:. A?“ 8“
Ju\\‘ -
"$.th 1‘14.
*; «.3... _. 1-
‘T
“2};

._.r...'..-
”we :wm“

"fwzaég ..

315$“:
' 3.4.3413

9..
yo! V: 31.73, ' re. 3" ‘5
'3‘: ' v s f :3“!!-

 

 

\ yuan-n ' “

 

if

IHINWH“NW““11111111W WWI *

31293 3150

 

HENRY
M It: H is; 21. $15111"
I..Hw..-«'rw:!'2'v

 

 

 

'ml'kl
,vfl 6t:

.0: - D-‘

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

SELF-PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FACULTY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ON THE ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP ROLES OF
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRA TORS

presented by

Charles B. House, Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

the Eh.D. degree in Adminigtrgtion
and Higher Education

;2 /
I C , /
£23254 7 ’ Aélflfi

Major professor

   

 

ABSTRACT
SELF-PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FACULTY COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ON THE ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP ROLES
OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS

BY

Charles B. House, Jr.

The hypothesis which the research examines is that,
following the introduction of faculty collective bargaining
in certain public institutions of higher education, changes
have occurred in the perceptions which executive administra-
tors have concerning their own decision-making roles and
administrative functions. Four institutions were selected,
all of which are public four-year, degree-granting, colleges
or universities. All are institutional members of the
American Association of State Colleges and Universities and
all had been operating with a collectively negotiated faculty
agreement or contract for at least one year.

The institutions were visited and structured interviews//
were held with the presidents, chief academic affairs
officers, and one or two deans on each campus. Altogether,
fourteen officers were interviewed and their responses con—
stitute the body of data in the research. Each person was
asked to react to a list of thirty-eight decision-making
items. The items were grouped according to the five Data

Element Categories identified by the National Center for

Charles B. House, Jr.

Higher Education Management Systems. The categories are:
Course-related, Facilities-related, Finance-related, Staff-
related, and Student-related.

The officers interviewed perceived three kinds or
levels of effects attributable to faculty collective bar—
gaining which bear upon their decision-making roles or
administrative functions. These are:

1. Changes in the institutional environment to which

they are required to make adjustment;

2. The specific adjustments in administrative pro-
cedure which the officers are required to make
as a result of the bargaining relationship; and,

3. Changes in the values and attitudes of the
officers which bear upon their administrative
styles and professional satisfaction.

The officers perceived the formalization of staff—
related procedures as reducing their freedom to make dis-
criminating judgments in individual cases. They generally
feel that they may become, or may be viewed by others as
becoming, rigid and bureaucratic in their administrative
behavior. The legal framework of collective bargaining
forces a congruence between d2 fagtg_and g3 lure decision-
making power and leads to a sharp delineation of faculty
and administrative roles. Administrative decision—making
mppears, as a result, to become more centralized as the
1Cons of final decision converges toward the holders of

SE jure power. The sharp delineation of faculty and

Charles B. House, Jr.

administrative roles may encourage administrators to
adopt a managerial posture in place of a collegial style
of academic leadership. The formal and often adversarial
relationships resulting from collective bargaining may
interfere with the informal interactions with faculty
which many of the administrators felt essential to their
exercise of leadership and which are the source of much

of their personal satisfaction.

SELF-PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF FACULTY COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ON THE ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP ROLES OF
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS

BY

Charles B. House, Jr.

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
College of Education

1975

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

No one completes this academic task without incurring
a vast human debt--to family, teachers, classmates, and
co-workers. I acknowledge that debt with gratitude to:

My wife, whose support and help came when they were
most needed;

My grown and growing sons, who were interested in
something which lies so far from their world, and who gave
up things they wanted so that the work could be finished;

My colleagues and fellow-workers, who were sensitive
enough to know when to ”prod" and when to stand silent;

My professors, who probably deferred more to my gray
hairs than they should have;

My parents, who sacrificed more to send me to high
school than I have to send their grandchildren to college;
and,

Very specially, to Miss Sylvia Ryin, M.A., to whom
the subject of this thesis will seem strange and alien, but
who taught me good English usage, and who infected me at an

early age with her own reverence for liberal learning.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE
RESEARCH, DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM,
LIMITATIONS AND DEFINITIONS, AND METHODOLOGY.

General Introduction and Purpose

of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of the Problem . . . . . . . .
Limitations and Definitions . . . . . . .
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . .

Faculty Collective Bargaining: History
and Some Causes . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bargaining and Governance: More Causes
and Some Possible Consequences . . . . . .

III. ALPHA AND BETA STATE COLLEGES . . . . . . . .

Alpha State College . . . . . . . . . . .
Beta State College . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. MENTOR AND TUTOR UNIVERSITIES . . . . . . . .

Mentor University 0 O O O O O O O O O O .
Tutor University . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. ANALYSIS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMEN-
DATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . .

Institutional Effects . . . . . . . . . .
The Administrative Response . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Further Research . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

29
45
69

7O
88

103
103
126
169
169
179
188
189
190

193

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1 Alpha State College Summary Table of
Affected Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2 Beta State College Summary Table of
Affected Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3 Mentor University Summary Table of

Affected Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4 Tutor University Summary of Table of
Affected Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

iv

CHAPTER I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH,
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM, LIMITATIONS AND

DEFINITIONS, AND METHODOLOGY

General Introduction and Purpose of the Research

 

Faculty collective bargaining is an offspring of the
turbulence which has characterized American higher education
for the last decade or more. In the complex interaction of
intellectual, political and economic forces, faculty union-
ization appears both as the cause and consequence of changes
which have occurred within the academic community. In the
nearly seven years since its modest appearance among four-
year colleges and universities, collective bargaining for
faculties has made important gains, particularly among newly-
established institutions and former teachers colleges which
are in the process of "emergence" toward the status of multi-
purpose universities. While collective bargaining has not
proved, as some had earlier predicted, to be a tide which
would rapidly engulf the entire academic profession, it is
now firmly established in a significant number of institutions.
Collective negotiation over "the terms and conditions of
employment" is now an option for virtually all faculties.

