few faculties had an effective senate or other self-governing device to share the responsibility for determining class schedules, enrollments, calendars, teaching loads, reappointments, promotions, etc., and as a result they had heavy teaching loads, long hours and few fringe benefits. Perhaps the most telling factor leading to unionism, however, was the lack of academic freedom . . 63 Brown cites the faculties' lack of ability to participate in decisions affecting their professional status as being a greater factor in faculty discontent than the desire for higher salaries.64 Angell also stresses that facul- ties at two-year and four-year institutions want the same things,65 that even managements at the institutions appear to share similar problems . . . especially in relation to increasing campus efficiency, faculty responsibility, and quality of the educational product. . . . Since human motives and the rules of the game are everyWhere roughly equivalent, or soon will be, the problems, pro- cedures, and outcomes among junior colleges can be expected to be distributed equally among senior colleges both public and private.bb 63Angell, "Two-Year College Experience," pp. 89-90. 64Ronald Brown, "Professors and Unions: The Faculty Senate: An Effective Alternative to Collective Bargaining in Higher Education?" William and Mary Law Review, XII (Winter, 1970), 252-332. 65Angell, "Two-Year College Experience," p. 105. 661bid., p. 106. 50 Characteristics of Union Leaders No research was found which described the personal characteristics or duties of elected union leaders in the educational sector. This section, then, will be confined to a brief examination of general leadership traits and of characteristics of union leaders in the industrial sector. Any correlation between these individuals and the faculty union president is conjectural. Gouldner defines a leader as: . . . any individual whose behavior stimulates patterning of behavior in some group. By emitting some stimuli he facilitates group action toward a legitimate goal or goals, whether the stimuli are verbal, written or gestural.67 Many other definitions of leadership can be found creat- ing a situation described by the National Training Lab Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences (1969) as con— fusing. The NTL states that: Leadership is what peOple in a group perceive as leadership . . . [that is] is a function of the group; that it is the quality of the group that determines its effectiveness in setting up and achieving goals. And that many people contribute to it. [sic] And the extent to which people con- tribute to it is determined by the way members of that group see this person [the "leader"] and use his contributions.68 67Alvin W. Gouldner, Studies in Leadership (New York: Harper and Brothers, Puinsfiers, 1950), p. 17. 68National Training Lab (NTL) Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1969 Reading Book (washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969), n.p. 51 Beyond searching for a definition of leadership, other writers have attempted to identify characteristics and traits unique to leaders. The danger of using these approaches is pointed out by Hollander69 in that when emphasis is placed upon what "makes" a leader, important distinctions such as the source of authority and the nature of the function to be fulfilled in diverse situ— ations is lost. Gouldner stresses that there are no universal traits in all leaders and that studying traits as one entity divorces the leader from his group and institutional (environmental) setting. "A leader can't be studied apart from these two."70 Despite these short- comings, attempts have been made to identify traits and characteristics exhibited by leader-types. Helen Jennings concluded that while leadership roles differ greatly, certain constant characteristics tended to be extant in her studies: 1. Each leader "improved" the social milieu. Each widened the social participation of others N by enhancing interaction. 3. Each took a definite stand on her ideas. 69E. P. Hollander, Leaders, Groups and Influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 4. 70Gouldner, Studies in Leadership, p. 22. 52 4. Each exhibited self-control to the extent as to not invoke negative feelings of depression or anxiety in others. 5. Each did not confide her personal concerns to anyone except very close friends. 6. Each established rapport quickly with a wide range of people. . . . . 71 7. Each could identify With a Wide group of people. A leadership program manual for teachers in Michigan lists six qualities . . . that effective leaders appear to possess: 1) They exert initiative; 2) They show a willingness to cooperate; 3) They are able to empathize; 4) They are able to communicate; 5) They are creative; 6) They are of service to the group. 2 Specific traits attributable to leader-types by Rowland in his study of supervisors and subordinates at a naval depot are: upward influence, intelligence, need for exhibition, and need for aggression.73 The preceding 71Helen Hall Jennings, Leadership and Isolation (revised ed.; New York: Longmans, Green, 1950), pp. 203-04. 72Professional Development Division of the Michigan Education Association, "Leadership: A Book of Readings for Leaders in the United Teaching Profession," East Lans- ing, Michigan, May, 1973, p. l. (Mimeographed.) 73Kendrith Martin Rowland, "Selected Determinants of Effective Leadership" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966, Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII [1966], 1510-A). 53 traits were those perceived by the subordinates. Traits listed by Gouldner, with several reservations, include self-confidence, an ability to make quick decisions, force of will, self-sufficiency, common sense, self- control, good judgment, a sense of justice, enthusiasm, tact, perserverance, and discipline.74 It appears, then, that an attempt to either define or to attach qualities to "leadership" must consider such factors as the group, the individual, and the situation, and that to attempt to attach universal meanings or specific traits to the concept is treacherous at best. Several writers have attempted to describe the elected union leader in an industrial setting. Unfor- tunately, no distinction was made between the various officers (e.g. President, Vice-president, Business Manager, etc.) within a given organization. Therefore, if the findings are to be generalized, they must be done with knowledge that the aforementioned distinction is not made. Seidman, gt_31.,75 in an intensive study of six diverse union locals in the midwest, attempted to ascertain the rank-and-file members' and elected leaders' attitudes about a multitude of issues including perceptions of how the leadership developed and 74Gouldner, Studies in Leadership, p. 22. 75Joel Seidman, et a1., The WOrker Views His_ Union (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 164-84. 54 concomitant expectations. Seidman's first observation was that, while most leaders in his sample were full-time workers and part-time union officers, they all found their free time and energy absorbed by union duties at the expense of home, family, friends, and outside interests. Other findings were: 1. Holders of these offices gain such psychological rewards as being known to (and respected by) most members of the union, being respected by foremen, having the recognition of top management through contact, and a "feeling of power." Material rewards ranged from a small monthly payment for part-time officers to a salary, use of car, and a private office for some full- time officers. 2. Leaders tended to be of the same age as the workers they represented, but to be somewhat above average both in educational attainments and in vocational skill. 3. However, they happened to emerge as leaders, there was "something" that made them promising for union office: their natural leadership potential, their experience or family background, their dissatisfaction with working conditions. 55 Whether he emerges as an elected leader though depends upon such factors as his interest in the union, his hopes for advancement, his reaction to conditions in the plant and to his treatment by supervisors, the performance of the incumbent union officers, and the needs of the union's power group for a representative from his department or ethnic group to complete a ticket that might win an election. "While motivational factors and such personal qualifications as aggressiveness, tact and intelligence determine potential leadership, actual emergence as a leader depends upon the political opportunity available in one's department or in the local as a whole."76 Compared with the rank-and-file, local officers showed a closer attachment to their union and had a higher estimate of its achievements. Also, officers tended to View the local as functioning over a broader area, i.e. . . . social, community, political arenas, than the rank-and-file, who conceived the union as an agency dealing strictly with problems growing out of employment. 76Ibid., p. 176. 56 Strauss and Sayles77 completed a five-year study of twenty locals representing six building trades and white-collar unions, using participant observation and informal interviewing. Their chapter on "The Local-wide Leader" can best be summarized by means of an outline. The writers found the following as being common to the local leaders: 1. Personality characteristics. A. High activity level. Necessary due to the exhausting amount of time Spent on routine union matters and in negotiations. B. Nervous tension. C. Idealism and discontent. They are anxious to change things and build a better world and feel that their lives offer insufficient opportunity for themselves and "their kind." Relationship to job. Most were found to have the reputation as hard, dependable workers. In this regard, Strauss and Sayles point out in another study that "The most active union members are elected officers. Essentially discontented and anxious to get ahead, they often turn to their unions when their drives are frustrated. Many 77George Strauss and Leonard R. Sayles, The Local Union (New York: Harcourt, Brace and WOrld, Inc., 1 pp. 56-750 57 may be excellent workers, and management fre- quently finds that leadership in the union may provide a clue to supervisory ability."78 Most officers saw the acceptance of promotions into management positions as "selling-out." The social pressure and unions' code of ethics pro- vided a deterrent to joining management. 3. Satisfactions from leadership. A. Achievement. The union leader finds in his activity a challenge, a chance to be creative, which he misses on his job. Handling grievances, negotiating a contract, marshal- ing political support and handling diverse groups are all seen as high order skills. B. Means for expressing aggressions. The union provides a vehicle for "blowing off steam" perhaps caused by his perception of "manage- ment trying to take advantage of the workers." C. Intellectual outlet. Gives the leader a chance to use his imagination and intelligence in a manner not required by his plant job. Union leadership offers workers a chance to fulfill the human desire to be a "big shot," to be independent. 8George Strauss and Leonard R. Sayles, Personnel: The Human Problems of Management (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960), piv90. 58 D. Relief from monotony. Administering daily union activities such as grievance-redressing provides an opportunity to leave a boring job routine. E. Prestige. Though financial advantages are limited, union leadership provides an oppor- tunity to gain higher status or prestige in the eyes of one's fellow workers and of management. F. Social outlets. The purview of ambivalence expressed by local officers can perhaps be summed up as follows: Of course all these men frequently complain about how much they are overworked, [underpaid], how they would like to have spare time for themselves, how they are taken advantage of by the rank-and— file, and how they are not appreciated. But when they have a chance to get time off they don't take it, [and most seek re—election].79 4. Relations with the community. A. Participation in community activities. Most are active participants due in part to their desire to present a favorable image of the union. In a summary statement, the writers categorized the union local leader as one having driving energy, being dissatisfied with the status quo, getting 79Strauss and Sayles, The Local Union, p. 70. 59 satisfaction from tackling his environment and trying his best to mold it to his liking, getting into trouble with his family for spending too much time at "work," being a "joiner" and being anxious to get ahead in the world. Duties of the Faculty Union President The faculty union president, like his counterpart in the industrial sector, is charged with the responsi— bility of administering the terms of a collectively bar- gained contract on behalf of the local union's membership. Prior to discussing the president's duties, it would be helpful to know what a union's responsibilities include. The Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Collective Bargaining at Michigan State states that, . . . since the bargaining agent (union) bargains for all members of the bargaining unit ("exclusivity"), it must provide the same services to everyone in the unit. This includes protecting the rights of employees, grievance assistance, representation before an employer if requested, sometimes legal counsel with respect to what an employee may do or not do in specific situations, seeing to it that the contract is enforced in all its provisions, ascertaining the desires of the employees for the next round of bargaining, and the like. . . . It will have the power to negotiate on any subject not forbidden by law, which does not necessarily mean that the union and management will reach agreement. . . . It presumably will have the power to have its representatives at places of work. For its members, its powers and duties are spelled out in its constitution.80 80MSU Ad Hoc Committee on Collective Bargaining, 60 Strauss and Sayles see the (industrial) union as having a two-fold purpose: (1) To provide workers with an opportunity to par- ticipate in determining the conditions under which they work, and (2) To afford workers an effective channel whereby they can protest conditions they feel are unfair.81 Specifying presidential duties is made difficult by the fact brought out by Gabarino82 and Wollett83 that the three national and state unions give a high degree of (administrative) autonomy to their local units. Understandably, duties then have a tendency to reflect the conditions perceived by each local. One slight exception to this principle of autonomy is practiced by the AFT which issues a guideline model constitution for locals. In general terms, the document states, The President shall preside at all meetings of the Federation local and of the Executive committee. He shall be ex—officio member of all committees, except the Audit committee, shall sign all neces- sary papers and documents, and represent the local when and where necessary. He shall make a report 81Strauss and Sayles, The Local Union, p. 2. 82Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining," p. 17. 83Donald H. Wollett, "Issues at Stake," in Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, ed. by Robert S. F15 and E. D. Duryea (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973), p. 38. 61 to the membership at least once each year summariz- ing the accomplishments of the Federation local and outlining plans for the next year.34 Generally speaking, it can be said that the president's duties fall into five broad categories: (1) Supervise work of officers; (2) Plan work of executive board; (3) Appoint and serve on committees; (4) Chair membership meetings; (5) Serve as spokesman for the faculty group in dealing with nonfaculty personnel.85 Because the president is broadly charged with carrying out the terms of a local's contract, it is well to note that the substance of each contract depends largely upon the perceived needs of the individual local (as well as upon the perceived needs of the Administration). According to Mortimer and Lozier, collective bargaining contracts place in written legal form a great deal of the substance and procedure of faculty-administrative relations heretofore either traditionally or specifically 84A.F.T. (AFL-CIO), "A Model Constitution for Locals of the American Federation of Teachers," [Washing- ton, D.C.J, 1966. (Mimeographed.) 85Several constitutions of locals representing the MEA, MFT, or AAUP in the state of Michigan were examined. 62 delegated.86 Bloustein states the nature of the faculty role has changed from one defined by status and custom to one defined by consent and contract.87 With much variation, the provisions of a contract can include such items as salaries, fringe benefits, and working con- ditions; personnel policies including grievance pro- cedures; management-rights clauses; provisions for faculty participation in governance; and provisions for the resolution of a contractual impasse.88 In some cases master contracts are negotiated, the provisions of which are binding on all campuses within a multi- institutional setting. The most notable examples are SUNY and CUNY in New York. In these situations not only are the faculty unions of each member campus represented by one negotiation team, but also the Administration of each member campus is represented by one negotiating team. In essence, then, local union and administrative leaders are relegated to implementing a contract about 86Kenneth P. Mortimer and G. Gregory Lozier, "Contracts of Four—Year Institutions," in Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, ed. by Robert S. FisE and E. D. Duryea (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973), p. 109. 87Edward Bloustein, "Unionization in Academe," New York Times, February 2, 1973, p. 31. 88Several contracts of locals representing the three major teacher organizations and several "indepen- dent" locals were examined. Contracts were from the states of New York, Michigan, and Illinois and included two-year and four-year public and private institutions. 63 which they had an advisory role in formulating. The difficulties in carrying out the terms of a contract of this nature can be easily ascertained. They include dis- putes over how contract wording will apply to a given local's problem. If the president is given the responsibility of being chief negotiator for his local, he is entrusted with the responsibility of translating the local's demands into contractual form. The magnitude of this responsi- bility would seem to dictate that the president be a convincing person not inclined to alienate the Adminis- tration's negotiators. Shoup comments on the success- failure of collective bargaining situations in selected community colleges in Michigan: The adversary nature of collective bargaining tended to have a polarizing effect on the faculty- administrative relationship. Whether or not the relationship became antagonistic appeared to depend on the personalities involved (faculty and administrative negotiators and the college presidents) in the particular college.89 This review of the literature would suggest that much variation exists between faculty union locals, and in the substance of their contracts. Allowing for this diversity, it would seem that much variation would also occur in the administration of these contracts by the presidents of the locals. The researcher will attempt 89Charles A. Shoup, "A Study of Faculty Collective Bargaining in Michigan Community Colleges" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969), p. 75. 64 to provide an exploratory look at the administration of the faculty union contract by examining the president's functions. RELATED RESEARCH Three studies will be cited which relate to the faculty union president. Unfortunately, neither of the three examined the higher education arena, rather, restricting their dimensions to the secondary or ele- mentary school systems. The balance of the studies cited, while not offering any conclusions about the faculty union president in higher education, did examine attitudes of higher education faculty members toward collective bargaining and hence, would indirectly fall under the purview of the faculty union president. wurster (1970) completed an attitude study com- paring school board presidents, superintendents, local teacher association presidents, and teachers regarding the need for and establishment of state enabling legis- lation for collective negotiations in New Mexico. School board presidents, superintendents, and teachers, teacher association presidents were polarized into two groups relative to attitudes expressed on the issues of teacher tenure and strikes by public school teachers as well as on the legislative mandated provisions of formal recog- nition and bilateral determination of educational policy. 65 In both cases the former group expressed negative feelings whereas the latter group expressed positive attitudes. Each of the four taken individually showed significant differences in attitudes among its members relative to the above questions. The joint effects of group member- ship and size classification (small, medium, and large school districts) had no significant effect on the atti- tudes of the four groups on the two questions.90 Napolitano (1969) attempted to measure by means of an attitude inventory the attitudes of 175 school board presidents and its teacher organization presidents in the United States regarding negotiation topics, negotiation procedures, and the unit of representation in negotiations. In each case, the school districts had agreements to negotiate though no contracts were finalized. Points of agreement between board presidents and organization presidents were that salary and fringe benefits should be negotiation topics, that conducting private negotiation meetings was an excellent procedure, and that negotiation units regarding professional personnel and acceptance by school boards of teacher representatives were excellent conditions. Attitude 90Stanley R. Wurster, "An Investigation of the Attitudes of School Board Presidents, Superintendents, Teacher Association Presidents, and Teachers Regarding Collective Negotiations Provisions in New Mexico" (unpub- lished Ed.D. dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1970, Dissertation Abstracts, XXX [1971], 3189A). 66 agreement between the two groups was indicated which regarded distinctively different negotiation units for secondary and elementary teachers as poor. Areas of dis- agreement centered on nine of the eleven negotiation topics, and on the suitability of striking, picketing, and taking holidays as negotiation procedures. Higher values were assigned to collective negotiations, in general, by presidents in small school districts and in school districts whose agreement was affiliated with the AFT. The mean responses by the organization presidents indicated that they were generally more supportive than school board presidents regarding negotiation tOpics, the effectiveness of the various procedures, and the conditions of the units of representation. In addition, it was concluded that while the reSponses of both the NEA and AFT presidents were quite similar, the AFT presidents viewed the subject matter in the study more favorably.91 Palmer (1972) attempted to develop a model col- 1ective bargaining statue for the state of Iowa based upon an examination of present states' statutes, as well as upon the findings of a questionnaire survey of teacher 91Helene S. Napolitano, "Attitudes of School Board Presidents and Teacher Organization Presidents Toward Collective Negotiations in Public Education in the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ford- ham University, 1969, Dissertation Abstracts, XXX [1970], 5204A). 67 association presidents and superintendents in seventy- five Iowa districts. Regarding the desirability of the prOposed statute, he concluded there were virtually no differences of opinion. As for the content, he found there were highly significant differences of opinion especially regarding unit composition and strikes. Palmer also found that the differences of Opinion were seldom found to be associated with personal characteristics, and those differences found did not form a consistent pattern from which conclusions could be drawn.92 McInnis (1972) studied the relationship between faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining in higher education and: faculty liberal-conservatism measured on social and economic issues; faculty perception Of authority shared by academic departments and central admission; selected faculty characteristics--age, rank, sex, tenure status, faculty salary perception, and faculty organizational membership. His findings were based upon questionnaires returned by 40 per cent of the faculty members at Florida State University. His conclusions were: when compared to the rest of the sample, faculty members who tended to favor collective 92Kenneth Francis Palmer, "Collective Bargaining and Iowa Educators: A Framework for a Model Collective Bargaining Statute Reflecting Current Opinions of Adver- saries" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State Uni- versity, 1972, Dissertation Abstracts, XXXIII [1973], 5447A). 68 bargaining were found to be younger, more liberal, more likely to view their salary as low, more likely to feel their department had little autonomy, and more likely to have joined an organization involved in collective bargaining. The three remaining characteristics of tenure status, age, and sex were not found to be sig- nificant effects.93 Summary of Chapter II A review of the literature and related research would indicate a growing body of knowledge relative to such topics as the legal background of faculty collective bargaining in higher education, the reasons for faculties' ,organizing and their attitudes relative to collective bargaining as well as the concomitant demographic and nondemographic characteristics of these faculty members. No studies were found which focused attention on the faculty union president in higher education. Several articles cited examined attitudes of faculty union presidents--but these were restricted to attitudes about the establishment or content of contracts or enabling legislation, and to the presidents in secondary and elementary school systems. 93Malcolm C. McInnis, "Demographic and Non—demo- graphic Variables Associated with the Florida State Uni- versity Faculty Members' Attitudes toward Collective Bargaining in Higher Education" (unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, Florida State University, 1972, Dissertation Abstracts, XXXIII [1973], 3326A). 69 Chapter III consists of an outline of the methodology to be employed in ascertaining the presi- dents' functions. In addition, problems related to the carrying out of the study will be discussed. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this chapter is to present infor- mation relative to the development of the study from its point of inception to the point at which the findings will be analyzed. Four facets examined were: the popu— lation, the instrument, the administrative procedures used in carrying out the study, and steps used in analyz- ing the data. Population The population consisted of the faculty union presidents from each of the 286 institutions listed in the April 30, 1973, edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education.94 (See Appendix A.) This list theoretically included all of the institutions possessing faculty unions as well as their level (two—year or four-year) and affiliation (NEA, AFT, AAUP, Independent) at a given point in time. 94"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. The writer found that an error may be in ev1dence in that 300 institutions may have been recorded rather than the 286 mentioned. 70 71 Presidents of faculty associations, senates, or other faculty groups were not represented in this study because of the difficulty in identifying such groups as well as because of the philOSOphical differences between faculty unions and these aforementioned faculty governance structures. In short, an effort was made to have a clearly definable population as well as to minimize bias. A census was used rather than a sampling routine for several reasons. First, the exploratory nature of the study implies that no prior studies have been com- pleted of this type on this group of subjects. In addition, the population was easily identifiable and was of manageable size. For these reasons it was felt that the disadvantages usually attributable to census studies such as costliness, impracticality relative to number of subjects, and the resultant control problems did not apply to this study. Mouly states that greater precision can be obtained by increasing sample size.95 This reasoning suggests that maximum precision could be expected if the sample used is a given definable, man— ageable population. 95Mouly, Science of Educational Research, p. 167. 72 Instrument Design: Type of Instrument A mailed questionnaire was used. Several of its advantages are: are: 1) It permits wide coverage for a minimum expense both in money and effort. It affords not only wider geographic coverage than any other technique, but it also reaches persons who are difficult to contact. This greater coverage permits increased validity by means of promoting the selection of a larger and more representative sample. 2) When it allows for respondents' anonymity it may elicit more candid and objective replies. 3) It permits considered answers insofar as a respondent can deliberate. 4) It allows uniformity in the manner in which questions are posed hence, it ensures ease in computation and allows for greater com— parability of answers.96 Several disadvantages of the mailed questionnaire 1. The problem of nonrespondents introduces the possibility of bias "because nonrespondents can hardly be considered representative of the total population."97 Oppenheim makes the point that persons sending late returns are similar to nonrespondents and so introduce a study bias.98 2. The possibility exists of respondents' misin- terpretation of the questions resulting in 97 96Ibid., p. 240. Ibid., p. 241. 98Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design, p. 34. Design: 73 data which would be invalid unbeknownst to either the respondent or the researcher.99 Respondents' attitudes toward the subject or researcher could effect the validity of the data. Topics of an unimportant nature to the respondent could be treated in a casual, detached fashion with a possibility of random answers being elicited.100 Because establishing rapport with the respondent is unlikely eSpecially if the cover letter pro- vides the sole means of introduction, questions of a sensitive nature cannot be expected to elicit valid results.101 This suggests that a limitation be placed on the types of questions to be asked to assure optimum study validity. Form The questionnaire used in this study (see Appen- dix C) is a six-page document consisting of fifty-seven items. Of the fifty-seven items, five elicit open-ended responses of an identification rather than opinion nature. The balance of the items are of the multiple-choice closed-ended type. The primary advantage in using 100 99Mouly, Science of Educational Research, p. 242. 101 Ibid., p. 241. Ibid. 74 closed—ended questions is that items are easier and quicker to answer, helps keep the respondent's mind on the subject, and facilitates the processes of tabulation and analysis. Disadvantages are the loss of respondents' spontaneity, failure to reveal the respondents' motives, possible failure to discriminate between fine shades of meaning, and, possibly, the introduction of bias by restricting his responses to the alternatives given in the instrument.102 An attempt is made to reduce this form Of bias in most questions by the introduction of "Other" followed by a line onto which the respondent may write a short answer. Multiple—choice items involving numerical data were stated as class intervals in some cases. The primary advantage in using this method is the expediency expressed in the previous paragraph. Concern can be expressed over the possible loss of information which results. In refuting this concern Oppenheim states, "The question is not how we can avoid loss of information, but rather at what point we can best afford to lose information."103 Anonymity of respondents is assured through the use of institutional identification numbers on each questionnaire. Names of the presidents were solicited 102Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design, p. 45. l°3Ibid. 75 simply for the purposes of disseminating the results of the study. Assurance was given in the cover letter that all questionnaires would be destroyed immediately upon the completion of the study. The primary advantage of anonymity is that it encourages candid responses and, in some cases, encourages a person to return the question- naire who might otherwise be inclined not to respond. Borg states that "in deciding whether identification is to be asked for, factors to be considered are the importance of identification in the analysis of the results, . . . the degree to which questions involve answers that the respondent might be reluctant to give if he is identified, the probable effect of anonymity on the number of returns, and the procedures that can be used in the analysis Of the results."104 Borg stresses the importance of the cover letter used with a mailed questionnaire by asserting "it is the most important single factor in determining the percentage of responses."105 Recommended items in a cover letter are: stating the purposes of the study, stating the importance of the study and the advantages accrued in 104Borg, Educational Research, p. 203. losIbid., p. 204. 76 completing the questionnaire, and giving a deadline date.106 The cover letter used in this study (see Appendix B) follows closely the form recommended by Borg. Design: Content and Con- struction The content and structure of the instrument were initially developed in March, 1973, by means of interviews held with union officials of the state of Michigan Chapters of the N.E.A. (National Education Association), A.F.T. (American Federation of Teachers), A.A.U.P. (American Association of University Professors), from conver- sations held with local chapter officials, and by virtue of the researcher's personal experiences. Upon completion of the original instrument, a dittoed copy was given in April, 1973, to each of the state officials above who were asked to critique the questionnaire. It must first be recognized that, though the whole instrument is oriented toward the whole problem, the questionnaire is comprised of specific and relatively independent questions, each dealing with a specific aspect of the overall situation. In a sense then it is the validity of the items rather than that of the total instrument that is under consideration. 1°61bid., p. 205. 107Mouly, Science of Educational Research, p. 252. 77 Decisions were made on such factors as face validity, i.e. . . . how each question relates to the topic being studied, whether each topic is adequately covered, and whether the questions are clear and unambiguous. Decisions were also made on question design, question- naire length and completion time, embarrassing questions, leading questions, prestige biases, appearance of the instrument, and on the cover letter. An attempt was made to follow the recommendations of Oppenheim regard- 08 ing questionnaire design and wording.l Upon making revisions, a pilot study was completed. Design: Pilot Study The sample used in the pilot study consisted of three former faculty union presidents, one current faculty union president, a faculty union organizer, three current secondary/elementary school faculty union presidents, one professor in the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University and an employee of the university who recently completed a dissertation on the collective bargaining arena in higher education. Revised dittoed copies were sent to the sample subjects in early May, 1973. The purpose of the pilot group was that of performing the same function as the 108Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design, pp. 49-104. 78 first group of critics. Borg's recommended format for pretesting a questionnaire was used.109 Upon examining each of the questionnaires and making recommended revisions, plans were made to print the questionnaire to be used in the study. Administrative Procedures Production Costs A printing company in the local community was retained to produce 500 photo-reduced questionnaires from seven 8 1/2" by 11" elite—typed pages. The cost was $33.12. Production time was three days. Delivery date was May 21, 1973. The same company photo-copied 200 follow-up letters at a cost of $4.00. Delivery date was June 27, 1973. A rubber stamp which read: "After 15 days PLEASE RETURN TO: Francis A. Bernier, B101 Emmons, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., 48823," was pur- chased on May 27 at a cost of $7.44. Mailing Costs Stamps: Air Mail and regular postage costs were $90.00 for original and follow-up mailings. 109Borg, Educational Research, pp. 203—04. 79 Envelope costs were $8.00 for one box of 500 white business return envelopes, and $12.00 for one box of 500 6 1/2" by 9 1/2" lightweight manila envelopes. Both the original and two follow-up mailings weighed less than one ounce per letter. Each letter included an outside manila envelope, a questionnaire, and a stamped, self—addressed return envelope. Mailing Procedure Identification of those institutions possessing faculty collective bargaining units was made, as pre- viously noted, by reference to The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4/30/73. Addresses for these single and multi—institutional colleges and universities were obtained through library references.llo Addresses were types onto self—gummed labels and attached to the manila envelopes. Each label had the name, street, city, and state of the institution and the following heading: "President of Faculty Bargaining Unit." 110The College Blue Book——14th Edition U.S. Colleges: Narrative Descriptions (New York: C.C.M. Information Corp., 1972); Clarence Earle Lovejoy, Love— joy's College Guide (11th ed.; New York: Simon an Schuster, 1970); Accredited Institutions of Higher Edu— cation, 1971—72 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971); Gene R. Hawes and Peter N. Novalis, The New American Guide to Colleges (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972). 