Because collective bargaining is now accepted as a
respectable form in which to deal with certain issues of

1

concern to academic professionals, it is important that the
process be studied and understood as thoroughly as possible.
If faculties are to exercise wisely their choice to bargain

or not to bargain collectively, and if administrations are

to develop responses which preserve or enhance the educational
effectiveness of their institutions, evidence must be un-
covered concerning the conditions which are most likely to
eventuate if collective bargaining is adopted. An obvious
feature of the large body of writing on the subject is the
admittedly speculative nature of comment on the effects of
collective bargaining on unionized institutions. In the

early stages of the faculty union movement in higher education,
a great deal of attention was given to the causes of faculty
unionization. Now that collective bargaining is an estab—
lished pattern in some institutions, evidence of its effect

is accumulating and the assessment of the impact now appears
as the most important task connected with the study of the
issue.1 This dissertation should make a limited but useful

contribution to an understanding of the impact of faculty

 

1Jack H. Schuster, "Emerging Issues in Faculty Bargaining"

(Address prepared for delivery at the 1973 Annual Meeting of
the American Political Science Association, New Orleans,
Louisiana, September, 1973, Mimeographed). Page 2.

"Although the literature on faculty unionism has

ballooned in the past several years, only fragmen-

tary evidence is presently available on the post-

contract institutional experience with faculty

collective bargaining. Unfortunately, research to

date has ignored almost totally the impact of col-

lective bargaining, especially on inst1tutional

governance at four-year institutions."

Collective bargaining on certain aspects of administrative

performance in one important category of unionized institutions.

Description of the Problem

 

The particular aspect of collective bargaining impact
which the dissertation will examine is concerned with the
effect of collective bargaining on the decision-making roles
of executive administrators in unionized institutions: campus
presidents or chief executive officers, provosts or chief
academic officers, and deans of schools or colleges. These
institutional officers are chosen because they are the ones
whose duties are most directly involved with the primary
academic functions of instruction, research and public service.

The research is based on the hypothesis that following
the introduction of faculty collective bargaining changes have
occurred in the decision-making roles and administrative
functions of executive administrators. The changes may have
occurred in connection with procedural contraints on admin-
istrative authority. New tasks may have been introduced or
former ones removed. Realignments may have been made
necessary in the proportion of time and attention required
by the various components of the administrative agenda.
Changes may have come about in the degree of influence which
the administrators are able to exert over the processes of
institutional planning and budgeting, or in the techniques
and avenues which they select for the exercise of educational
leadership. Agencies external to the campus may have become

more directly, or conceivably less directly, involved in

internal campus decisions, affecting accordingly the roles
of executive administrators. The combination of circum-
stances and the human dynamics surrounding the bargaining
relationship may have affected the ability of administrators
to exercise leadership as well as altering the kinds and
degrees of satisfaction which administrators take in their
work.

The research may best be described as "oral history."
Through a series of personal interviews the reactions of
individuals occupying principal administrative offices in
unionized institutions are elicited, asking them to reflect
systematically on the cahnges which have taken place in the
conditions of their administrative functions subsequent to
the introduction of faculty collective bargaining.

Much of the literature on academic collective bargaining
is produced by attorneys with special eXpertise in labor
law or by academic personnel managers many of whom are
trained in industrial relations. While these writers are
profoundly aware of the differences between the conditions
of collective bargaining in academic institutions and in
general public employment or industry, their assumptions are
based in industrial relations theory. Academic presidents,
vice presidents, and deans, on the other hand, rarely come
to their positions with specific training in personnel man-
agement or labor relations. Many have, perforce, become

expert in the management of academic collective bargaining,

but their approach is conditioned by a more general set of
academic values and assumptions. This dissertation seeks
to view faculty collective bargaining from the position of
these academically trained and oriented executives as they
work out the necessary accommodations between the culture
of the academy and this new--and in some respects alien--
method of structuring relationships and arriving at decisions.
Assessment of change of any kind requires some "baseline"
for judgment. Where the change is attributed to an event or
to some alteration in circumstances, that "baseline" would
logically be the conditions which existed before the event or
alteration in the circumstances. Ideally, a careful descrip-
tion would be made of the pre—existing condition which would
then be compared point-for-point with the condition pre-
vailing at some point following the introduction of the new
factor. Appropriate controls would be present to permit
discrimination between what is identified as the cause of
change and what might be the mutual effect of still other
unidentified influences. As desirable as that approach might
be, however, it is hardly possible where the putative cause
of change is faculty collective bargaining. Unionization
of the faculty is anticipated by many institutions, but by
the time it is recognized as a probable eventuality, some
of the effects are already present and the time has passed
for an unbiased "pretest."
For purposes of this research, reliance on the memory

and conscious perception of involved individuals is necessary.

The fallibility of human recollection renders its evidence
suspect as regards accuracy of detail, and the involvement
of personalities reduces the objectivity of their response.
These caveats are necessary when interpreting the results

of such a personal inquiry. What is being examined, however,
is precisely this set of human responses and perceptions.
The evidence which they provide cannot be uncritically
generalized for other individuals in other settings; but
that qualification does not reflect adversely on the quality
of the evidence which emerges. The qualification serves
instead to refine the definition of the purpose of the
research and the kinds of use to which the results may
profitably be put. The purpose is to reveal the personal
responses of actors in the processes of academic decision-
making and leadership as adjustment takes place to a new

set of relationships among the various institutional consti-
tuencies. The counterparts of these administrators in other
institutions facing the same change in relationships will
have that additional insight into some results which they
may anticipate and, at the very least, be helped to avoid

repeating the mistakes of others.