80 Next, each questionnaire received a pre-designated institutional identification number and was placed in the corresponding manila envelope, along with a stamped self- addressed business envelope. A discrepancy occurred in the number of insti- tutions engaged in faculty collective bargaining pre— sented by the Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 1973, and in the number discovered by the researcher when consulting supplementary resources. The following table of corrections, involving systems only, was devised upon consulting previously cited library 111 resources. In addition, no addresses could be found for the following institutions: (1) Gateway Technical Institute (Wisc.); (2) Indian Head Technical Institute (Wisc.); (3) Mid-State Technical Institute (Wisc.). Eastern washington State College was added to the list of institutions having faculty collective bar— . . 112 gaining. lllIbid. 112Jacqueline Brophy, "Professionals Show New Interest in Collective Bargaining," Michigan State Uni— versity School of Labor and Industrial Relations News- letter, XI, NO. 1 (1972), 4. 81 TABLE 2.--Changes made from information previously fur- nished by the Chronicle of Higher Education—~April 30, 1973 Chronicle of Library System Hig er References Difference Education Institutions Institutions Hawaii 8 7 +1 Chicago City Colleges 7 8 -1 Maine Voc. Tech. Insts. 6 5 +1 Minnesota St. J.C. System 18 17 +1 New Jersey St. College System 6 7 -1 City Univ. of New York 19 20 —1 State Univ. of New York 26 31 —5 Penn. State Coll./ Univ. System 14 22 —8 Comm. College Alle— gheny County (PA.) 1 3 -2 TOTAL DIFFERENCE -15 82 To summarize, the Chronicle, though it indicated a total of 286 institutions, appears to have listed 300 upon recount by this researcher. Fifteen additional institutions were put on the mailing list as a result of the discrepancies shown in the listing of the number of schools within certain systems. One school was added on the strength of information received from the source listed in the previous paragraph. Finally, addresses could not be found for three institutions. Consequently, 313 questionnaires were mailed. Usable Questionnaires Table 3 specifies the number of responses obtained from the questionnaires mailed. A letter received from one of the institutions in The Pennsylvania State University College and Uni- versity Branch System appeared to confirm that faculty bargaining units are not recognized by that system. It reads: "An organization known as the PSU BRANCH has petitioned the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board for an election, and it wishes to represent all the branch campuses in the system. To my knowledge, this has not yet been granted."113 ll3Anonymous, Letter addressed to Francis A. Bernier, June 7, 1973. 83 TABLE 3.--Summary of mailed questionnaires: number sent, returned, and unused—-August, 1973 Number Number State Sent Returned Unusued Colorado 2 2 0 Delaware 1 1 0 Washington, D.C. 1 l 0 Florida 1 l 0 Hawaii 7 4 0 Illinois 21 12 2 Iowa 1 l 0 Kansas 8 5 0 Maine 5 3 0 Maryland 1 l 0 Massachusetts 12 9 0 Michigan 32 20 1 Montana 1 l 0 Nebraska 4 2 0 New Jersey 24 19 0 Minnesota 17 8 0 New York 91 55 5 Ohio 2 l 0 Oregon 1 0 0 Pennsylvania 37a 14b 22a Rhode Island 5 4 0 washington 24 15 2 Wisconsin 15 10 0 Total 313 189 32 aBoth figures include the twenty-two institutions of The Pennsylvania State College and University Branch System which were found to not have recognized faculty bargaining units. Six of the branches returned questionnaires. bIncludes the six questionnaires returned by the PSU Branch System. All were deemed unusable for the reason given in a above. 84 In addition to the PSU Branch System, several other institutions returned questionnaires which were not included in this study. Six institutions simply responded that they did not possess a faculty bargaining unit. In each case the blank questionnaire was returned unsigned. A representative from a private college in New York state replied that the school did not wish to par- ticipate in the study. The letter originated from the Office of the President of the institution. An Executive Vice-President from a Michigan com— munity college replied that that institution no longer had a bargaining unit and that the former union president had left the campus permanently. The president of the faculty unit at a vocational technical institute in Washington wrote a letter in which he explained, " . . . although I am president of our local AFT unit, the WEA (NEA) is the official bargaining agent." The letter was too belated to allow the researcher the opportunity of obtaining a response from the WEA chapter president. An unsigned note sent in an envelope postmarked "Chicago—-July 2," simply stated, "We have no such pro- gram." The researcher was unable to determine the insti— tution from which the note originated. In an attempt to maximize the number of question— naires returned, the researcher mailed follow-up letters 85 and questionnaires to nonrespondents on June 28 (see Appendix D), and on July 24 (see Appendix E). To summarize, of the 313 questionnaires mailed, some form of reply was received from 189 institutions (60.38%). The following adjustments were made in these figures: (1) 313-—Tota1 Number of Questionnaires Mailed —32--Tota1 Number of Institutions Eliminated from 281' Study (see Table 3) (2) 189~-Total Number of Responses -l6—-Tota1 Number of Responses Deemed Invalid 173 l (11 281) Of For the purposes of this study, 61.53 per cent the questionnaires were used. Nonrespondents The question of what constitutes a sufficient return rate for mailed questionnaires is treated by various writers. Mouly is of the opinion that a 65 per cent return is sufficient for "reputable" studies.ll4 Borg feels that while a minimal percentage of expected returns is difficult to establish, "if more than 20 per cent of the questionnaires are not returned it is advisable to check a portion of the nonresponding group."lls 114Mouly, Science of Educational Research, p. 255. llsBorg, Educational Research, p. 210. 86 The effect nonrespondents have upon the data collected has been researched. Rummel feels that "to ignore the nonresponse group may result in a sample that has a bias of unknown magnitude." He goes on to say, however, "that by being able to identify each questionnaire returned, the researcher will be able to describe accurately the sample obtained and to limit his conclusions to the type of population represented "116 Traversll7 and Borg118 have found by such a sample. that personality characteristics of respondents and non- respondents are not significantly different, but, on the intelligence and education dimensions, it was found that respondents are both "more intelligent" and have achieved a greater amount of academic success than non- respondents. Oppenheim found that persons returning late questionnaires are roughly similar to nonrespon— 119 dents. Finally, Travers says simply that there are 116J. Francis Rummel, An Introduction to Research Procedures in Education (2nd ed.; New Yofk: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964), p. 160. 117Robert M. W. Travers, An Introduction to Edu- cational Research (2nd ed.; New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964), p. 160. 118Borg, Educational Research, p. 210. 119Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design, p. 34. 87 those who have a tendency to return surveys while there are those who will not.120 The researcher contacted several nonrespondents via telephone after sending the first follow-up, to attempt to determine reasons for the inaction and non— response. The primary reasons given were an extremely tedious work schedule or a failure to receive the instru- ment. A cursory examination of returns mailed by early and late respondents showed no major differences relative to the answers given. The concern over whether or not the nonrespondents constitute a sample which is appreciably different from the respondent sample is somewhat allayed by the fact that the population consists of people who, it can gen- erally be said, are intelligent and have experienced academic success. In this respect, the group approaches homogeneity. No attempt was made to assess specific individual differences. Nonrespondent differences attributable to geographic location cannot be held to be valid in this study because the states possessing faculty bargaining units represent wide geographic dis- persion, and the geographic diversity of questionnaires returned assures the representation of each of these states in the study. 0Travers, Introduction to Educational Research, 88 Several factors external to the sample studied can be said to affect the rate of return of mailed questionnaires. Among these are the time of year they are mailed-—summer vacations and holidays create absen- teeism; how they are addressed——if specific names are not given, letters can be misplaced or not forwarded; and delayed mailing dates--respondents may react negatively to the pressure to return the questionnaire immediately. Analysis of the Data Data used in this study are elicited from closed- ended questions primarily. In some instances "other" was offered as an alternative. Five questions required fill-in responses but these were used for purposes of identification only. Data processing was used in preparing the data for analysis. Numerical symbols were assigned to the various answer categories and compiled onto Fortran Coding Sheets by the researcher. Information from the coding sheets was transferred onto data punch cards. Each questionnaire was represented by three punch cards having 230 total items of information. This form of quantifying data was selected to allow for further analysis at a future point in time. In the case of those items requiring written-in responses, classifi- cation schemes were used so as to reduce information loss. 89 In presenting the findings, response frequencies and percentages are indicated for the alternative choices in each question. This technique presents an overall examination of the data and differs from the one-dimensional table only in form rather than substance. It is used in this study in an attempt to present the findings in a more concise manner so as to allow for the ready identification and comparison of the alternative answers for a given question(s). Comparisons between selected variables were presented on two—dimensional contingency tables. Statistical treatment consists of employing frequencies, percentages, proportions, and contingency coefficients (C). Chapter IV is an outline and explanation of the data, systematically presented by means of indicating response frequencies and percentages for the alternative choices in each question and by means of contingency tables. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA The purpose of Chapter IV is to present the data derived from the respondents' questionnaires in such a way as to provide the reader a systematic description of the functions of the faculty union president. To achieve the above goal, the researcher will attempt to parallel the structure of the instrument used in collecting the data (see Appendix C). The instrument contains ten sections, each describing a different facet of the president's functions. In attempting to present the data in a manner which would parallel the afore— mentioned instrument, the researcher has constructed the following outline which is similar for each of the ten sections in Chapter IV—-a statement of each question, its answer options, and response frequencies and per- centages. These data are followed in each of the ten sections by a series of two—dimensional contingency tables describing selected variables contained in this study's instrument. Explanations are given in an attempt to elucidate the data results. Summary statements are made at the conclusion of each section. 90 Questi N T l U1 1 Questi N T 16 91 1. Institutional Data on l.lA Institutional type: (check one) 173 (N represents total number of responses) 100% (T represents total percentage) 7 (90.7%) Public; 15 (8.7%) Private; (0.6%) [No answer] on 1.1B Institutional type: (check one) 173 100% (9.3%) Technical Institute 97 (56.1%) Two—year Community-junior College 40 (23.1%) College 20 (11.5%) University The findings in l.lB are proportional to the information furnished by the Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation the in are li colleg Questi O 55 , April 30, 1973, in which approximately .60 of stitutions engaged in faculty collective bargaining sted as being from the two-year community-junior e sector. on 1.2 If you are a part of a multi-institutional system, which type of system is your insti- tution associated with? (check one) = 173 = 100% (0%) Federal (31.8%) State-wide System of Colleges/Universities KO (5.2%) City—wide System of Colleges/Universities 92 3 (1.7%) K—l4 District System 85 (49.1%) We are not associated with a system of institutions 2 (1.2%) [No answer] "Other" N = 19 1E "State-wide vocational system" 1 "Special district established by voters" ID "County—wide system" [M “Long Island University—~2 Colleges" Question 1.3 Enrollment (check one) N = 173 T = 100% 6 (3.5%) 1-500; 29 (16.8%) 501—1000; 81 (46.7%) 1001-5000; 33 (19.1%) 5,001—10,000; 13 (7.5%) 10,001-20,000; 10 (5.8%) 20,001-or more; 1 (.6%) No answer This question asks for student enrollment at a given institution. Tables for Section 1 The following tables are intended to describe the relationships between selected variables (Questions/ Responses) contained in the Survey Instrument. Emphasis will be placed on Questions/Responses contained in Section 1. 93 The evidence in Table 4 suggests that while community-junior colleges and a vast majority of tech- nical schools are publicly operated, four—year colleges and universities are more evenly distributed between public and private. The larger number of colleges and universities in private settings engaged in faculty collective bargaining may, in part, be explained by the recent emphasis placed by organized unions on the recruit- ment of units in four-year, private institutions. TABLE 4.--Comparison between institutional types: (Questions l.lA and 1.1B) l.lA l.lB Anéggr] Public Private Total Percentage Technical 1 15 0 16 9.2 2—year C-JC 0 97 0 97 56.1 College 0 31 9 40 23.1 University 0 l4 6 20 11.6 Total 1 157 15 173 Percentage .6 90.7 8.7 100 The data in Table 5 suggest that faculty unions predominate in institutions with student populations of between 501—10,000, with approximately one-half emanating from institutions of between 1001-5000 students. .Hmmumfi Bm¢1¢mz wfiu ADNB meMNoommm Do: mum maxuow 302v mmHquomm mmwaaou muficdfifiou UmDMHOOmmflm wfidc HMGOHDMNHsmmMO on“ mH AmuwgommB pmuflca mnmum xuow BmZV .B.D.m.m.z .muomnusoo Hmumwfi mcflmmmmmom mEmDmmm HMQOHDSDHDmGHIHuHSE oBu mum Axuow 302 Mo muflmum>ficb mpfluv wZDU paw Axuow 302 Mo muflmum>flcb mumwmv MZDmm mNm. n o OOH N.m m.s H.NH N.mv m.mH m.m m. mmmncmoumm msH oH NH mm Hm NN m H Hmuoe 4 9 N.m mm o o m m H o o lamznsmao Bamwz o.s mm q H H N o o o Ammznemflm mama stoflumNflammuo on“ ma Amumsomwe pmuflca mumum Muow 302v .B.D.m.w.z .muomuucoo HmummE mcflmmmmwom mfiopmhm HMGOHDSDHDmGNIHpHDE OED mum ”MMON 3oz mo hpflmuo>HcD hpflov .w.z.D.o paw Axnom Bmz mo huflmuw>HSD oumumv .M.Z.D.mm HNO. u o OOH O.HH H.mN H.OO N.N ammucmoumm mNH ON OO Om OH Hmuoe N.O mm O H O H Aflcb mmmaaoo olo .u% N HmOHGQUmB N.N mH.H AN.N coaummdoo GONG: huasomm Hmooa mo Goaumflaflmmm paw AmH.H COHDmGDOV dawn Andeansuflumcfl cmm3umb GOmHHmmEooll.m mqmde 97 TABLE 7.—-Comparison between types of systems (Question 1.2) and the existence of master contracts (Question 2.3) 2.3 1.2 Not No . Per— Answer Yes No Applic- Total centage able No Answer 2 0 0 0 2 1.2 State—wide 0 40 14 1 55 31.8 City-wide 0 9 0 0 9 5.2 K-14 District 0 0 3 0 3 1.7 Not Associated with a System 0 0 l 84 85 49.1 Other 0 4 15 0 19 11.0 Total 2 53 33 85 173 Percentage 1.2 31.2 19.4 48.2 100 C = .833 2. Unit Data Question 2.1 Year your union was recognized as the bar— gaining agent for your local: (check one) N = 174 T = 100% 12 (6.9%) 1966; 17 (9.8%) 1967; 18 (10.4%) 1968; 13 (7.5%) 1969; 15 (8.7%) 1970; 24 (13.9%) 1971; 31 (17.9%) 1972; 37 (21.4%) 1973; 2 (1.2%) Other; 4 (2.3%) [No answer] "Other"—-N = 2 2 "Not yet recognized. Pending litigation." Question 2.1 seems to indicate the tendency for faculty unions to expand in increasing numbers since 1970. 98 Question 2.2 Local's affiliation: (check one or more) N = 173 T = 100% 68 (39.3%) NBA; 38 (21.9%) AFT; 13 (7.5%) AAUP (National); x (State) EA;a x (State) FT;a x (State) AAUP;a 11 (6.4%) Independent (Local); 0 Other;b 20 (11.6%) [S.U.N.Y. (AFT—NEA”;c 8 (4.6%) [C.U.N.Y. (AFT-NEA”;C 9 (5.2%) [N.Y.S.U.T. (AFT—NEA)]7C 6 (3.5%) [A.C.C.F. (Independent)]c aAffiliation with a state organization (union) implies that a faculty unit is also affiliated with the national parent organization (union). bAll respondents representing the units listed under c reported their locals as being in the "Other" category with their respective affiliations noted. Separate categories are listed in the interest of empirical preciseness. CSeparate categories extrapolated from the "Other" category. Again, those institutions recategorized spe— cified their affiliations. No respondents from New York checked only the "Independent (Local)" category which would suggest that a cross—over effect from "Independent (Local)" to "[ACCF (Independent)]" was not present. S.U.N.Y. (State University of New York) and C.U.N.Y. (City University of New York) are two multi- institutional systems possessing master contracts. N.Y.S.U.T. (New York State United Teachers) is the organi- zational name given the state—wide AFT-NEA merger in New York. While it also includes those institutions in the "S.U.N.Y." system, schools labeled "N.Y.S.U.T." for identification purposes only, are those institutions which, while they are associated with the AFT—NEA merger, do not fall under the jurisdiction of a master contract. A.C.C.F. [Associated Community College Faculties (New York)] are not associated with the NEA—AFT merger. 99 Question 2.3 If you are a part of a multi—institutional N T system (see Question 1.2) do you have a joint bargaining contract with the other institutions within your system? 173 100% 53 (30.6%) Yes; 33 (19.1%) No; 2 (1.2%) [No answer]; 85 (49.1%) [Not applicable] Multi-institutional systems possessing master contracts are: (l) (2) (3 v (4) (5 v (6 v (7) (8 v Chicago City Colleges (AFT); Community Colleges of Allegheny County— Pennsylvania (AFT); Hawaii (AFT); Maine Vocational Technical Institutes (NEA); Minnesota State Junior College System (NEA); Nebraska State College System (NEA); New Jersey State College System (AFT); New York—-C.U.N.Y. (AFT-NEA) and New York-- S.U.N.Y. (AFT-NEA) Multi-institutional systems not possessing master contracts, rather, which negotiate contracts on an individual basis are: (l) (2) (3) Long Island University System; Washington State Community College System; Wisconsin Vocational Technical Institutes. 100 In these systems each local may choose a bargaining agent at its membership's discretion. Question 2.4 Does your agent have exclusive bargaining rights? 173 100% *3 II II 167 (96.6%) Yes; 3 (1.7%) No; 3 (1.7%) [No answer] Exclusive bargaining rights gives to the assigned agent the responsibility of representing all the members of a defined unit. Question 2.5 Which security clause does your contract provide? (check one) N T 173 100% l (.6%) "Union Shop"; 19 (10.9%) "Agenty Shop"; 12 (6.9%) "Maintenance of Membership"; 4 (2.4%) Other; 111 (64.2%) The contract does not provide a security clause; 13 (7.5%) [First contract not yet finalized]; 13 (7.5%) [No answer] "Other"--N = 4 1 "Fair Share" 2 "Dues check-off" l "I don't understand the question." A security clause gives assurance to the faculty unit that its number of dues—paying members will remain relatively stable. In the absence of a security clause, 101 members are not obliged to pay membership fees despite being represented. The researcher feels the question may not accurately assess the extent to which security clauses exist. For example, "dues check—off" is a device whereby the administration agrees to withhold a specified portion of each union member's paycheck for payment of union dues. This proviso may exist in the contracts of more than two of the responding institutions. A greater amount of accuracy would perhaps have occurred if "dues check-off" would have been introduced as an alternative on the survey instrument. Question 2.6 Total number of people your local union represents: N = 205,397 183,688 [multi-institutional systems] 21,709 [individual institutions] Question 2.7 How many people in Question 2.6 are dues paying members of the union? N = 101,452 87,746 [multi-institutional systems]; 13,706 [individual institutions] Three respondents indicated their members "don't pay dues . " Questions 2.6 and 2.7 cannot be seriously con- sidered as most institutions in multi—institutional systems reported both figures as being representative 102 of an entire system rather than of a specific institution. Data received from institutions not associated with multi-institutional systems perhaps indicates a more accurate measure of the questions asked. In this 13,706 §I776§ members pay dues. respect, ( X 100) or 63.09 per cent of the union Question 2.8 Local faculty union composition: (check one or more) N = 777 [A] 171 (98.8%)a Faculty (full—time); [B] 60 (34.7%) Faculty (part—time); [C] 8 (4.6%) Faculty (Visiting); [D] 18 (10.4%) Lecturers; [E] 18 (10.4%) Teaching Assistants; [F] 124 (71.7%) Counselors; [G] 142 (82.1%) Librarians; [H] 43 (24.9%) Laboratory Technicians; [I] 58 (33.5%) Nonteaching Professionals (Health Services, Student Personnel, Researchers, etc.); [J] 107 (61.9%) Department Chairmen; aPercentages are calculated by use of the follow- ing equation: X (—7§ . 100) The total sum of the percentages exceeds 100 per cent because of the possible multiplicity of responses from each person and because the researcher hopes to ascertain the percentage of respondents selecting a given alterna— tive. 103 [K] Students——dues paying; [L] 17 (9.8%) Other Administrators; [M] 11 (6.4%) Other "Other Administrators" N = 17 2 "President of College and Deans" 2 "Coordinators" 2 "Deans and Directors" 2 "Deans of Students/Instruction" 2 "Assistant Directors" 2 "Administrators other than Deans" "Other" N = 11 2 "Registrars and Fiscal Officers" 2 "Registrars and Admissions Officers" 2 "Finance Personnel" 2 "Assistant Registrar" 2 "Nonsupervisory Personnel" 2 "Clerical Staff" 2 "A-V Specialists" 2 "Program Director" Question 2.9 Number of contracts local union has negotiated: 173 100% N T 27 (15.6%) one; 16 (9.3%) two; 19 (10.9%) three; 8 (4.6%) four; 33 (19.1%) five or more; 104 16 (9.2%) In process of negotiating our first contract; 53 (30.7%) Local does not negotiate a contract——we are a part of a multi—institutional master contract; 1 (.6%) [No answer] Question 2.10 Duration of present contract: N = 173 T = 100% 45 (26.0%) one year; 56 (32.4%) two years; 41 (23.7%) three or more years; 28 (16.2%) contract not yet ratified; 3 (1.7%) [No answer] Six respondents commented that while their units' contracts extend beyond one year, a proviso for reopening the contract is included. In essence, this suggests that if a condition is considered important enough by both parties to warrant negotiation or renegotiation, that condition can be resolved and included as a part of an already existing formal contract. Tables for Section 2 The following tables are intended to describe the relationships between selected variables (Questions/ responses) contained in the survey instrument. Emphasis will be placed on Questions/Responses contained in Section 2. 105 OOO. u o OOH O.N N.H O.HN O.OH O.OH 0.0 0.0 O.OH 0.0 0.0 mOmucwoan OOH O N Om HO ON OH OH OH OH NH Hence N.O AsmHcD omOHHOU HOOGSb HMOHGSUOB muHGSEEOU H.N dH.H 2H . HO we? HmcoHusuHumcH pom AH.NV UmNHcmoomu wumB mnOHcd Ham» mnu consumn comflummfioolt.HH mqmo no HO 0.0 O N H m o OOIOO 0.0H mN O m O O mmIHm O.NH NN H m 0H N omIOO o.mH ON O O OH m mOIHO O.HN Om m m NN m QOIOm 0.0H OO 0 m ON m mmnHm O.HH ON N H OH o omION 0.0 o o o o o ONIHN H.H N H H o o H03ms¢ oz wmmHHOU mmmucmonmm Hmuoa muflmum>fla3 mmeHou HOOGDO HOUanomE muOGSEEOU N.m mH.H AmH.HV Oahu HMGOHuDuHumaH can AN.mO msoum mmm somzpmn sOwOHmmEOUII.MH mamfia 115 range of departmental titles given plus the fact "academic discipline" (4.2) appeared to roughly coincide "depart- ment" with far less nomenclature. Question 4.2 Academic discipline: N T 173 100% 1 (.6%) [No answer]; 7 (4.1%) [Accounting]; 2 (1.2%) [Agriculture]; 2 (1.2%) [Art]; 3 (1.7%) [Biology]; 6 (3.5%) [Business Educ.]; 10 (5.8%) [Chemistry]; 2 (1.2%) [Counseling]; 3 (1.7%) [Economics]; 2 (1.2%) [Electronics]; 23 (13.2%) [English]; 3 (1.7%) [Gen1. Business]; 2 (1.2%) [Geology]; 13 (7.5%) [History]; 3 (1.7%) [Library Science]; 3 (1.7%) [Management]; 3 (1.7%) [Marketing]; 24 (13.7%) [Math.]; 5 (2.9%) [Philosophy]; 2 (1.2%) [Physical Education]; 5 (2.9%) [Physics]; 8 (4.6%) [Political Science]; 11 (6.4%) [Psychology]; 2 (1.2%) [Social Science]; 7 (4.1%) [Sociology]; 4 (2.3%) [Student Personnel]; 17 (9.8%) [Other] "Other" N = 17 2 [Audio-Visual Spec.]; 2 [Auto—Body Repair]; 2 [Bio—Psychology]; 2 [Communications]; 2 [Data-Processing]; 2 [Drafting]; 2 [Educ. Administration]; 2 [Engineering]; 116 2 [Forestry]; 2 [Geography]; 2_ [Instit. Research]; 2 [Marine Sciences]; 2’ [Mech. Technology]; 2 [Natural Science]; 2’ [Nursing]; 2 [Pharmacology]; 2 [Photography]; The data may suggest that a significant number of presidents have received formal education training in the broad categories of either social or natural science. It would appear a majority of persons from these two categories indicated either "Mathematics" or "English" as academic disciplines. Question 4.3 Are you on tenure? N '1' 173 100% 130 (75.1%) Yes; 42 (24.3%) No; l (.6%) Uncertain Whether a person is on tenure depends on a number of factors. Among them are the presence (or absence) of a state tenure law and the policy at a given institution governing faculty members' probationary status. Question 4.4 How long have you been on tenure? N T 173 100% 12 (6.9%) Less than one year; 31 (17.9%) 1-2 years; 31 (17.9%) 3-4 years; 57 (32.4%) 5 or more years; 1 (.6%) [No answer]; 41 (24.3%) [Not applicable--went to Question 4.5] 117 Question 4.5 Academic rank or equivalent 173 100% N T 32 (18.5%) Professor; 44 (25.4%) Associate Professor; 33 (19.1%) Asst. Professor; 31 (17.9%) Instructor; 2 Lecturer; l (.6%) Other; 29 (16.8%) [No ranking system]a 3 (1.7%) [No answer] "Other" N = 1 ‘2 "Adjunct Professor" Question 4.6 Academic credentials: (check highest degree) 173 100% N T 3 (1.7%) No degree;b 1 (.6%) Associate's; 7 (4.0%) Bachelor's; 111 (64.2%) Master's; 48 (27.7%) Doctorate; 2 (1.2%) Other; 1 (.6%) [No answer] "Other" N = 2 2 "Education Specialist" 1 "A.G.S." aTwenty-five (25) of the twenty-nine respondents indicating that no ranking system existed at their insti- tutions also indicated that all faculty members are con- sidered as being roughly equivalent to the instructor level, though no formal titles are ascribed. bRespondents indicating "no degree" were from a Maine vocational technical institute, a Pennsylvania pri- vate Art school and a Wisconsin vocational technical institute. This would seem to rule out geographic location as a factor in determining minimal degree requirements, but may include the curricular structure of an institution as a factor. 118 Question 4.7 Length of time spent at present institution: N = 173 T = 100% 2 Less than one year; 8 (4.6%) 1-2 years; 29 (16.8%) 3-4 years; 57 (32.9%) 5-6 years; 23 (13.3%) 7-8 years; 54 (31.2%) 9 or more years; 2 (1.2%) [No answer] Tables for Section 4 The following tables are intended to describe the relationships between selected variables (Questions/ Responses) contained in the survey instrument. Emphasis will be placed on Questions/Responses contained in Section 4. Table 14 is primarily intended to serve as a cross-check——verifying that those persons who affirm being on tenure, also have indicated being on tenure for a specified period of time. The high C (contingency coefficient) would indicate a strong row-column depen— dence. In Table 15, the number of people (24) at insti- tutions for five or more years who do not possess tenure may indicate an absence of a state tenure law, an insti- tutional policy prohibiting tenure, or a protracted pro- bationary policy. An apparent advantage of the presidents' possessing tenure may be that it offers a form of protection against being unilaterally terminated for union activities. 119 OHm. H U OOH 0.0N O.NO 0.0H 0.0H 0.0 O. mmmuqmoumm OOH HO Om HO HO NH H Hmpoa O. H o o o o o H cOmuumocD 0.0N NO HO 0 o H o o 02 H.OO omH O OO Hm om NH o mow mmmuswonmm Hmuoe HmHQMOHHmm4 mnoz mummy mummy “mow mao Hum3mc¢ #02“ HO O Olm NIH smog mmmq OZH 0.0 0.0 “O.OO muscmu so mafia mo numcmH paw Hm.Ov muscmp so mH GOOHOQ m Monumnz d®m3uma GOmHummEOUII.OH MHmde 120 TABLE 15.--Comparison between time spent at present insti- tution (4.7) and whether or not a person is on tenure (4.3) 4.3 4.7 Yes No Uncertain Total Percentage [No Answer] 2 0 0 2 1.2 Less than One Year 0 0 0 0 0.0 1-2 Years 0 8 0 8 4.6 3-4 Years 19 10 0 29 16.8 5-6 Years 41 16 O 57 32.9 7—8 Years 19 4 0 23 13.3 9 or More Years 49 4 l 54 31.2 Total 130 42 l 173 Percentage 75.1 24.3 .6 100 .427 121 Summary of Section 4 The data would appear to suggest that a faculty union president tends to possess a master's or doctoral degree either in the natural or social sciences. He usually has been employed at a given institution for three or more years and has been on tenure for at least one year. 5. Related Experiences Question 5.1 Previous positions held in present faculty bargaining unit: (check one or more) Total ReSpondents = 173 Total Responses = 314 13 (7.5%)a Secretary; 2 Business Manager; 43 (24.9%) Vice-President; 11 (6.4%) Treasurer; 12 (6.9%) Chairman of Nominating Committee; 20 (11.6%) Chairman of Executive Committee; 36 (20.8%) Chief Negotiator; 22 (12.7%) Grievance Coordinator; 14 (8.1%) Grievance Representative (Steward); 63 (36.4%) Member of Negotiating Team; aPercentages are calculated by use of the follow- ing equation: (57% . 100) The total sum of the percentages exceeds 100 per cent because of the possible multiplicity of responses from each person and because the researcher hopes to ascertain the percentage of respondents selecting a given alterna- tive. 122 28 (16.2%) None, other than being a concerned Member of the Union 52 (30.1%) Other "Other" N = 52 29 "Past president of local" 22_ "Served on Executive Committee of Local" "Chaired various committees" "Delegate to System-wide Assembly" "Senator" "Founder of Local Chapter" "Editor of Local's Newsletter" H IH N Ira “O In: <3 lm "None--Local is newly chartered" The data may indicate that a wide assortment of positions have been held by the faculty union presidential population in their respective locals. This would appear to indicate that the presidents had been active partici- pants prior to their assuming presidential duties. The number of responses for "vice—president," "chief negotia- tor," and "member of negotiating team" may indicate the respect held for these positions as valuable experiential bases for potential presidential candidates. Question 5.2 Experiences outside the local union: (check one or more) Total Respondents = 173 Total Responses = 190 123 l (.6%)a Arbitrator; 10 (5.8%) College Administrator; 1 (.6%) Mediator; 3 (1.2%) KO12 Administrator; 1 (.6%) Fact-finder; 4 (2.2%) Industrial Union Official; l (.6%) Attorney; 23 (13.3%) Faculty union member at another institution; 13 (7.5%) Faculty Union Organizer; 12 (6.9%) Faculty Union Official at another insti- tution; 9 Civil Ombudsman; 1 (.6%) Campus Ombudsman; 94 (54.3%) No related experiences; 26 (15.0%) Other "Other" N = 26 2 "Faculty Senate Officer before union was recognized" 2 "Officer of many civil organizations" 2 "Past President of Faculty Senate" 2 "School Board Member" 2 "Head of State AFT" 2 "Department Chairman" 2 "State-wide work for NBA" 2 "Human Relations Facilitator" 2 "Union Official in state governmental agency" 2 "Contract administrator in private industry" aPercentages are calculated by use of the follow- ing equation: (13735 . 100) The total sum of the percentages exceeds 100 per cent because of the possible multiplicity of responses from each person and because the researcher hopes to ascertain the percentage of respondents selecting a given alterna- tive. 124 2 "Fifteen years industrial management" 2 "Chairman of state—wide AFT State College Council" 2 "Psychologist" The data would appear to suggest that a majority of presidents do not consider themselves as having had related experiences outside the local union setting. This finding though is tempered by the notion that, if more alternatives had been listed, suggestibility may have accounted for additional responses. In comparison with the data in Question 5.1, it may be that more presidents consider themselves as having had more experience within the province of their locals as opposed to related experiences outside the local union. Tables for Section 5 The following table is intended to describe the relationship between selected variables (Questions/ Responses) contained in the survey instrument. The data in Table 16 may indicate a greater ten— dency for more faculty union presidents to have been a member of a negotiating team than to have been a vice— president or chief negotiator. This may be an indication of the relative complexity and demands of the position of chief negotiator compared with the latter two. It may also indicate that, because a "team" implies having more than one person in the group, it may be less cumbersome - and“. .2. * 125 .00H x Z\: mo ODHM> u mmmucooummo momsommmu O=oz=v pmxomsoas paw Atmmmzv wmxomno mHQmOmom HMHOB I c mmmsommwu A=mmw=v pmxomao mo Hwnfidz I Z\ n .uam>mHmH cmumpflmsoo cOOuMEHomsfl mGHsHmumu mHHna mqummH mcflnmmfioo SO mmmm on MHmmuO mchsmH .coflommm mumfifidm m CH mnmp pcmmmum ou amp on ma QOOQB mo mmomudm on“ .mmHQmu mocmmcHucoo >m3no3u woman mo COOpmmcmccoo m mH OH OHQMBM OOO. u o OON. u o NON. u o wnmm OOH\OO mumm OOH\OO mnwm OOH\OO Hmuos O.OO O\O O.OO O\O O.OO O\N i.eouqHO mooO 0.00 O\O H.HH O\H 0.00 O\O AOmZIOOOO spmwz 0.00 O\O O.NH O\H 0.0 O\O AOOZIOOOO Ozoo 0.0 ON\H 0.0 ON\H 0.0 ON\H AOmZnBOOO Ozam O.OO HH\O O.ON HH\O N.OH HH\N ucmccmmmOcH O.OH OH\N 0.0 OH\O O.OO OH\O mumum\mOOO O.OO OO\OH O.ON OO\O O.OH OO\O mumum\em< N.HH OO\ON O.ON OOxOH O.OO OOxON mumum\Omz mmmusmoumm Z\c mmmusmoumm Z\: mmmucmoumm QZ\G Smmwommwmemomwz HouOHuommz OmHso ucovflmmueum0H> N.N H.m H.m H.m maH.mv uHcs mchOmmumn mpHsomm ucmmmum GO UHms HEMOB mafiumwuommz mo H0366: .HOOMOfiomwz mmflsu .ucmpflmmum Im0H>V OGOOuHmom m50O>mHm paw AN.NV sows: OuHsomm HMUOH mo QOHuMHHHmmw dmmzpmn GOmOHmmEOOII.OH mqmfle 126 to become a member of a negotiating team than to become a vice-president or chief negotiator. The data may also suggest that approximately one-third of the presidents have held either one of the three positions. In terms of percentages, none of the bargaining agents appears to have assumed a dominant position in having presidents serve in one or more of the three capacities. The figures for the "Independent" and "NYSUT" bargaining agents for "member of negotiating team" may be misleading in View of the small number of total reSponses for the two agents. Summary of Section 5 The data may suggest that faculty union presidents were active members of their locals prior to assuming the presidency, a greater number having served as chief negotiator, vice-president, or as a member of the negotiating team than in other capacities. While their related experiences outside the local may appear to be somewhat limited, because the question may be vague, the findings could be misleading. 6. Preparation for Office Question 6.1 Which leve1(s) of your union provided training (after your selection but prior to your undertaking the Presidential duties) to prepare you for your role as President? (Check one or more) 127 Total Respondents = 173 Total Responses = 187 12 (6.9%)a National Affiliate; 55 (31.8%) State Affiliate; 54 (31.2%) Local Union; 66 (38.1%) No training was given by any of the three levels The data would appear to suggest that most responses occurred in the "no training . . . " category. Whether training is provided by any of the levels can be a question of interpretation. For example, while a president can assert that no training was provided, it may be possible that he simply was not made aware of programs which, in fact, may have existed. Question 6.2 What type of training did you receive? (Check one or more) Total Respondents = 173 Total Responses = 236 25 (14.5%)a Given an Operations manual to read; 45 (26.0%) Given a union contract to read; 60 (34.5%) WOrkshops or seminars exploring the roles, duties, and techniques of faculty union officials; aPercentages are calculated by use of the follow- ing equation: X (T73- . 100) The total sum of the percentages exceeds 100 per cent because of the possible multiplicity of responses from each person and because the researcher hopes to ascertain the percentage of respondents selecting a given alterna- tive. 128 10 (5.8%) Communication skills training; 8 (4.6%) Academic coursework on collective bargaining in general; 21 (12.1%) Received an intensive indoctrination from the departing President; 44 (25.4%) Read suggested related materials; 23 (13.3%) Other "Other" N = 23 g "Trained only by gaining experience on the jOb . ll "On—going consultation with Executive Board" "Previous experiences in local" "My own research" "Nothing" H |H [b o [N IH "Intensive training by state staff" The data would appear to suggest that the majority of presidents may have received some type of formal/informal preparatory training prior to assuming the duties of the office. While it appears no one form of training is undertaken by the majority of incoming presidents, workshops and seminars may be the most utilized form of all the alternatives. Question 6.3 Have you participated in additional training programs since undertaking the duties of President? N = 173 T = 100% 75 (43.4%) Yes; 91 (52.6%) No; 7 (4.0%) [No answer] Tables for Section 6 The following tables are intended to describe the relationships between selected variables (Questions/ Responses) contained in the survey instrument. Emphasis will be placed on Questions/Responses contained in Section 6. The data in Table 17 may suggest that of those respondents indicating having had received training from the local union, more were given a contract to read than who had received an intensive indoctrination from the past president. The data in Table 18 may connote that more presi- dents than not have failed to participate in training programs since assuming the duties of office. Time limi- tations, a lower placement on the presidents' priority system, or a failure by local, state, or national bar- gaining agents to make programs available may be three explanations for this finding. Table 19 may suggest that slightly more than one-third of the respondents indicated not having received training from one of the three levels prior to assuming the duties of president. N.E.A. and A.A.U.P. affiliates may be more likely to have received some form of prior training than affiliates of the A.F.T., the merged unions, or of Independent unions (except A.C.C.F.). 