Limitations and Definitions
The interviews were confined to campus presidents,
provosts or vice presidents for academic affairs, and the
deans of schools or colleges in state colleges or regional

universities belonging to the American Association of State

Colleges and Universities. The officers identified are the
ones who now share, by line of delegation, the central
administrative functions associated with the academic pro-
gram of institutions of higher education. In some insti-
tutions, the Chairpersons of academic departments would
normally be added to that chain of authority. They have
been excluded from this research for two reasons. In the
first place, the number of departments and department
Chairpersons to be found on most state college campuses
creates a problem of sheer numbers. The numbers are less
important for logistical considerations than they are for
the extreme diversity that they represent. The diversity
arises both from the individual personalities of the chair-
men and from the differing characteristics and idiosyn-
cracies of the departments they represent. In the second
place, the position of department Chairpersons poses a

very special problem in the organization Of collective
bargaining. Whether their primary role is that of faculty
member or administrator is unclear, leading to the question
of their inclusion within or exclusion from the faculty bar-
gaining unit. In some unionized institutions they are
members of the bargaining unit and in some they are not.
Since this dissertation is directed toward the specific
responses of academic administrators, the inclusion of
Chairpersons would introduce a distracting variable. The

problem posed by the department chairperson in relation to

academic collective bargaining is a particularly important
one and should be the subject of more extensive survey
research.

Further specification and.delimitationislaccomplished
by the definitions which are applied to key terms in the

dissertation title.

Faculty Collective Bargaining

"Collective bargaining", as the term is applied in
ordinary discourse, can describe a wide variety of relation-
ships, and it embraces several stages in the development of
any particular collective bargaining agreement. "Faculty
collective bargaining" is employed in the dissertation to
describe the condition which occurs when formal, legal and
exclusive recognition has been granted by the governing
board of an institution of higher education to an organiza-
tion representing a bargaining unit which includes faculty
members employed by the institution, and when a negotiated
and legally ratified agreement exists between the governing
board and the bargaining unit.

Whenever a piece of writing deals intensively with a
single topic, a simple compositional difficulty arises.
Frequent necessary reptition of the term makes for literary
dullness. For that reason, a certain latitude is desirable
for the use of synonyms. Writers on the subject of faculty
collective bargaining frequently shorten the term to "collec-

tive bargaining" when it has been established that the main

subject is collective bargaining for faculty members.
Likewise, the definition is extended to a variety of terms
including "academic collective bargaining", "faculty union-
ization", "Faculty negotiations", or simply "unionization."
If any of these alternate terms are used to refer to anything
other than faculty collective bargaining, that is specified.

Faculty collective bargaining, as the term is employed
here, consists of three phases or stages. The first of these
is an organizational phase during which a petition is circu-
lated, a bargaining unit is defined, a bargaining agent is
elected and formal recognition is granted. The "bargaining
unit" is the group of employees whose employment is to be
included in the collectively-negotiated agreement. The
bargaining unit is distinguished from the "bargaining agent",
which is the organization recognized as the authorized
exclusive negotiating representative of the bargaining unit.
The bargaining agent may or may not include members of the
bargaining unit, although it generally does, just as there
will frequently be members of the bargaining unit who choose
not to belong to the bargaining agent organization.

The second phase of collective bargaining is the
"negotiation" phase. This is the period of time during
which representatives of the bargaining agent and the employ-
ing institution meet to negotiate the contract which will
apply for whatever period of time the negotiators agree upon.

One or two years is usual, although occasionally the contract

10

term is three years. Near the end of that time the negoti-

ating process is repeated.

The third phase of collective bargaining is the
period of contract administration during which institutional
administration is conducted according to the terms of the
negotiated contract. The dramatic publicity and the "mys-
'tique" of active negotiations tends to obscure in the public
Inind the importance of continuing contract administration.
Tflae term "faculty collective bargaining" has deliberately
tween defined in such a way as to include this period during
hfliich faculty and administration live together and order
tflieir affairs according to the terms of the negotiated

agreement. During this phase of the relationship the most

basic effects of collective bargaining may be expected to
aPpear.
Beyond this there is an extensive glossary of collec-

tiJJe bargaining terminology most of which has been developed

ill the industrial or public employee sectors. To anticipate

tine substance of the dissertation, that language may itself
'hawe the subtle effect of casting academic collective bar-
gaining in the direction of industry or nonacademic public

employment. As occasion requires, these terms will be

introduced and defined.

Public Four-Year Colleges and Universities

The wide variety of institutions which have develOped

in American higher education renders ambiguous almost any

11

general term of reference. That observation is particularly
true of the designations of "college" and "university."
While those common words are occasionally used in the disser-
tation in their indefinite and inclusive sense, this defini-
tion will identify the class or category of colleges and
universities which are the limited concern of the research.
The state colleges and regional universities are
tflnose institutions which basically constitute the membership
(Jf the American Association of State Colleges and Univer-
ssities (AASCU). This interesting group of schools has
Ixeceived its most comprehensive descriptive treatment in
E. .Alden Dunham's book prepared for the Carnegie Commission
or1 Higher Education and entitled, Colleges of the Forgotten
Anuericans. In his foreward to the book, Clark Kerr offers
a <3apsule description which suggests one of the qualities
“filich make the AASCU institutions particularly interesting

tC) students of academic collective bargaining:

The state colleges and regional universities are
America's most restless institutions of higher
learning. Their history spans less than 150 years,
but during that time they have typically played

four changing roles: as post-high school academies,
as normal schools devoted solely to the education
of teachers, as four-year liberal arts colleges
with strong technical emphasis in teacher education,
industrial arts and home economics, and as compre-
hensive colleges giving also professional education
in engineering and business administration and
graduate work at the M.A. level. Some have become
regional universities with research programs and
Ph.D. degrees. And there still remains an unset-
tled quality about their functions, Etandards,
offerings, faculties, and clientele.