130 TABLE l7.--Comparison between the level (Local) which pro- vided training (6.1) and the type of training received (6.2)a 6.1 6.2 Local Union n/Nb Percentagec Total Percentage Given Union Con- tract to Read 27/54 50.0 27/54 50.0 Received Indoctri— nation from Ex— president 13/54 24.1 13/54 24.1 aTable 17 is a condensation of two two—way tables, the purpose of which is to present data in a summary fashion, lending itself to ease in comparing results while retaining information considered relevant. bn/N = Number of checked ("Yes") responses Total possible checked ("Yes") and unchecked ("No") responses CPercentage = Value of (n/N X 100). 131 TABLE l8.—-Comparison between whether a president has par- ticipated in additional training programs (6.3) and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) 6.3 2.2 No Yes No Total Percenta e Answer 9 NEA/State 1 37 30 68 39.3 AFT/State 4 16 18 38 21.9 AAUP/State 0 4 9 13 7.5 Independent 1 3 7 11 6.4 SUNY (AFT—NEA) 0 7 13 20 11.6 CUNY (AFT-NEA) l 4 3 8 4.6 NYSUT (AFT-NEA) 0 l 8 9 5.2 ACCF (Indep.) 0 3 3 6 3.5 Total 7 75 91 173 Percentage 4.0 43.4 52.6 100 C = .322 132 TABLE l9.--Comparison between the type of training (no training . . . )received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty unions (2.2) 6.2 2.2 n/Na Percentageb NEA/State 18/68 26.5 AFT/State 18/38 47.4 AAUP/State 3/13 23.1 Independent 5/11 45.5 SUNY (AFT-NEA) 12/20 60.0 CUNY (AFT-NEA) 4/8 50.0 NYSUT (AFT-NEA) 6/9 66.7 ACCF (Indep.) 0/6 0.0 Total 66/173 38.2 C = .308 n/N _ Number of checked ("Yes") responses _ Total possible checked ("Yes") and unchecked ("No") responses bPercentage = Value of n/N X 100. 133 The findings in Table 20 may show generally that current presidents as a rule did not receive an intensive indoctrination from departing presidents. The presidents from S.U.N.Y., C.U.N.Y., N.Y.S.U.T., and A.C.C.F., all of whom are located in the state of New York, are con- spicuous by their relative absence from this type of training. Two possible explanations for a president's not receiving this training would be if he were the first president of the local, or, if his unit was a part of a multi-institutional system, he received all his training on a more structured, centrally located basis. The data in Table 21 may suggest that NEA affil- iates and ACCF members have a greater tendency to conduct workshops, seminars, etc. . . . as an avenue for presi- dential training than do the other bargaining agents included in this study. Summary of Section 6 The data may suggest that most presidents indi- cate having received formal/informal preparatory train— ing from either their local union, state, or national affiliates. This training appeared to take several forms. Among the most prevalent are: workshops or seminars exploring the roles, duties, and techniques of faculty union officials, reading a union contract, reading suggested materials, and reading an operations 134 TABLE 20.-—Comparison between the type of training (inten- sive indoctrination by ex-president) received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) 6.2 2.2 n/Na Percentageb NEA/State 11/68 16.2 AFT/State 2/38 5.3 AAUP/State 4/13 30.8 Independent 2/11 18.2 SUNY (AFT-NEA) 0/20 0 . 0 CUNY (AFT-NEA) 0/8 0 . 0 NYSUT (AFT-NEA) 1/9 11 . 1 ACCF (Indep.) 1/6 16.7 Total 21/173 12.1 C = .248 an/N = Number of checked ("Yes") responses Total possible checked ("Yes") and unchecked ("No") responses bPercentage = n/N X 100. 135 TABLE 21.--Comparison between the type of training (work- shOps, seminars . . . ) received by president (6.2), and the affiliation of local faculty union (2.2) 6.2 2.2 n/Na Percentageb NEA/State 39/68 57.4 AFT/State 7/38 18.4 AAUP/State 2/13 15.4 Independent 1/11 9.1 SUNY (AFT-NEA) 4/20 20 . 0 CUNY (AFT-NEA) 2/8 25.0 NYSUT (AFT-NEA) 0/9 0 . 0 ACCF (Indep.) 5/6 83.3 Total 60/173 34.3 a Number of checked ("Yes")1re§ponses Total number of checked ("Yes") and unchecked ("No") responses n/N = bPercentage = Value of n/N X 100. manual. 136 The data also suggest that the faculty union presidents indicate generally as not having partici— pated in additional training programs since assuming the presidential duties. 7. Rationale for Taking Office Question 7.1 What are the primary reasons you agreed to take the position? (check one or more) Total Respondents = 173 Total Responses = 444 73 81 (42.1%)a To improve terms of contract for the union; (46.8%) To increase faculty-administrative 44 cooperation; (24.9%) No one else wanted the job; (1.7%) Steppingstone to a better position; ( .6%) Monetary rewards of the position; 52 (30.1%) Disgruntled with Administration; 49 (27.7%) To strengthen union's political 10 influence; (5.8%) To heighten the adversarial roles of the union and the administration aPercentages are calculated by use of the follow- ing equation: X (m . 100) The total sum of the percentages exceeds 100 per cent because of the possible multiplicity of responses from each person and because the researcher hopes to ascertain the percentage of respondents selecting a given alterna- tive. 137 13 (7.5%) To receive recognition and esteem from fellow union members; 92 (53.2%) To build the union into a vibrant social and professional organization; 26 (15.0%) Other "Other" N = 26 1 "To protect faculty academic freedom and gain a greater faculty voice in academic governance" 2 "No other suitable candidate" 2' "Moral sense of duty" 2’ "Power" 2’ "To improve contract terms and conditions for nonteaching professionals" 2 "To improve the quality of the institution" 2 "To guide the union in the right direction" 2 "To boost a weakening union" 2 "To enhance terms of contract better" 2 "The job presented a new challenge" 2 "No one I trusted would take the job" 2 "The former president quit--I had no choice" 2 "It's fun!" The data may suggest that upon agreeing to become president most respondents felt they would be a positive force behind the local union, as evidenced by the large number of responses in such categories as "improving terms of contract . . . ," "increasing faculty-administrative cooperation," "building union 138 into a vibrant . . . organization." It may be the respondents were, at least initially, more concerned with improving the status of their union than in delineating the personal advantages the presidency could create. Tables for Section 7 The following table is intended to describe the relationship between selected variables (Questions/ Responses) contained in the survey instrument. Table 22 may suggest that, with the exception of the Independent and NYSUT agents, the bargaining agents' local presidents consider "building the union into a vibrant social and political organization" as being the primary reason for their agreeing to become president. The NYSUT and Independent bargaining agents' local presidents may select "increasing faculty/admin- istrative cooperation" as the primary reason. The data would also appear to suggest that no consistent pattern of responses could be derived from any of the "primary reasons" cited. The one negatively biased alternative, "disgruntled with Administration," received the highest percentage of responses from presidents of AFT-affiliated units. This may be an indication of that organization's traditionally more militant stance on union/administra- tive relationships. 139 mwmcommmu A=oz=~ Umwbmnocs paw a=mwwav pmxoono wHQmeom Hmuoe momsommmu A=mmw=v pmxomoo mo umnfizz .OOH x Z\e Oo msHm> u .u:m>men omMOOHmcoo cOHumEhoch mcfisflmumu OHOAB va ommucmonmmo H C 2\ o mUHsmou msHummEoo sO mmmm ou memuO mafipcmH .COHnmmm mumfifism CO mump ucmmwum cu mH moans mo mmomusm on» .mmHomu mm3103u 0>Om mo coOuMmcmpnoo m mH NN mHomem cowumNHcmmuo OOH. u U HGMMQO> oucw coflas N.Om OOH\Nm m.mm O\m 0.00 O\O O.NO O\m 0.00 ON\NH N.OH HH\N 0.00 MH\O 0.00 Om\HN O.NO OO\Om OHHSQ OB mocmsHmsH OHN. n U HMUOuHHom m.coO:9 0.0N mOH\mO 0.00 O\N N.NN m\N 0.0m m\O o.mH 0N\m N.OH HH\N H.ON MH\m 0.0N mm\HH O.Nm OO\NN Gmoumcmuum NON. u o GOHumuuchOEt¢ ouHB H.OO OOH\Nm 0.0H O\H 0.00 m\O 0.0N O\N 0.0H om\m N.OH HH\N 0.00 OH\O 0.00 mm\OH 0.0N OO\OH pmHuGDHmmHo GOOuMHOQOOU ooN. n o dowumuumw uaOaOm\OuHsomm 0.00 OOH\HO 0.00 O\O 0.00 O\O O.NO O\O 0.00 ON\O 0.00 HH\O N.OO OH\O N.OO OO\OH O.HO OO\OO omwonoafl oa coflc: OON. u 0 How mfiumu uomuucoo N.NO OOH\mO 0.0m O\m 0.00 m\m 0.0m O\O 0.00 ON\HH 0.0N HH\m 0.0H MH\N H.NO mm\OH O.NO OO\ON o>oumEH 09 O Z\c O 2\c O 2\c O 2\c O 2\c O 2\c O 2\: 0O 22\: .omocHO AOOZuOOOO hamznsmde A¢m219mOuom QOHGS OuHsomm so ucmmm Mom? Hoe munch OMUMHQS mo Hogans onm HHH.OHO UmsOMNQo evangmHmmm Hmwumumuomm cmmzumo acmflnmmEOUII.Hm mHmfie 167 per week. The majority of respondents indicating sixteen or more hours per week appear to have some type of secre- tarial assistance. The data on Table 32 may suggest that, with slightly less consistency than the findings on Table 31, the more hours a respondent works per week on union activities, the greater may be the possibility he will have a private office. This finding appears to generally hold true for those presidents working in the time cate— gories from one to twenty-five hours per week. An incon- sistent pattern of responses appears to be extant in the time categories exceeding twenty-six hours per week. The data on Table 33 may suggest that slightly over one—half of the respondents acknowledge having a specific form of evaluation completed ("regular elections . . . "). It may also suggest that approxi- mately one-fourth of the respondents indicate that, to their knowledge, no form of evaluation is completed by others. The researcher notes that the total percentage of responses elicited from the ACCF presidents exceeds 100 per cent. This result is incongruous and may be the outcome of a question misinterpretation. Summary of Section 10 The data may suggest that essentially all (97.7%) faculty union presidents receive a full salary as employees of their respective institutions of higher 168 TABLE 32.--Comparison between having a private office (10.12) and number of workday hours per week spent on faculty union activities (10.9) 10.12 10.9 [NO Yes No Total Percentage Answer] [No Answer] 1 2 l 4 2.3 0 hrs. 0 l 0 l .6 1-5 hrs. 0 14 (29.2%) 34 48 27.7 6-10 hrs. 0 15 (27.8%) 39 54 31.2 11-15 hrs. 0 9 (29.0%) 22 31 17.9 16-20 hrs. 0 9 (56.3%) 7 16 9.2 21-25 hrs. 0 4 (80.0%) 1 5 2.9 26-30 hrs. 0 4 4 8 4.6 31-35 hrs. 0 0 l l .6 36-40 hrs. 1 l 0 2 1.2 41 or more 0 2 1 3 1.7 Total 2 61 110 173 Percentage 1.2 35.2 63.6 100 C = .563 169 TABLE 33.-~Comparison between who evaluates performance (regular elections/no evaluations done . . . 10.14) and affiliation of local faculty union (2.2)a 10.14 10.14 2'2 Regular Electionsb No Evaluation Done n/NC Percentaged n/N Percentage NEA/State 37/68 54.4 24/68 35.3 AFT/State 18/38 47.4 6/38 15.8 AAUP/State 7/13 53.8 3/13 23.1 Independent 4/11 36.4 2/11 18.2 SUNY (AFT-NEA) 15/20 75.0 3/20 15.0 CUNY (AFT-NEA) 6/8 75.0 0/8 0.0 NYSUT (AFT-NEA) 6/9 66.7 3/9 33.3 ACCF (Indep.) 3/6 50.0 4/6 66.7 Total 96/173 55.5 45/173 26.0 C = .413 C = .308 aTable 33 is a condensation of two two-way con- tingency tables, the purpose of which is to try to present data in a summary fashion, lending itself to ease in com— paring results while retaining information considered relevant. b"Regular elections . . . " is used as a variable because it represents the most prevalent of the evaluation methods noted by the respondents. cn/N = Number of checked ("Yes"2re§ponses Total possible checked ("Yes") and unchecked ("No") dPercentage = Value of n/N X 100. 170 education, with relatively few receiving some form of compensation for their union activities. The primary type of compensation appears to be released time for faculty union matters with a concentration appearing to exist with the locals associated with NYSUT, CUNY, and ACCF. Among the 14.5 per cent of those respondents affirming that "Other" union officials are compensated, NYSUT, CUNY, and ACCF may again be identified as the units most predisposed to offering benefits to this group. The bargaining experience of these units was offered as a possible explanation for the latter two findings. The results.may also indicate that among the primary duties listed, chairing meetings, serving as the faculty union's liaison to the administration, interpreting the contract to the membership, and pre— paring for contract negotiations are the ones most often indicated, with the latter two seen as being the most time-consuming. Though approximately two—thirds of the respondents indicated not having been assigned extra—curricular duties by the administration, it would appear that re-election, at least, is not an important factor in determining the inclusion or exclusion of these added duties from a president's workload. The data may also suggest that, excluding time spent during actual contract negotiations, a majority 171 (76.9%) of the respondents indicated having spent approximately 1-15 workday hours per week performing union-related duties. A majority (77.4%) felt they spent approximately 1—10 weekend and evening hours per week performing presidential duties. In terms of possess- ing secretarial assistance and a private office in which to conduct faculty-union matters, though a slight majority indicated not having either, the probability of possessing secretarial assistance appears to increase as the number of presidential duty hours worked increases. A more inconsistent pattern seemed to exist in the pos- session of a private office. In the evaluation of their performance as faculty union president, the two methods most commonly used may be regular elections or when any union member wishes to discuss said performance with the respondent. A sys- tematic feedback system to gauge the respondents' per- formance did not appear to be suggested by the data pre- sented. With the possibility of item invalidation noted, the data on the future plans of the respondents may have indicated that the most commonly indicated responses were "return to full~time teaching" and "plans are uncertain." 172 Summary of Section 4 The researcher sought in Chapter IV to examine the ten variables which were felt to best represent the functions of the faculty union president in higher edu- cation and which were alluded to in the "Purpose of Study" in Chapter I. The ten sections included in Chapter IV each represent a different facet of the faculty union president's functions. The data presented in the ten sections would seem to indicate that faculty unionization has occurred most extensively at the public community college level from 1966 to the present time. Since 1970, faculty collective bargaining units at four-year institutions are appearing with increasing frequency. The majority of institutions possessing faculty bargaining units appear to have exclusive representation, though rela- tively unstable membership numbers, and operate under multi—year, independent (rather than master) contracts. Full-time faculty members, counselors, librarians, and department chairmen seem to be included more often than other segments of the employee population in these bar- gaining units. The data may also suggest that faculty union presidents usually are married males between thirty-one and forty years of age, who possess either a master's or doctoral degree in the natural or social sciences. 173 He is usually on tenure at a given institution and has been an active participant in the affairs of the local union prior to assuming the presidency. Specified nomination and selection procedures appear to have been followed in the majority of presi- dential elections, and though most are selected for one- year terms and are eligible for re-election, a minority of the respondents appear to be planning to seek re- election. Upon being elected president, but before assuming the duties of office, most presidents appear to have received some form of formal or informal preparatory training. Upon assuming office, however, a minority indicated having received further training. The motivation for a person's taking the faculty union presidential position appears to be based on a desire to improve the status of the union and its member- ship rather than on a purely self—interest base. The data appear to suggest that essentially all faculty union presidents receive a full salary from their employing institutions of higher education, while few receive any form of material compensation for being president. A majority of the respondents appear to spend between one and fifteen workday hours and between one and ten weekend and evening hours per week performing union-related duties. Preparing for contract negotiations 174 and interpreting the contract to the membership appear to be the most time consuming, if not primary, duties performed. In carrying out their duties, a slight majority of respondents appear to not possess either secretarial assistance or a private office though the probability of acquiring one or both seems to increase as the total number of hours devoted to union activities increases. A systematic evaluation feedback system did not appear to be suggested by the data. Regular elections and discussions with interested union members were the two methods of evaluation most frequently indicated by the respondents. In Chapter V, the researcher will briefly sum- marize selected sections from Chapter I (Background) and Chapter III (Methodology). A brief discussion of some of the study's findings enumerated in Chapter IV will follow. Finally, a conclusion and recommendations for further study will be made. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Chapter V will consist of a brief summary of selected paragraphs contained in Chapters I and III, a discussion of the data found in each of the ten sections studied in Chapter IV, and a list of recommendations for further study. The Problem addressed in this study is while faculty collective bargaining has experienced a rapid increase in the number of units, and while the literature and research seemingly have attempted to keep pace with this expansion, a critical facet has remained virtually unexplored—-that of the functions of the president of the faculty bargaining unit. The Purpose for doing the study was to provide preliminary information about the faculty union presi- dential population as it presently exists in United States institutions of higher learning by means of describing the presidents' functions. A basic methodo- logical framework for achieving this purpose was developed. 