2E. Alden Dunham, Colleges of the Forgotten Americans,
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969). P vii.

12

The "unsettled quality" has made the state colleges
and regional universities particularly receptive to faculty
collective bargaining, and it is among them that collective

bargaining has made its most dramatic inroads into four-year

institutions of higher education. At the same time, the

climate of growth, the adjustment to new conditions, the
efforts to improve academic quality and to respond to new
eniucational demands make these institutions-~sometimes
described as the "emerging universities"--a particularly
auztive laboratory for the study of the effects of academic

(Kallective bargaining on a wide range of institutional

functions .

Academic Leadership Roles of
University Administrators

This term is intended to encompass and describe what-

eVer it is that administrators "do" in connection with the

EEducational enterpise in institutions of higher learning.
quiet set of activities consists, in the most general sense,
‘3f the whole range of tasks necessary to organize, facilitate,
enable and operate the total program of a college or univer-
Sity--to establish an institutional environment within which
Scholars can study and teach and students can learn.

In the simplest and most primitive academic communities

two functions were present which could be described as

"administration." One of these was the combined function of

bursar-secretary-housekeeper, and the other was that of the

"headmaster" or presiding professor. The specialized,

13

differentiated and bureaucratized administrative organizations
Of modern universities are little more than the evolved
extension of those minimum necessary ancilliaries to the
academic process. From the "bursar-secretary-housekeeper"
duties, management functions have developed relative to the
physical plant, budget and investment, purchasing, record-
.keeping, and a wide range of "auxilliary services" such as
laousing, cafeterias, bookstores and public entertainment.
{Phe "headmaster" is now a president or chancellor responsible
:for taking the lead in coordinated planning of the academic
Exrogram, which involves organizing the faculty for academic
Ellanning. Student problems occur in both areas. On the
Cnne hand their physical requirements must be supplied and
tflleir financial responsibilities insured. On the other
hand, provision is necessary for their support in matters
related to the academic program.
"Academic management" is a term which some now prefer
635 a description of the administrative function in higher
education. The term is suspect in some quarters, however,
'because of its suggestion that academic adminiStration is
‘more closely aligned with business management than with
education, and because it would seem to ignore the important
differences between the academy and a business enterprise.
Those objectives are not, in themselves, sufficient reason
for rejection of the term. Hungate, in his definition of

management in higher education specifically includes the

14

academic functions of coordinated planning and policy forma-
tion as essential parts of the administrative function in
academic institutions. Using that broad definition, "manage-
ment" would be an acceptable and useful term for this
dissertation, and it will probably creep in as a synonym.
There are other reasons, however, why "management"
is unacceptable as a primary term of reference. In the
‘vocabulary of collective bargaining, "management" assumes
Ineanings and connotations which tend toward an industrial
linderstanding of the word, limiting rather than expanding
Jits applicability to the role of administration in higher
enducation. Again anticipating the substance of the study,
one of the factors cited as a contributing reason for the
Eidoption of collective bargaining by some faculties has been
time adoption of a "management posture" by institutional
adiministrations. There is no question concerning the value
(If management science to the operation Of educational
iJlstitutions. Likewise, there is no doubt that colleges
and universities have been entirely too slow in adopting
and.applying sound management principles within their own
Operations. The academic enterprise has suffered accordingly
in educational as well as fiscal terms. But management
science needs to he enlisted in the service of educational
goals, to become a part of the arsenal of techniques through
which academic leadership is exercised.
President Dodds, in his essay on the academic presi-

dency, makes much of the need for academic leadership which

is informed by a well-articulated philosophy of education.3
The writer of this dissertation subscribes to that view and
considers it as important now as when Dodds was writing.

The dissertation deals with a fairly limited and technical
subject in the field of higher education administration, but
this selection of terms affords an opportunity to imply

scmething of a larger purpose in its writing.

Methodology

 

Any analysis or assessment of change in the decision-
Inaking processes of colleges and universities in the early
axud mid-19703 must take into account two general and funda-
nuental conditions. One of these is the scepe and complexity
(NE change itself. The second consideration is the complexity
arua variety of the processes by which decisions are arrived
31: within the academic setting. Research which attempts to
isolate the consequences of faculty collective bargaining
“ulst deal with difficult problems arising from these two

Conditions .

A Climate of Change
American higher education in the 197OS--and the larger
Culture of which it is a part--is characterized by rapid
and continual change. Under those circumstances, causes
and consequences tend to merge and blur. A single event can

produce a number of effects both immediate and remote, and

—_

3Harold W. Dodds, The Academic President - Educator or
Caretaker? (New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962), p. 47f.

 

16

a number of causal factors can combine to produce a single
result. The rapid rate of change, quite apart from the
direction or content of particular changes, has an effect
upon persons and institutions, producing the condition which
Alvin Toffler4 has described as "future shock" and contri-
buting further to the difficulty of dissecting the elements
of cause and effect.

Discrimination between collective bargaining as a
<:ause of change and as a concomitant result of more remote
‘and complex influences is difficult, and a great care must
lee exercised in avoiding simplistic post hog interpretations.
1\1so, within the general climate of change, collective bar-
EIaining may combined with a variety of other forces bearing
upon institutions to produce yet further change. When
c3011ective bargaining is the most dramatic or visible
factor--as it often is--Observers may be tempted to assign
tile entire weight of causation to that single factor, when
Iits actual effect is only proportional with other combined
influences.

The problems arising from the complex nature of change
processes are familiar ones to the designers of survey

research, and statistical techniques are available to COpe
With them. In nonstatistical research, such as that being

described here, awareness of the problems is necessary in

 

4
1970).

Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, (New York: Random House,

 

17

order to avoid claiming more for the research than the
evidence warrants. The dissertation describes the percep—
tions, experiences and reactions of involved individuals
concerning the effects of faculty collective bargaining
within the areas of their own professional concern. The
significance of that record of experience is historical

and humanistic, rather than statistically predictive. The
19erceptions of involved individuals, distorted as they may
lae by human subjectivity, are still a part of a very limited
laody of evidence from which to begin to assess the effects
<3f academic collective bargaining on institutions of higher
education. Beyond that, the perceived effects are actual
tr) the extent that the perceptions provide the basis for

EiCtion and response by principal participants in the process.

Academic Decision-Making
More directly related to the content of the research
318 the complex nature of decision-making in academic insti—
tnations. Academic collective bargaining is, itself, a way
<3f coming to certain kinds of decisions and it adds an addi-
tional factor to the complexity of academic decision-making.

Mary Parker Follett wrote: "An executive decision is

only a moment in a process. The growth of decision, the

accumulation of authority, not the final step, is what we

need most to study."5 This research deals with an aspect of

5Mary Parker Follett, "The Meaning of Responsibility in
Business Management," a paper included in Henry C. Metcalf and
L. Urwick, Dynamic Administration (New York: Harper and

18

that "accumulation of authority" in institutions of higher.
education. To a greater extent than other formal organiza-
tions, colleges and universities are characterized by a

wide distribution of decision-making authority. In light of
that fact, Follett's remark becomes even more important

for the study of decision-making in the academic setting.

Corson describes the situation thus:

The process of deciding is distinctive in the
college or university in the degree to which
final responsibility for making decisions is

‘ diffused. Substantial independent authority
for making various types of decisions is allo-
cated beyond the trustees and the president to
a faculty as a group, to individual teachers, to
department heads, to deans, to coaches, and to
administrative officers. It follows, hence,
that the government of a college or university
poses distinctive problems in finding ways of
enlisting and integrating the energies, initi-
ative, and zeal of the relatively larger number

among whom6responsibility for decision-making
is shared.

The AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representation and
z\Cademic Negotiations observes that, "Theoretically, there
aire innumerable ways in which decision-making.authority

‘Could be distributed between the faculty and the administra-

tion."7 The Task Force then proceeds to describe a continuum

¥

Brothers, 1940). p. 140, cited in John J. Corson, Governance

0f Colleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960),
p0 110

6John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 11.

7Faculty Participation in Academic Governance, report of

the AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representation and Academic
Negotiations, Campus Governance Program (Washington, D.C.:
American Association for Higher Education, 1967). p. 14.

 

18

that "accumulation of authority" in institutions of higher.
education. To a greater extent than other formal organiza-
tions, colleges and universities are characterized by a

wide distribution of decision-making authOrity. In light of
that fact, Follett's remark becomes even more important

for the study of decision-making in the academic setting.

Corson describes the situation thus:

The process of deciding is distinctive in the
college or university in the degree to which
final responsibility for making decisions is

‘ diffused. Substantial independent authority
for making various types of decisions is allo-
cated beyond the trustees and the president to
a faculty as a group, to individual teachers, to
department heads, to deans, to coaches, and to
administrative officers. It follows, hence,
that the government of a college or university
poses distinctive problems in finding ways of
enlisting and integrating the energies, initi-
ative, and zeal of the relatively larger number
among whomsresponsibility for decision-making
is shared.

The AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representation and
Academic Negotiations observes that, "Theoretically, there
area innumerable ways in which decision-making.authority

could be distributed between the faculty and the administra-

ti<>r1."7 The Task Force then proceeds to describe a continuum

\

gg‘DizlmerS. 1940), p. 140, cited in John J. Corson, Governance
Eitblleges and Universities (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960),
J.

 

(DJ 6John J. Corson, Governance of Colleges and Universities
9‘? York: McGraw-Hill, 1960), p. 11.

tiles 7Faculty Participation in Academic Governance, report of
GEE! 1AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representat1on and Academ1c
Amthiations, Campus Governance Program (Washington, D.C.:
1::ican Association for Higher Education, 1967), p. 14.

19

along which the general decision-making mode in a particular

institution could be located and described. The continuum

extends from "Administrative Dominance" at one end to

"Faculty Dominance" at the other. Intermediate points are

established in "Administrative Primacy," "Shared Authority"

(the midpoint), and "Faculty Primacy." That linear distri-

bution of decision-making authority is useful for a "capsule"

description of particular decision-making styles. The model

is also conceptually useful to illustrate the equilibrium

of authority between faculty and administration.

For a more refined analysis, however, the linear con-

Cۤfizis inadequate. There are, in fact, several sets of

cxxardinates required, corresponding to the several institu-
ticnaal constituencies, each of which represents a center of

POWer. The " locus of decision" is among, rather than
Faculty power is exercised through

between, constituencies.
departments and schools, as well as through institutional

legislative bodies. Students have informal influence over

decisions in almost all institutions, and in many students

have a formal role in policy-formation. The administration

13 r10t a single center of power, but several such centers:

the’ IDresident or chancellor, vice-presidents, deans, direc-
Boards

tors . managers and heads of offices or departments.

O

f. “Dirustees, once content to let faculty, students and

a - o I I t
“JLIIistration order campus affairs w1th l1ttle d1rect inter-

ve - O I I
rlt:JLon, are now exerting more authority over campus dec1s1ons.

\

 

81bid., pp. 15-16.

21

and constituencies that can potentially become involved in

any decision, the problem is compounded by the situational

nature of academic decisions. Institutions have a wide

variety of functions which give rise to issues for decision,

and different viewpoints and competencies must be brought to

bear on each issue. The point at which any decision becomes

final, and the process by which it arrives at finality, will

vary with the subject. Furthermore, each decision of substance

requires a prior decision on procedure. "Deciding how to

decide" may turn out to be the more important of the two.

The "locus of decision" is the point of equilibrium

lbetween centers of influence and authority at which a deci—

sion becomes final. More important than locating that ter-

Iminal point, however, is the tracing of the process by which

a (decision arrives there. Deciding is a process which takes

Place over time, and'the shape of the decision is in a
cOndition of change and refinement until it reaches a state

of? neturity. Decision, as an executive act, may be nothing

"KDJTe than the conscious recognition that the process of

deciding has reached its culmination. That is the thrust

of Follett's remark that, "The growth of decision, the

acC—‘Vuanulation of authority, not the final step, is what we

need most to study.”
Within the framework of this general understanding of

lee nature of academic decision-making, this research has

8 I
C>I1S3ht to uncover evidence of the ways in Wthh some

ii . .
czéi<3emic administrators perceive that their roles in the

22

process of academic decision-making have been changed as

a result of the adoption of collective bargaining by the

faculties of their institutions. Those perceptions include:

1. ways in which the loci of finality of the various

kinds of decision have shifted relative to themselves sub-

sequent to the adoption of faculty collective bargaining;

2. changes in the degree and kind of authority or

influence which they are able to exert over the decision-

making processes;

3. the degree to which the changes are directly or

indirectly attributable to the presence of faculty collec-

'tive bargaining; and.

4. general observations concerning the degree to

deich the officers' ability to exercise leadership and

efEEect educational change has been diminished or enhanced.

The Research Method
The method selected which, given the limitations of
tile? research, appeared likeliest to yield evidence illumina-
tiriSJ the issues just identified was the relatively simple

one of conducting structured interviews with central admin-

lstlTative officers of selected institutions. Presidents

(or Chancellors), Provosts (or Academic Affairs Vice-

P .
tees:idents), and Deans of schools, colleges, or facult1es

w 0
ealrfiér interviewed on four campuses 1n three states.
Faculty collective bargaining is an institutional

ED . . .
hehomenon. Even though the trend 1s nationw1de, the form

23

which the bargaining relationship assumes on any campus

varies with factors in the local setting. Accordingly,

the officers were interviewed in institutional groups.

Inevitably, the evidence collected assumed some of the

characteristics of institutional case studies. Background

information was assembled concerning each institution

visited. This included the size and general programmatic

character of the institution, its relationship to the organ-
izational structure of higher education in the state, a
brief history of faculty collective bargaining on the campus,
and a review of the current negotiated faculty agreement.
.Although the research was conducted in this institutional

form, the reports are not represented to be institutional

case studies. That would require a more comprehensive

iJTvestigation with all campus constituencies, and such a
Procedure lies beyond the scope of the research.

One important logistical consideration in planning

tines interview format was economy of time. Administrative

tlilne is an institutional resource reducible to a dollar

all“Gunt, and the persons who were interviewed were precisely

tJIE! ones who would be most conscious of that fact. The

most efficient procedure proved to be one in which the
it“:£erviewees were asked to review a list of decision-making
tXDIPCics, selecting for further discussion only those which
we be most importantly affected by faculty collective bargain-

i. . .
r‘SB'. The interv1ewees were then permitted to reflect

24

narratively on the topics which appeared to them to be of
primary concern.

Decision topics were listed according to National
Center for Higher Education Management Systems Data Element
categories.10 Topics listed were, by NCHEMS category, as
follows:

COURSE - RELATED
Admission policies and standards
Curriculum content and degree requirements
Grading standards and policies
Academic calendar
Introduction, deletion, or change of programs

Acceptance of sponsored research
Conduct of extension and public service programs

\IO‘UI-fiWNI-J
O

FACILITIES - RELATED

1. Classroom and laboratory assignment and schedule

2. Faculty office assignment and amenities

3. Classroom, laboratory and office maintenance

4 New.facilities planning and physical plant
development

5. Automobile parking space

FINANCE - RELATED

1. Preparation of institutional request budget
2. Prosecution of the budget request with state
~ agencies

3. Internal allocation of the appropriated budget

4. Establishment of student fee schedules

5. Establishment of prices and fees for auxilliary
services

6. Development of management information and
planning systems

7. Solicitation of private funding for institutional
development

8. Allocation of student financial assistance

\—

( 10James S. Martin, Data Element Dictionary: Course
Technical Report 29 of the National Center for Higher

Egucation Management Systems at WICHE, Boulder, Colorado,
‘72), p. 4. - ,,

25

STAFF - RELATED

1. Appointment of new faculty

2. Retention or nonretention of faculty

3. Awarding of faculty tenure

4. Retrenchment of faculty for reasons of financial
exigency

5. Promotion of faculty

6. Evaluation of teaching effectiveness

7. Establishment of faculty work load

8. Faculty compensation

9. Faculty grievance procedures

0. Establishment of personnel policies for admin-
istrative or support staff

11. Selection and appointment of administrative
officers

12. Affirmative action

STUDENT - RELATED

1. Student development and academic support

2. Counseling and student health

. Residence hall programs

. Student conduct and discipline

. Student activities and organizations

. Student participation in institutional governance

O‘U‘lubb)

Topics in the list have not been duplicated, although some
could obviously be included in more than one category.

An attempt was made to word the topics in such a manner
tJIElt: they would define the areas for discussion while
all-c>'wing considerable latitude in the response. This approach
kmass adopted because it exploits the principle advantage
wflj—czh the interview technique has over survey research;
naunleely, that the respondent is free to limit the discussion
ar1<1 thus expand the range of possible responses. While
prea(:ision is sacrificed and a great deal of dependence is
plea<:ed upon interpersonal communication between the inter-
vieVver and the interviewee, the possibility is created that

s I
LII3jective shadings of opinion and perception are captured.