175 176 The population studied consisted of the presidents of all the faculty collective bargaining units in United States institutions of higher learning as of April 30, 1973. A mailed questionnaire consisting of fifty-seven questions, fifty-two of which were restricted to closed- ended responses, was the instrument used in securing the data. Two methods were used in presenting the data. Response frequencies and their percentages were indicated for all responses elicited in each question. In addition, comparisons between responses to selected questions were presented on two-dimensional contingency tables. Sta- tistical treatment consisted of applying frequencies, percentages, proportions, and contingency coefficients (C). Discussion The data found in this study are contained in the ten sections comprising Chapter IV. Each of the sections represents one portion of the total functions used by the researcher to describe the faculty union president in higher education. Section 1--Institutional Data Faculty collective bargaining exists at public and private two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning. A majority of these faculty unions are in operation at the public, two—year institutions 177 perhaps because the impetus for the faculty's organizing into collective bargaining units originated at that level in 1965 as an outgrowth of their affiliation with the already unionized elementary and secondary school dis- tricts,121 and because faculty unions at four-year institutions are a relatively recent phenomenon, having originated at Central Michigan University in 1969.122 The data in this study suggest that faculty union organizing at four-year institutions was not stressed by the major teachers' organizations until 1972. Statements made by said organizations in 1972 emphatically committed substantially more resources toward meeting this goal.123 It appears these teachers' organizations saw the four-year institution as repre- senting a new horizon from which they could further expand their membership numbers. At the present time, 121"Roundtable: How To Live with Faculty Power," 33. 122Neil S. Bucklew, "State College: Central Michigan," in Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, ed. by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea (San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, Inc., 1973), p. 156. 123"Campus Unionizing Given NEA 'Priority'," Chronicle, p. 4. See also "Teacher Unity," American Teacher, p. 1. 178 157 two-year institutions and ég’four—year institutions possess faculty collective bargaining units.124 Section 2-—Unit Data More local faculty bargaining units are affiliated with the N.E.A. (National Education Association) than 125 This finding in any other teachers' organization. part may be attributable to that group's historical bond with teachers at the secondary and elementary levels and the subsequent staffing of community-junior colleges with teachers from the secondary and elementary school levels. The A.F.T. (American Federation of Teachers) and the A.A.U.P. (American Association of University Professors) appear to be experiencing a constant growth 26 The A.F.T.'s affiliation pattern in recent years.1 with the AFL-CIO has gained for it the reputation as more of a bastion for faculties which espouse a more militant, adversarial philosophy than the other major 127 teachers' organizations. However, the researcher's 124" . . . Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. See also page of this dissertation. 125Ibid. 126 Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargain- ing," pp. 16-17. 1271bid., p. 16. 7 ‘_——_—w-fi—c.c——_ ——fl - wmsttsert‘” . ~ — ‘-‘~- - 179 examination of Related Literature reveals that the philQSOphical differences between the three major teachers' organizations are diminishing to a point . . 128 where merger discourses are occurring. Independent faculty local unions are growing at a much lesser rate.129 This finding is in part explained by the fact Independent locals generally cannot call upon the amount of material or professional support pro— vided by the three major teachers' organizations. In addition, the advantages that may accrue as a result of being free of the apparent external influences exper- ienced by locals affiliated with either the N.E.A., A.F.T., or A.A.U.P., may be offset somewhat by the assertion that the three major teachers' organizations, in reality, allow a high degree of local autonomy in terms of the administration of a contract.130 A concern of faculty collective bargaining units, borne out by this study, is that while practically all local units have exclusive bargaining rights, i.e. . . . , 128"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. See also Gabarino, "Emergence of CollectiVe Bargaining," p. 16; "Teacher Unity," American Teacher, p. 1; "Two Teacher Unions Hold Merger Talks,W7Chronic1e, p. 6. 129Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargain- ing," pp. 16-17. l3°1bid., p. 17. 180 they represent all persons who share like vocational skills/interests and are recognized as a distinct group by virtue of these factors, not all these persons are willing or are compelled to pay dues. In an attempt to guarantee a greater degree of financial security, some local units are charging "service fees" or are trying to mandate dues—paying by attempting to affect legislation allowing such conditions as the agency shop to exist.131 Data in Chapter IV suggest that the majority of faculty bargaining units include department chairmen. The consideration of whether the chairman is "management" or "union" raises a question of whether the department can continue to be considered the focus of academic decision-making from the administration's perspective. It would seem apparent that, if the administration wishes to maintain a direct influence in academic decision—making in those institutions deploying chair— men who are union members, a realignment of the depart- mental structure should occur in such a way as to assure the administration's participation in said decisions. Other findings suggested that most local unions have been in operation for two or more years and have negotiated two or more contracts. It would appear that 131Lieberman and Moskow, Collective Negotiations for Teachers, pp. 415-30. 181 the majority of locals are experienced in contract negotiation and administration. The later finding that the President receives little or no training or material support obviously calls to question whether the locals are taking fullest advantage of their past experiences. Section 3--Demographic Data Faculty union presidents have a tendency to be married males between thirty—one and forty years of age. This would suggest that younger.married males, who may have a greater amount of energy and desire to affect change in their status than their older colleagues, are sought for (or seek) the presidency. Section 4--Academic Status The data suggest that a faculty union president can generally be said to possess a Master's Degree or higher in the social or natural sciences, will have been at his present institution for three or more years, and will be on tenure. The matter of tenure may be important in View of the adversarial role a president may play at times with the administration. Tenure can serve as a security device, discouraging attempts made to terminate a president's employment. The possession of tenure may also serve to dispel whatever doubts prospective candi— dates may harbor relative to a president's security as an employee of the institution. 182 Spending three or more years at an institution would imply that the presidents have at least been given the opportunity of more fully understanding such matters as the interpersonal and organizational dynamics of the institution. It would also imply that they have been afforded the opportunity of establishing their insti- tutional and collegial credibility. Section 5--Related Experiences Related experiences can serve as one measurement device by which to assess such factors as the degree of preparedness of prospective presidential candidates and to what extent a candidate is committed to serving the local union. The data appear to suggest that virtually all of the reSpondents were active members of their locals prior to assuming the presidency. A majority either served as a member of a negotiating team, as vice-president of a local, or as a chief negotiator. A majority of respondents indicate not having related experiences outside the local union. Those that did indicate having received outside experiences, were once faculty union members at other institutions. In summary, it would appear almost all of the reSpondents had been active members of their locals prior to assuming the presidency. Few had related experiences outside the realm of the local union. 183 Section 6--Preparation for Office The crucial nature of the position of president would seem to indicate that some form(s) of preparation would be advisable. In terms of training received for the position after being selected as president, while very few respondents participated in programs given either by their local, state, or national affiliates, a majority secured some form of informal training such as reading a union contract, receiving an intensive indoctrination from the departing president, or reading suggested materials. In View of the role played by the president as chief spokesman for the local union, and because the degree of success or failure of the union would logically depend in large measure upon the president's performance, it would seem a systematic, well-integrated training program or series of programs would be partaken by all presidents, especially the newly elected individuals. Activities of this nature could perhaps, in the long run, result in a more effi— cient, coordinated use of available resources by the local, state, and national affiliates in their collec- tive bargaining efforts, in addition to aSsuring the local memberships' being better served. The fact over 60 per cent of the locals have been in operation for two or more years and have 184 negotiated two or more contracts would suggest that the president's performance standards and qualifications should at least be preliminarily defined. It would seem that training programs would begin to be built around these definitions. A majority of the respondents have not partici— pated in training programs Since assuming the office of president. Time limitations, a lower placement on the presidents' priority scale, or a failure by local, state, or national affiliates to make training programs available may, in part, explain this finding. Section 7-—Rationale for Taking Office Most respondents appeared to seek the presidency for reasons which would benefit the membership as a whole as opposed to the gaining of a strictly personal advantage. The rationale most often indicated were: (1) To build the union into a vibrant social and professional organization; (2) To increase faculty-administrative cooperation; (3) To improve the terms of the contract for the union. These seemingly unselfish motives may be illustrative of the presidents' perception of the union as a legiti— mate mechanism designed to meet the collective needs 185 of the union. It may also vaguely indicate a desire on the part of the presidents to serve others. The findings imply that the respondents, prior to assuming the duties of office, may sincerely believe they can accomplish gOals which would benefit the col- lective whole. However, later findings in the study would seem to indicate that, perhaps because of such factors as little or no material or clerical support from the membership and the respondents' expressed desire not to seek re—election, the presidents' ability or desire to accomplish original goals may be curtailed. Section 8--Nomination and Selection Procedures The data would appear to indicate that prescribed nomination and selection procedures are followed by vir- tually all of the local faculty unions. This would imply that questionable election practices such as self—nomination and self-selection would be discouraged. This finding may also imply that the principle of equal opportunity is extended to any member who would qualify as a presidential candidate. DeSpite the fact most local units possess pre- scribed nomination and selection procedures, less than one-half of the respondents indicated having actively sought either nomination or selection. Besides honesty, other factors which may account for the discrepancy in 186 the number of units having prescribed procedures, with the number of presidents actually seeking election are, modesty, constraint, vanity, and entreatment. Section 9——Terms of Appointment The data would appear to suggest that faculty union presidents generally are elected for one-year terms, have been elected either in 1972 or 1973. Though vir- tually all reSpondents can be re-elected, data presented later in the study suggested that they, in fact, choose to return to teaching rather than to seek re-election. These findings imply that factors exist which discourage presidents from seeking re-election. It would appear incumbent to begin to identify these factors, not only for the benefit of prospective presi— dential candidates, but also for the benefit of those individuals who have an interest in the welfare of a given faculty union. Data presented in the next section will suggest several factors which precipitates the cir- cumstance described in this paragraph. Section 10--Job-Related Factors The data suggest that while virtually all faculty union presidents receive a full salary as employees of their respective institutions of higher education, few receive any form of material compensation for their union activities. Approximately 86 per cent of the 187 respondents received neither a salary, fringe benefits, or any other form of material compensation. Nonmaterial compensation came primarily in the form of released time. In view of the importance of the position, it would appear that if some form of material compensation such as a bonus were offered the president, not only may the bonus attract the most qualified candidates to the position, but the performance of the presidents could be positively affected. The apparent reluctance of the faculty unions to offer more presidential compensation may, in part, be explained by the fact some are already financially burdened with such elements as nondues-paying members. Another reason may lie in an expectation that compensation comes in the form of the satisfaction derived in carrying out a moral sense of duty to assist the bargaining unit. Those duties which were considered by the largest number of respondents as being both primary and most time-consuming were: (1) "Interpreting the contract and institutional policy to members on an individual and group basis"; (2) "Preparing for contract negotiations"; (3) "Union's liaison to the administration so that the terms of the contract are followed." 188 These findings would appear to imply the necessity of the president's possessing a thorough knowledge of the contract terms as well as those decisions which may have been made prior to the existence of the contract, but which affect same. This, in turn, implies that a person will have had gained a sufficient amount of experience at a given local union to acquire the knowledge seemingly needed to effectively administer the local's contract. Extracurricular activities are assigned to only 30 per cent of the respondents. This finding may be indicative of a general cessation of assigning these activities to faculty members or it may also be indica- tive of partiality shown to the president by the adminis- tration. The data appear to suggest that, excluding time Spent during actual contract negotiations, a majority of the respondents indicated having spent six or more workday hours per week performing union—related activi- ties, while a majority also indicated having spent six or more weekend and evening hours per week performing said duties. This finding implies that a considerable expenditure of energy may be necessary to fulfill the duties of president. Other findings suggested that besides not being compensated materially for their presidential activities, 189 a majority of respondents possess neither secretarial assistance or a private office from which to conduct their locals' activities. It could be, in some instances, that a president's job is simply not suf- ficiently broad or time-consuming to warrant either. It may also be, in some instances, that the scope and nature of the position, because of the relative infancy of faculty collective bargaining, is not sufficiently understood either by the local's membership or by the institution. An appropriate amount of material goods and personnel would therefore not be supplied. Finally it may be that a lack of union finances and/or a lack of institutional cooperation could also explain why presidents, as a rule, do not receive the conveniences enumerated in this paragraph. It would appear that a systematic system by which to evaluate a president's performance is not extant in the majority of local unions. It would also appear that the state affiliates offer very little assistance in this respect and no evidence exists which would suggest the national affiliates' participation. The apparent lack of a systematic system of evaluation could create a problem, especially for the new, inexperienced person who may be seeking guidelines and who may desire feedback by which to gauge his per- formance. 190 Conclusion It was suggested that 8 per cent of the respondents plan to seek re—election despite an earlier finding that 87 per cent are eligible to seek re-election. These findings may be symptomatic of a degree of disillusion- ment precipitated by such factors as little or no material compensation, little or no formal training, little or no clerical assistance or union office space, and few, if any, systematic methods of evaluation. It seems apparent that certain factors exist which would seem to connote an extensive amount of vitality for local faculty unions in general, and local faculty union presidents in particular. Besides the fact the number of locals has increased since 1969 (see Table 8), most unions have negotiated two or more con- tracts implying an increasing amount of expertise. In addition, locals are allowed much autonomy by the state and national affiliates in their operational practices.132 This can be advantageous in View of the disparate oper- ations between local unions.133 Insofar as the presi- dents are concerned, most have held previous offices in their locals. This would seem to indicate they not only were active union members interested in the welfare 132Gabarino, "Emergence of Collective Bargain- ing," pp. 16-17. l331bid. 191 of their Specific locals, but also possessed at least a modest amount of knowledge concerning the operational procedures of the local as well as of the institution before assuming the duties of president. Despite the positive features listed in the previous paragraph, factors concerning the presidents' functions discussed earlier may serve as a base from which to critically examine the future course of the faculty union movement. Perhaps by not only again enumerating several of these factors but also by suggesting remedial solutions, the researcher can prompt further examination by persons who share an interest in this tOpic. PROBLEM: Faculty union presidents receive little or no material compensation. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: An annual stipend, perhaps in the form of a modest monetary bonus paid for by the union. PROBLEM: Because only 8 per cent of the respondents plan to seek re—election, past eXperiences such as holding other offices in a local union may not sufficiently prepare a person to undertake the duties of president. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: To complement whatever past experiences may have been secured through faculty unions, presidents should be eXposed to a formal training 192 program during their terms in office. These programs could include training in communication skills, negoti- ation skills, labor economics, and techniques of admin- istering a contract. The state affiliates could serve as the coordinating bodies. In the case of large multi- institutional systems possessing master contracts, the primary local could serve as the coordinating body. PROBLEM: The respondents indicated not having an office in which to conduct strictly union affairs such as interpreting contract terms to individuals and resolving grievances. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: If the president shares an office with one or more people, try to secure a private office somewhere in the building which houses the majority of members of the local union. PROBLEM: Systematic evaluation procedures are seldom used in assessing the presidents' job performances. SUGGESTED SOLUTION: Once the goals and duties of the position are determined, decisions must be made on such matters as how to evaluate, who will evaluate, and what factors will be evaluated (and to what extent). Because of the presumed unique characteristics of each local union, perhaps the executive boards of the locals could develop an evaluation program with advisory input provided by the state affiliate. The state affiliate 193 could serve as the coordinating body for all units in the state and could, conceivably, begin to develop model plans based on common features found in said local unions. An evaluation method not only could give an incoming president a more objective View of his respon- sibilities but could also provide guidelines from which he could monitor his actions as he performs the duties of office. It would appear that as faculty collective bar- gaining continues to grow out of its stage of infancy and as the president's position becomes increasingly complex and specialized, the person filling that position will, by necessity, have to be carefully selected and possess skills developed to meet the needs of the faculty bargaining unit. Recent developments would seem to place the unprepared president at a disadvantage. Among these developments are: 1. Restricted institutional budgets result in a more intensive contest for available resources. 2. At the bargaining table, the extensive turnover in faculty union presidents combined with the presumed stability in the composition of the administrations' teams implies an imbalance in bargaining eXpertise which, in effect, could severely inhibit the negotiation processes. 194 3. More refined negotiation skills infused by such individuals as labor attorneys, are becoming a part of the negotiation processes. Such circumstances as the three herein outlined could not only endanger the welfare or hamper the progress of any given local but, if the problem were magnified to include numerous other locals, could endanger the welfare or hamper the progress of the state and national'affil- iates as well. Recommendations for Further Study Because this study is exploratory in nature and had defined parameters, dimensions of the faculty union presidents which would warrant further study can be said to be substantial in number. Several dimensions which could be examined by using this study as a base are: 1.. The psychological characteristics of a faculty union presidential sample could be examined through the use of a nonprojective testing instrument such as the Meyers-Briggs. This information could be useful to selection com- mittees as well as to prospective presidential candidates. 2. Examining the attitudes of the faculty union members toward the position occupied by the president and comparing these results with data 6. 195 received by examining the presidents' attitudes toward said position would be beneficial. A semantic differential could be a means of delineating these attitudes. This information would be particularly useful to presidents and could more clearly define the relative importance of the position. In regard to the primary goals referred to in Question 7.1, it would be useful to discover to what extent the stated primary goals were reached. In View of the importance of the contract negotiation process in determining the sub- stance of the contract, a more extensive inves- tigation of the time commitment and function of the faculty union president during this process would be valuable. The proposed and on-going mergers between the major teacher organizations warrants further investigation. The socio—economic and political impact of such mergers can affect the goals of a faculty union and the relationship pattern established between faculty-administration. A current, accurate means of identifying insti- tutions with faculty bargaining units is needed. 196 Further research is recommended on the roles played by women and other minority individuals who occupy the position of faculty union president. APPENDICES [III APPENDIX A LIST OF INSTITUTIONS APPENDIX A LI ST OF INSTITUTIONS \NHEREFACUETHSIDUHSCHOSEN COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGENTS Following are 286 institutions of higher education where {acuity mem- bers have named agents to represent them in collective bargaining. Num- bers in parentheses following the names of mum-campus systerm indi- :ate the number of institutions in those systems. The list is based on information from the three national bargaining agents and independent surveys. An asterisk (‘ ) indicates in- stitutions represented by the New York teacher's union. which is affiliated with both the N.E.A. and the A.F.T. 134 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC IATION Four -Year Inedtettene Cientral Michigan U U at New York (19)’ Co umhiaU Uo——C Pharmaceuttcaol' Scrence 0.30:. C sof Business. U of Dubuoue, Iowa Ferris State C. Mich. 'Fitchburg St C Loretto Hei hts C. aColo. Monmouth N. Nebraska St C Syetern (4) North Adan-Ia St C. Mesa. ‘%gnaylvan(ia“ St Ca dU It" Ito er Wiltlama College. I Se inaer Valle C, Mich. Se em St C. a“. State U 0! New York Westlield St C. Male. Youngstown St U, Ohio Yno- Year InetltIRIene Adirondack CC. N Y. ' na CC. Mich Atlantic CC. N J C at Beaver Cnty. Pa. Bellevue CC. Bergen CC. Big Bend C. Wash Brookdaie CC. N1 Broome Tech CC N Y. ’ Burlrngton Cnty C. NJ Butler Cnty CJC. #:n. . a h. Cloud Cnly CJC. Kan. Columbia Basin C Wash, manhole-Greene CC. Y' Coll of Lake Cncty. m. Cumotrte‘mnd CntyC N ...I Dutcheaa CC. N.Y.' Edmond: CC. Wash. Essen Cnty c. NJ Everett CC. Wal Fashion Inat ol tech. N. Y.’ H. wSte‘lacoom CC, Focv Valley Tech lnat. Kan. Wia. CC. Kanaae City CJC. Kan. Kellogg CC, Mich. Labette CJC. Kan. Lake Land C. II take Shore Tech Inet. Lansing CC Michi’ Lehigh Cnty CC. Lower Columbia c: Weah. Luaerne Cnt Maine Voe ech In:ta l6) Maaaaeort CC. Mercer Cntyn CC NJ. Mid Michiga CC Mid State aTenth Inst Wis. Minnesota St .IC System (i I) Mohawk Vail CC. N.Y.' More lnePark eeh Inst. .Y.‘ CC. Mich. ‘ h Mrc . CC. Man. Mich. O that. CC. Mich. 'Tecti lnat. C. Y.. Y.‘ CC. 'wm. cc Wash. CC. Mich Cnty Tech “(MAN "MIATION OP TEACH!” Four-Year lnetttutlena Boston St C. Bryant C. Run} City U oi New York (19). U at Hawati (a) La ton Sch ot Art and es. rs Long Island U. Brooklyn Center NY Long Island U. C. W. Post Center. N. Y. Lowell St C Mane Massachusettt C of Art Moore C otA Fe New Janey St C Syatem (6) Pratt that. N.Y. Rhode Island C Southeastern Massachuretta U Statz). U 01 New York (2) Tenor. Business Inst. U. 5 Merchant Marine Ace de Worcester St C Mass. TwYear lnettu'tlene Adirondack CCo otAllegheny Cn't. Pa. CC of Baltrmore. M . Black Hawk Va: Tech eh. I! Bristol CC. Mace. Broorne Tech cCC.P .N. Y. ' Bucks Cnty Ch'i'cago, City Coiiezee. Colurvnbla- Greene CC. butchers CC. Eau Claire Tech Inst. Wle. Fuhlon Inst of Tech. Y' Gloueter Cntcé CC. NJ. C. Waeh In ten Head Tech "ICC." IlIlnoie Valley CC Jolie J Ill Lake Michigan C. Mich. Mediaon Area Yeeh C Milwaukee Area Tech C. ‘3 Iliiddleeu Cnty C I ohawk Vail” CC. "NJ. Y. ° Ionro oe CC Moraine Valley CC. korton C. III. taaaau CC. N. Y. ' Northeast Wlaconaln Yech Inst Ononda a CC. N.Y CCo Ilaoal la. Pa. Prairie St C II Iotkla nd CCN Seattle CC Wage; Somerset Cntzc Sufloik Cnty C. '"NY. ' Superior Tech that. Wie. Tacoma CC. Wee Thorton CC Your kins- Contand CC. Wayne Cnty CC. Mich Weatcheeter CC. ahTech lnet. :‘DC. Wauhonaea CC.| AllllCAN AISOCIA‘I'ION 0' UNIVERSITY monsoon: four Year lnetttutiona AdelphiU Aehtand C. vOhYIo Bard C, NY U at Delaware Lincoln U: Pa. Four-Year Inetttrrtlene Detroit C o! Busrneaa Fordham U Law School Newark C 0 En ineering, NJ. U 0! cranton. Pa. n U of Wieconen Madison (teaching aura.) New Jereey C at Med and Dent New York inst of Tech Oakland U. lch. Poly Inst oIo Bklyn- N. Y. Itegts C. Uol Rhode0 Island Rutgers U. NJ . INDEPENDENT AGENT. Tue-Year lnatltutlena Auburn Bay De Noe CC. Mich. ClarkC . Wa Clinton CC, NY Fulton- Montgomery CC. Grand Rec Ida .IC. Mich. Hudeon all CC N.Y. Jameatoern C . N.Y. St. John's U. N.Y. Yampie U. . Wayne St U. Mich. Tue-Year Inetitutlana Cellevtlle Area C. III. Indian River CC. Fla. Robert Merrie C. III. Jetteraon CC. N.Y. Orange Cnty C. N.Y. Schenectad CC. N. Y. Southweat teconaln ocTeeh lnet Ulster Cnt CC. N.Y. Western leconaln Tech that Wear Shore CC, Mich. 134"Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," Chronicle, p. 4. 197 APPENDIX B COVER LETTER APPENDIX B COVER LETTER May 20, 1973 Dear Colleague: This questionnaire is a key element in the first exploratory study being completed on the Faculty Union President population in Higher Education. The study is important in view of the rapid expansion of faculty unions and in view of the dearth of information on the critical role of the President. A census of the Presidential population will be taken, the findings of which should prove to be useful not only to Faculty Presidents but also to selection committees and other persons desiring a degree of exposure to the position. I am particularly interested in obtaining your response because your experiences as Faculty Union President will contribute significantly toward providing introductory information about the position from which others may not only gain an immediate exposure to, but also from which others may subsequently contribute to a better understanding of, the position through further research. The questionnaire has been tested with a sampling of former Faculty Union Presidents, State and National teacher organization personnel and faculty union organizers. I have revised it in order to make it possible for me to obtain all necessary data while requiring a minimum of your time. The time required to complete this questionnaire is between 10-15 minutes. As other phases of this research cannot be carried out until I complete the analysis of the questionnaire data, it will be most appreciated if you would complete the questionnaire by June 6, fold and return it in the stamped envelope enclosed. The highest ethical and professional standards will be maintained throughout the course of this study and in the use of material derived from the study. Confidentiality will be rigidly maintained. After the data has been coded, the completed questionnaires will be destroyed. I would welcome any comments you might have about aspects not covered by the questionnaire or about the instrument itself. I will be pleased to send you a summary of the study’s results if you wish. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Francis A. Beréier Ph.D. Candidate College of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 1538 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE Number M QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FACULTY UNION PRESIDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Instructions: All but five of the following questions can elicit simple, check-type responses. The responses you give will be treated as strictly_confidential. Data collected from the questionnaire will be handled solely by the researcher. The coded number in the upper right hand corner of this page will be used for follow-up purposes only. You may write additional comments on the back page of the booklet if you so desire. Thank you. Do you wish to receive a summary of the results of this study? __XEs; __No Institutional Data: 1.1 Institutional type: .(check one) ‘_;Public; ‘__Private (check one) __Technical institute __Two-year Community-junior college _College __University 1.2 If you are a part of a multi-institutional system, which type of system is your institution associated with? (check one) _Federa 1 __§tate-wide system of colleges/universities __pity-wide system of colleges/universities ___-14 district system __pther please specify __ye are not associated with a system of institutions 1.3 Enrollment: (check one) ‘_~l-SOO __§,001-10,000 __§01-l,000 __}0,001—20,000 __},OOl-5,000 __20,001 or more W: 2.1 Year your union was recognized as-the bargaining agent for your local: (check one) _1966; _1967; _1968; _1969; _1970; _1971; _1972; _1973; _Other ’ please specify 2.2 Local's affiliation: (check one or more) __NEA; __AFT; __AAUP(Nationa1); __Independent(Local) _(Sta te)EA; _(State)F1‘; _AAUP(State); _Other please specify 2.3 If you are a part of a multi-institutional system (see Question 1.2), do you have a joint bargaining contract with the other institutions within your system __fles; ‘_;No - 2.4 Does your agent have exclusive bargaining rights? __fles; ‘_;No 2.5 Which security clause does your contract provide? (check one) "Union shop"; __flAgency shop"; "Maintenance of membership"; : Other ; _The cont-Fact does not provide a security clause please specify 199 200 2.6 Total number of people your local union represents: 2.7 'How many people in Question 2.6 are dues paying members of the union? 2.8 Local faculty union composition: (check one or more) _Faculty (full-time) _Nonteaching Professionals (Health Services, _Faculty (part-time) Student Personnel Workers, Researchers, etc....) _Faculty (visiting) _Department Chairmen _Lecturers _Studen'ts - dues paying _Teaching Assistants _Other Administrators _Counselors please specify _Librarians _Other _Laboratory Technicians please specify 2.9 Number of contracts local union has negotiated: _One; _Two; _Three; _Four; _Five or more; _In process of negotiating our first contract; ___Local does not negotiate a contract - we are a part of a multi-institutional master contract. 2.10 Duration of present contract: _One year; _Two years; _Three or more years; _Contract not yet ratified Demographic Data : 3.1 Name iFor follow-up purposes only) please print 3.2 Age group: _21-25 _36-40 $51-55 _26-30 _41-45 _56-60 _31-35 . _46-50 _61 or over 3. 3 Sex: _Ma le; _Fema 1e 3.4 Marital Status: _Married; _Single; _Widowed; ___Divorced 3.5 Number of children: _0; _1-2; _3-4; ___5 or more Academic Status: 4.1 Department you are employed with: 4.2 Academic discipline 4.3 Are you on tenure? _Yes; _No; _Uncertain If "nonor "uncertain", please skip to Question 4.5 4.4 How long have you been on tenure? _Less than one year; _3-4 years; _1-2 years; _5 or more years; 4.5 Academic rank or equivalent: _Professor; _Associate Professor; _Asst. Professor; _Instructor; _Lecturer; _Other please specify 4.6 Academic credentials: (check highest degree) __No degree; _Associate's; _Bachelor's; _Master's; _Doctorate; _Other please specify 201 4.7 Length of time spent at present institution: __Iess than one year; _1-2 years; _3-4 years; _5-6 years; _7-8 years; _9 or more years Related Experiences: 5.1 Previous positions held in present faculty bargaining unit: (check one or more) 5.2 __§ecretary é_Chief Negotiator __pusiness Manager __prievance Coordinator ,__Yice-President __prievance Representative (Steward) __Treasurer __yember of negotiating team ,__Chairman of Nominating Committee __None, other than being a concerned member _Chairman of Executive Comittee of the union __9ther please specify Experiences outside the local union: (check one or more) __Arbitrator __Faculty union member at another institution _Mediator _Faculty union organizer _ __Fact-finder __yaculty union official at another institution _Attorney _Civil Onbudsman __pollege administrator __Campus Ombudsman ,__ -12 administrator No related experiences Industrial union official :Other please specify Preparation for Office: 6.1 6.2 6.3 Which level(s) of your union provided training(after your selection but prior to your undertaking the Presidential duties) to prepare you for your role as President? (check one or more) ‘__National affiliate; __State affiliate; __Iocal union; __No training was given by any of the three levels What type of training did you receive? (check one or more) __Civen an operations manual to read ,__Academic coursework on collective __§iven a union contract to read bargaining in general ‘__Workshops or seminars exploring the ‘__Received an intensive indoctrination roles, duties and techniques of from the departing President faculty union officials __Bead suggested related materials __pommunication skills training __pther please specify Have you participated in additional training programs since undertaking the duties of President? .__¥es; __;No 202 ggtionale for Taking Office: 7.1 What are the primary reasons you agreed to take the position: (check one or more) __To improve terms of contract for __To heighten the adversarial roles of the the union union and the administration __To increase faculty-administrative __To receive recognition and esteem from cooperation from fellow union members __No one else wanted the job __To build the union into a vibrant __§teppingstone to better position social and professional organization _Monetary rewards of the position _Other '_;Disgruntled with Administration please specify __To strengthen union's political influence NOmination and Selection Procedures: 8.1 Was a prescribed nominating procedure followed? ._;Yes; ._;No 8.2 Was a prescribed selection procedure followed? __Xes; ‘_;No 8.3 Did you actively seek nomination for the office of President? __Xes; 8.4 Upon being nominated, did you actively seek election? __Xes; No Terms of_Appointment: 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Job 10.1 16.2 Year selected as union President: __l966; __l967; __}968; __}969; _1971; _1972; _1973; _Other ' 9 please specify Were you the first president of your local union? ._;Yes; No Are you elected for: __One year? __Two years? __Three years? __Term not stated; __Other please specify Can you be re-elected? __Xes; '__No Have you been re-elected? __fles; __No Can you be removed from office before the end of your term? ._;Yes; Related Factors: What compensation do you receive as an employee of the institution? or more - No _19 70; No (check one __Fu1 salary; __Eeleased time for union activities; __Partia1 salary; _Other . please specify What compensation do you receive as Union President? (check one or more) __Full salary; ‘__Peleased time for teaching duties; '__Partial salary; ._;Other ; __po compensation for being President please specify 203 10.3 Other fringe benefits for being President: (check one or more) _Waiver of dues; _Automatic tenure; _Automatic step promotion in teacher _Release from departmental and institutional committee assignments; ranks; _Other ; please specify _No fringe benefits for being President 10.4 Who compensates you for your activities as President? (check one or more) _Union local; _Union-Administration shared; _State affiliate; _Uncertain; _National affiliate; _No compensation for being President; _Administration; _Other ; please specify 10.5 What are your primary duties as President? (check one or more) A. _Crievance Coordinator J. _Improve union's image in the B. _Chief Negotiator for unit during institution and in the surround- contract negotiations - ing coumunity C. _Committee formation K. _Chair general membership meetings D. _Committee chairmanship L. _Chair Executive Board meetings 2. _Committee ex-officio membership M. _Union's liaison to administration F. _Interpreting contract and instit- so that the terms of the contract utional policy to members on an are followed individual and group basis N. _Organize and coordinate membership G. _Supervise work of union's officers services such as athletics, credit 11. _Build union's political influence union, and privileges in using in local and state governments. institutional facilities I. _Preparing for contract negotiations O. _Other please specify 10.