26

Consideration was originally given to the use of a tape

recorder to capture statements verbatim. That technical

aid might have improved the quality of the reporting, but
the possibility was rejected in part because tape recorded

conversations were at the time of the interviews the subject

of sensitive national attention. In addition, it was felt

that, on a subject of institutional sensitivity, conversa-

tion would be less inhibited if that kind of verbatim

On all occasions, assurances were

record did not exist.

given that officers and institutions would not be named in
the dissertation, and that this information, together with
raw notes on the interviews and visits would be held con--
fidential between the researcher and his guidance committee.
This initial chapter of the dissertation has attempted
to trace the genesis of the research in the experience and
perceptions of the writer and in the thought given to the

me‘tllod by which he might best approach the problem. Before

pr(Dceeding to a report and analysis of the evidence gathered,
a further background will be established in a review of
that portion of the published literature which bears most
inmE><3rtantly on the subject of the research. That review

forms the substance of the succeding chapter.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the six years or so since the advent of faculty

collective bargaining in American four-year colleges and

universities, the academic community has generated what it

would characteristically term "a vast literature" on the

subject. Collective bargaining has become a leading item

in the educational press and on the agenda of conferences

and seminars. Study centers have been organized to analyze

the phenomenon, and a professional association has been
formed among institutional officers who are particularly
con cerned with faculty contract negotiation and administra-

tiOn. The eventual appearance of a new professional journal

is predictable. In spite of the sheer volume of words

devoted to the subject, however, the actual body of ideas,

opinions and observed facts is limited. One bibliographer

Sal's, off the record, "Everyone is still writing the 'first

a‘Z'T‘:icle' on collective bargaining!"

Treatments of faculty collective bargaining fall into
Se‘ieral fairly well-defined categories, or various combin-

3“tions of them. They include:

Narratives or chronicles, historical, journalistic,
subjective or interpretative:

Analysis of causes and prediction of consequences;

27

28

Description and analysis of negotiated contracts;
Legal opinions and analyses;

Practical manuals for managing the various phases of
the bargaining relationship; and,

Advocacy and controversy.

More recently, a new category of discussion has appeared
which concerns the student involvement in and response to
collective bargaining by the faculty.

Understandably, the earlier discussions of faculty
collective bargaining were principally concerned with its
causes. These early articles contained a great deal of
speculation and opinion, but as more faculties were unionized
"harder" evidence became available, permitting careful study
and data-based conclusions regarding the conditions which
led faculties to organize. The larger question, however,
is what the consequences of faculty collective bargaining
will be. That question remains unanswered in any form other
than impression or, at best, informed speculation.

The body of experience is now reaching the level where
it is possible to collect data and draw conclusions. A
number of recent articles call attention to the need for
research into the "impact" of faculty collective bargaining
and several such studies are now in progress. Clearly, this
is the area of greatest current need for study in the field
of academic collective bargaining, particularly in view of
the usefulness of such studies to institutions which must

plan for the future with collective bargaining as a condition.

29

Faculty Collective Bargaining:
HiStory and Some causes

 

 

In his 1918 book, The Higher Learning_in America,l

 

Thorstein Veblen made one of those sardonic reverse prophe-
cies which admit a possibility even as they deny the fact.
He wrote, "Professors refuse to join unions or engage in
collective bargaining because of a feeling prevalent among
them that their salaries are not in the nature of wages and
that there would be a species of moral obliquity implied in
overtly so dealing with the matter." Veblen was concerned
about the kinds of market-place values which appeared to him
as threatening the academic quality of American universities,
and trade unionism in higher education looked like the
ultimate--if absurd--extension of those values. By 1973,
the possibility of faculty unionization had been realized

in 62 four-year institutions of higher education or multi-
campus university systems and in 150 two—year post-secondary
institutions.

In 1915, three years before Veblen published his book,
the academic profession in America marked its arrival at
maturity with the formation of the American Association of
University Professors. Fundamental to the purposes of the
AAUP was the maintenance of academic freedom and its safe-

guard in professorial tenure. Fifty-eight years later this

 

1Thorstein Veblen, The Higher Learning in America
(Stanford, Academic Reprints, 1954 [1918]).

2"212 College and University Faculties with Collective
Bargaining Agents," The Chronical of Higher Education,
November 26, 1973.'

30

prestigious professional organization was representing
twenty-five faculties as their exclusive agent in collective
negotiations over "terms and conditions of employment."3
Although the faculties of some community colleges had
been engaged in collective bargaining since 1966 or even
earlier, unionization for the faculties of four-year insti-
tutions made a relatively modest appearance in 1967. In
the summer of that year, an agreement was negotiated by the
faculty of Bryant College of Business Administration, Rhode
Island. Six months later, an agreement was concluded with
the faculty of the United States Merchant Marine Academy in
New York.4 In both cases, the faculty bargaining agent was
the American Federation of Teachers. The specialized
character of these two institutions, one of them a private
school and the other a federal one, permitted the events
to pass virtually unnoticed by the wider academic community.
Although organizing activities were taking place on a
number of campuses, the full arrival of collective bargaining
for university faculties was marked by the agreement reached

in September of 19695

by the giant multi-campus City Uni-
versity of New York (CUNY) with the two bargaining units

into which its 10,000 full and part-time faculty members

 

31bid.

4Robert K. Carr and Daniel K. VanEyck, Collective
Bargaining Comes to the Campus (Washington, D.C.: ACE, 1973),
pp. 17-18.

5

 

Ibid., p. 17.

31

were divided.6 In 1970, Central Michigan University became
the first single-campus public university to enter into a
collectively negotiated contract with its faculty.7 Shortly
thereafter, St. John‘s University of New York, a private
university, and Southeastern Massachusetts University, a
state institution, signed faculty agreements.8 From that
point, the spread of faculty collective bargaining has pro-
vided better exercise for scorekeepers than for historians.

Reasons which would account for the readiness of
university faculties to organize for collective bargaining
have been the subject of much discussion, speculation, and
analysis. The reasons are complex. Some of them are deeply
subjective or unique to particular institutions, so that
motives which would apply across the academic profession
are difficult to isolate.