‘6 Which of the duties in Question 10.5 are most time-consuming for you? (list one or more letters) . 10.7 Do you appoint the Chief Negotiator for your unit? _Yes; _No 10.8 Are extra-curricular duties assigned to you by the administration as a part of your employment? _Yes; _No 10.9 Approximate number of workday hours per week you spend on union activities: (do not include hours spent during actual contract negotiation) _0 hours; _ll--15 hours; _26-30 hours; _41 or more hours; _1-5 hours; I _16-20 hours; $31-35 hours; ___6-10 hours; _21-25 hours; _‘_36-40 hours; 10.10 Approximate number of evening and weekend hours per week you spend on union activities: (do not include hours spent during actual contract negotiation) _0 hours; _11-15 hours; _26-30 hours; _41 or more hours; _1-5 hours; _16-20 hours; _31-35 hours; _6-10 hours; _21-25 hours; _36-40 hours; 10.11 Is your secretarial assistance for union activities: _Full-time? _Part-time? _Nonexistent? 10.12 D0 you have 8 private office in which to conduct union business? _Yes; _No 204 10.13 Are other local union officials compensated for their union activities? _;fles; ,_;No 10.14 Who evaluates your performance as President? (check one or more) __§xecutive Board of local ,_;Chairman of the Executive Board of the local __Ad hoc committee composed of members of the union __Institutional bargaining agent (in __pommittee composed of union members multi-institutional systems) and students __Any member of the union who wishes to __90mmittee composed of union members discuss my performance with me and administrators ._;Governing Board of the institution __State affiliate of the local ._;No evaluation is done by others to my knowledge __§elf-eva1uation __Regular elections is the only method __pon't know of evaluation _Other please specify 10.15 What are your plans upon the completion of your present term as President? __Seek re-election ‘__Beturn to full-time teaching here __Return to full-time teaching elsewhere __}eave institution and the educ- ational enterprise __Assume a previously held admin- istrative here ._;Assume a new administrative post here __§eek an administrative post here __§eek an administrative post at another institution __Assume an administrative post at another institution __§eek another office in the local union ._;Assume another office in the local union __Assume a position with the State or National affiliate __§eek.a position with the State or National affiliate __Return to a previously held(nonteaching) (nonadministrative) position here __Return to a previously held(nonteaching) (nonadministrative) position elsewhere ‘__Plans are uncertain _0 ther please specify PLEASE FOLD THIS QUESTIONNAIRE LONGITUDINALLY AND MAIL IT IN THE STAMPED, PRE-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE ENCLOSED BY JUNE 6. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. APPENDIX D FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX D FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER June 28, 1973 Dear Colleague: You may recall I sent a questionnaire addressed to "President of Faculty Bargaining Unit" approximately one month ago. I can understand how this method of addressing could cause an extended delay in mail delivery. I can also appreciate the time press you may be experiencing as President of your local bargaining unit. I am pleased to report that 1&0 Presidents have returned their questionnaires so far. In order to complete this study I will need §Q_additional replies. The replies I have received have been most interesting and, I trust, will be helpful to you if you wish to receive a summary of the results. Please allow me to emphasize the confidential fashion by which this study will be conducted as well as the minimal amount of time (lo-l5 minutes) it takes to complete the questionnaire. I intend to complete the study and make the results available to you by the end of the summer. If you would be willing to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire at your earliest convenience (hopefully before July 15) this goal can be accomplished. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Francis A. Bernier Ph.D. Candidate College of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 205 APPENDIX E SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX E SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER July 2A, 1973 Name Address Dear , I am taking the liberty of writing in the hopes you will consider participating in this exploratory study. I am addressing this to your home thinking perhaps that the previous two questionnaires I mailed to "President of Faculty Bargaining Unit" may have never reached you or were simply "lost in the shuffle". Your c00peration is earnestly sought in view of the fact I must begin to analyze the data on or before the first week of August in order to complete the study by September 1. I am also anxious to share the findings with you at a time you would find them most useful. Thank you for your cooperation. IFyou should like to discuss any or all parts of the questionnaire, please feel free to write or call collect. Sincerely, Frank Bernier Emmons Hall Michigan State University E. Lansing, Michigan 48823 Phone: 517-355-2722 206 wmnnnmfl“ SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY S ELECTED BI BLIOGRAP HY Books Accredited Institutions of Higher Education, 1971-72. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. Angell, George W. "Two-Year College Experience." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. EditédIby Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973. Armore, Sidney J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and Inference . . . for Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay, Inc., 1965. Bucklew, Neil S. "State College: Central Michigan." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. Edited by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973. The College Blue Book--l4th Edition U.S. Colleges: Narrative Descriptions. New York: C.C.M. Information Corp., 1972. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrentiCe-Hall, Inc., 1964. Fisk, Robert S., and Puffer, William C. "Public Uni— versity System: State University of New York." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. Edited by Robert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973. Gabarino, Joseph W. "Creeping Unionism and the Faculty Labor Market." Draft c0py of paper prepared for a Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Report. Forthcoming, Spring, 1972. Quoted in Shulman, Carol. Collective Bargaining on Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Higher Education, March, 1972. 207 208 Gabarino, Joseph W. "Emergence of Collective Bargaining." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. Edited byfiobert S. Fisk and E. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, Inc., 1973. Gorman, Robert, to Bertram H. Davis. Memorandum on "Statutory ReSponses to Collective Bargaining." January 4, 1968. Quoted in Shulman, Carol. Collective Bargaining on Campus. washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, March, 1972. Gouldner, Alvin W. Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1950. Hawes, Gene R., and Novalis, Peter N. The New American Guide to Colleges. _New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1972. Hillway, Tyrus. Handbook of Educational Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Hollander, E. P. Leaders, Groups and Influence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Jennings, Helen Hall. Leadership and Isolation. Revised Edition. New York: .Longmans, Green, 1950. Johnson, George M. Education Law. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1969. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Lieberman, Myron M., and Moskow, Michael H. Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1966. Lovejoy, Clarence Earle. Lovejoy's College Guide. llth ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. Moskow, Michael H.; Loewenberg, J. Joseph; and Koziara, Edward Clifford. Collective Bargaining in Public Employment. New York: Random House, Inc., I970. . Teachers and Unions. Philadelphia: Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, 1966. 209 Mortimer, Kenneth P., and Lozier, G. Gregory. "Contracts of Four—Year Institutions." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. Edited byERobert S.EEISk and E. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1973. Mouly, George. The Science of Educational Research. New York: American Book Company, 1963. National Training Lab (NTL) Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. 1969 Reading Book. Washing- ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude” Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Rummel, J. Francis. An Introduction to Research Pro- cedures in Education. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964. Seidman, Joel; London, Jack; Karsh, Bernard; and Tag- liacozzo, Daisy L. The WOrker Views His Union. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958. Shulman, Carol H. Collective Bargaining on Campus. Washington, D.C.: American AssociaEIOn for Higher Education, March, 1972. Smith, Milton G. A Simplified Guide to Statistics. 3rd. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Stinnett, T. M. Turmoil in Teaching. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1968. Strauss, George, and Sayles, Leonard R. Personnel: The Human Problems of Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1960. . The Local Union. Revised edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1967. Travers, Robert M. W. An Introduction to Educational Research. 2nd ed. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1964. Van Dalen, Deobold B. with two chapters by Meyer, William J. Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. 210 wollett, Donald H. "Issues at Stake." Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. Edited by Robert S. Fisk andvE. D. Duryea. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1973. Zelditch, Morris, Jr. A Basic Course in Sociological Statistics. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959. Journals and Magazines "A Major Step Toward Teacher Unity." American Teacher. Official Publication of the AmeriCan Eederation of Teachers, January, 1973, pp. 1-3. Brophy, Jacqueline. "Professionals Show New Interest in Collective Bargaining." Michigan State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations News- letter, XI, No. l (1972), 4-6. . "Collective Bargaining on Campus." Toda '5 Education ° NEA Journal, LXI (April, 19725, 54-55. Brown, Martha A. "Collective Bargaining on the Campus: Professors, Associations, Unions." Labor Law Journal, XXI (March,.l970), 168-74. Brown, Ronald. "Professors and Unions: The Faculty Senate: An Effective Alternative to Collective Bargaining in Higher Education?" William and Mary Law Review, XII (Winter, 1970), 252-332. Bucklew, Neil S. "Employment Relations of Staff Employees in Institutions of Higher Learning." Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, XXII (March, 1971), 44-78. Davis, Bertram. "Unions and Higher Education: Another View." Educational Record, XXXXIX (Spring, 1968), lZlL48. "Due Process and Tenure." Today's Education - NEA Journal, LXII (February, 1973), 60-62. Gabarino, Joseph W. "Precarious Professors: New Patterns of Representation." Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971, pp. l-20. Reprinted from Industrial Relations, X, No. l (1971). 211 "Indiana Teachers Win Collective Bargaining Law." Teachers Voice (National Education Association), L, No. I3 (May 14, 1973), 7. Lieberman, Myron. "Professors, Unite!" Harper's, CCXLIII (October, 1971), 61—70. . "The Union Merger Movement: Will 3,500,000 Teachers Put It All Together?" Saturday Review, LV (June 24, 1972), 50-56. Mason, Richard W. "An Alternative to Unionism." Edu- cators Negotiating Service, April 15, 1973, pp. 138, 142. "MEA Bargains Merger Proposal." Teacher's Voice, L, No. 14 (April 30, 1973), 2. "Negotiation in Higher Education." Negotiation Research Digest, September, 1971, pp. 25—26. "New Organization of Educators Formed as Alternative to Unionism." Educators Negotiating Service, April 15, 1973, pp. 139-40. "New York State Teacher Units Agree on Merger Terms." Educators Negotiating Service, May 1, 1972, p. 167. Ping, Charles J. "On Learning to Live with Collective Bargaining." The Journal of Higher Education, XLIV, No. 2 (February, 1973i, 102-13. "Roundtable: How to Live with Faculty Power." Colle e and University Business, LII, No. 6 (19725, 33. "University Professors Want Specialized Collective Bar— gaining Model." Educators Negotiating Service, February 15, 1973, pp. 103-04. Wollett, Donald H. "The Status and Trends of Collective Negotiations for Faculty in Higher Education." Wisconsin Law Review, No. l (1971), 32. Newspapers Bloustein, Edward J. "Unionization in Academe." New York Times, February 2, 1973. Chronicle of Hi her Education. January l, 1971, to July, 1 73. 212 "Campus Unionizing Given NEA 'Priority'." Chronicle of Higher Education, July 31, 1972. "One in 3 Professors Backs Bargaining." Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 1973. "Where Faculties Have Chosen Collective Bargaining Agents." Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 1973. "Public Worker Union Banding With Teachers." Detroit Free Press, June 2, 1973. Semas, Philip W. "National Education Association Fears AAUP in Bargaining." Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation, July 3, 1972. "Teachers Join Hands with Public Employees." NEA Reporter, May, 1973. "Two Largest Teacher Unions to Hold Merger Talks." Chronicle of Higher Education, July 16, 1973. Public Documents American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization. AFL . CIO Manual for Shop Stewards, No. 75. Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIOEPamphlet Division, March, 1971. 49 STAT. 449 (1935), 29 U.S.C. 151. 61 STAT. 136 (1947), 7 U.S.C. 6289. 73 STAT. 523 (1959), Public Law 86-257. "Summary of State Labor Laws." Government Employees Relations Report Reference File, LI. Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., .April 30, 1973. United States Department of Labor. Requirements for Electing Union Officers. TechnICal Assistance Aid No. 5. Revised. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, September, 1971. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics. Directory of National Unions and Employee Associations 1971. Bulletinil750. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. 213 Reports "AAUP Annual Report." Bertram Davis, President. Reprinted in Educators Negotiating Service. washington, D.C.: Division of Educational Service Bureau, Inc., June 1, 1973. AAHE—NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations. Campus Governance Program. Report of the Task Force. Faculty Participation in Academic Governance. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, National Edu- cation Association, 1967. Michigan State University. “Report of the Ad Hoc Com- mittee on COLLECTIVE BARGAINING." East Lansing, Michigan, January 31, 1972. (Mimeographed.) Unpublished Materials American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO). "A Model Constitution for Locals of the American Feder- ation of Teachers." [Washington, D.C.], 1966. (Mimeographed.) Anonymous. Letter addressed to Francis A. Bernier, June 7, 1973. Cartter, Allan. "The After Effects of Putting the Blind Eye to the Telescope." Paper presented at the American Association for Higher Education, Chicago, March, 1970. Coe, Alan Charles. "A Study of the Proceedings Used in Collective Bargaining with Faculty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Dearborn Public Schools. "Agreement Between the Board of Education of the School District of the City of Dearborn and the Henry Ford Community College Federation of Teachers 1971—1973." Dearborn, Michigan, December 29, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Ionia-Montcalm UAW-CAP Council and the Labor Program Ser- vice School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University. "Union Administration and Leadership Training," UAW Local 4 Hall, Belding, Michigan, Tuesdays, March 20-April 12, 1973. (Mimeographed.) 214 Macomb Community College. "Agreement Between Board of Trustees of the Community College District of the County of Macomb and Macomb Community Col- lege Faculty Organization, September, 1972." Mount Clemens, Michigan, January 8, 1973. (Mimeographed.) McInnis, Malcolm C. "Demographic and Non-demographic Variables Associated with the Florida State University Faculty Members' Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining in Higher Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1972, Dissertation Abstracts, XXXIII [1973] . Napolitano, Helene S. "Attitudes of School Board Presi- dents and Teacher Organization Presidents Toward Collective Negotiations in Public Education in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Fordham University, 1969, Dissertation Abstracts, XXX [1970]. National Labor Relations Board. "NLRB Sets $1 Million Jurisdictional Standard for Private Nonprofit Colleges and Universities." Washington, D.C., December 3, 1970. (Mimeographed news release, R1183.) Oakland University. "Faculty Agreement, 1972-73." Rochester, Michigan, March 13, 1973. (Mimeo- graphed.) Palmer, Kenneth Francis. "Collective Bargaining and Iowa Educators: A Framework for a Model Collec- tive Bargaining Statute Reflecting Current Opinions of Adversaries." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 1972, Dissertation Abstracts, XXXIII [1973]. Professional Development Division of the Michigan Edu- cation Association. "Leadership: A Book of Readings for Leaders in the United Teaching Profession." East Lansing, Michigan, May, 1973. (Mimeographed.) Rowland, Kendrith Martin. "Selected Determinants of Effective Leadership." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Indiana University, 1966, Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII [1966]. 215 Ruff, Raymond T. "A Description and Analysis of Faculty Grievances and Faculty Grievance Procedures in New York State Community Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1972. Shoup, Charles A. "A Study of Faculty Collective Bar- gaining in Michigan Community Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Stanford Project on Academic Governance. "Faculty Power and Decision Processes: Institutional Factors, Professional Autonomy and Morale." Stanford University, Spring, 1973. (Mimeographed.) Wurster, Stanley R. "An Investigation of the Attitudes of School Board Presidents, Superintendents, Teacher Association Presidents, and Teachers Regarding Collective Negotiations Provisions in New Mexico." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, New Mexico State University, 1970, Dissertation Abstracts, XXX [1971]. I . I |I1I||lll|1llll ....._..._,_. , ' ' V ‘ ' , . I ICHI an .; . ' ' z ‘~\ {'HJ‘N‘“ -...._.\..\.- "7“ \ "“V """:”1*’;:!::: 33.3.3. ‘P‘M-T: 3:. . i - ... 't‘!\ \:I. -' svuqvv‘iq-V ”.41“. ~~__ «uy‘wv '7‘? ‘ v.,.~.. "‘i: “:IN‘I‘Itx _aI-