Some of the motives are, of course, economic; but
economic issues cannot by themselves account for the move-
ment toward faculty unionization, nor are faculty economic
concerns identical with the ones which drove industrial
employees to organize. For one thing, collective bargaining
came to the campus at a time when professors were beginning

to achieve a modest degree of affluence. Between 1958 and

 

6E. Alden Dunham, Colleges of the Forgotten Americans
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), p. 107.

7Robert G. Howlett, "Perspectives in Public Sector
Bargaining" in Terrence N. Tice, ed., Faculty Power: Collec—
tive Bargaining On Campus (Ann Arbor: Institute of Continu-
ing Legal Education, 1972), p. 24. ' ‘ ‘

 

 

 

8Carr and Van Eyck, 9p. cit., p. 18.

32

1970, faculty salaries increased at an average annual rate
nationwide of about 7 percent.9 But substantial and, in
some cases, even dramatic gains kindled even greater expec-
tations, particularly among younger and junior faculty.
A principle of relative disadvantage seems to operate.10
There was little agitation as long as professors lived in
isolated college communities where everyone shared the same
level of genteel poverty and where the academic salary
established the community standard. For many, the lower
level of financial reward appeared to be a worthwhile trade-
off for the congenial academic life style. In the burgeoning
suburbia which now surrounds university cities, professors
are apt to mingle in community life with professionals in
industry, business, law and medicine; and the professor,
particularly the young professor, rapidly becomes conscious
of an economic differential between himself and professionals
of his own age who have invested the same amount of time
and money in professional training.

A similar process occurs within the academic institu-
tions themselves. When some faculty members reached the
level of real affluence, aided by fat research grants and

the academic "star" system, a corresponding discontent was

 

9Lewis B. Mayhew, "Faculty Demands and Faculty Mili-
tance," Journal of Higher Education, 41, No. 1, (Winter
1967), p. 344. See also: Carr and VanEyck, 9p. cit., p. 43.

10

 

Mayhew, gp. cit., p. 344.

33

generated among those who aspired to equal rewards. Whether
one attibutes the discontent over salaries to jealousy or

to justifiable grievance over inequities, the result is the
same. A bitterness was created toward a system of salary
determination that permits such disparities.ll The faculty
of the Basic College may conclude--rightly or wrongly--that
they have been penalized in order to provide some princely
salaries in the Department of Biochemistry.

As is true of the young in an affluent society, young
professors expect, often unrealistically, to reach the top
early. They are impatient with the administration for not
moving them along more rapidly, particularly when their
academic credentials are superior to those of their senior
colleagues, as is often the case. They see nothing profes-
sionally inappropriate about joing a union as a means of
closing the status differential more quickly. Experience
demonstrates that rapidly-growing faculties with a high
proportion of their members in junior ranks are particularly
inclined toward the adoption of collective bargaining.

The matter of economic benefit is, moreover, tied to
the whole professional apparatus of rank, tenure and promo-

tion. The adversaries of the junior faculty are, at this

 

11William Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe:
Causes and Consequences," Liberal Education, 57, No. 3,
(October 1971), p. 308.

12John C. Livingston, "Collective Bargaining and
Professionalism," Educational Record, 48, No. 1, (Winter
1967), P. 79. See also: Dunham, 9p. gi£., p. 106.

 

34

point, not the administrative bureaucracy, but the academic
hierarchy in their departments.13 Instructors and assistant
professors know that their destinies are not in the hands
of their academic peers, but of their professional superiors,
and the traditional academic processes appear designed and
manipulated to keep it that way. The price of admission to
senior ranks is, or seems to be, compliant behavior at the
expense of academic freedom and professional initiative.
Moreover, teaching effectiveness--usually stated as a
principal criterion for promotion--does not appear to be
articularly related to age or rank, leading to the younger
teachers' feeling that they deserve better consideration
on that ground alone. Collective bargaining provides an
obvious means of outflanking the professional power structure
in matters of advancement and tenure.

If the urgencies of youth provide some of the reasons
for faculty unionization, the insecurities of middle age
add others. As Lewis Mayhew and others have pointed out,
faculties are especially "union-prone" in junior colleges
and in former teachers' colleges which have become multi-
purpose universities. In these latter institutions there
may be a sizable segment of the faculty who feel that they
have left one comfortable reference group, but have not yet
been totally accepted by another. The threat to the ego

is intensified by the presence of academic "stars" and the

 

13Livingston, gp. cit., pp. 79-80.

35

bright and aggressive young products from the good graduate
schools who inevitably appear as institutions develop toward

mature university status.l4

There will be those among the
Older teachers college cadre who fear that they are "mar-
ginal" professionals, and the feeling expresses itself, in
Mayhew's words, as "anxiety, punitiveness, rage, and a
search for scapegoats." The administration is an available
target and the union becomes the weapon.15
Administrative behaviors have doubtless contributed
to faculty unionization, but in ways that are difficult to
define and which have received little treatment in the
literature--perhaps because so much of that literature has
been produced by administrators. Any conclusions, therefore,
must be largely speculative. Administrative authoritarian-
ism of an obvious sort is less of an issue than might
ordinarily be expected. Collective bargaining seems to have
come to some schools concurrently with a change away from the
authoritarian administrations which were often characteristic
of the teachers' colleges-~an administrative style which was
easy for them to absorb from the elementary and secondary

school systems. That may itself offer a partial explanation.

Historians have pointed out that revolutions are less likely

 

14Henry L. Mason, College and University Government
(New Orleans: Tulane University, 1972), p. 21. See also:
Carr and VanEyck, _p. cit., p. 58.

15Mayhew,‘<_>p_. cit., p. 343.

36

to occur as a reaction against utter powerlessness than as
a response to the first taste of freedom.

Some of the "new breed" of administrators came from
faculty ranks and wanted very much to be Viewed as colleagues
by their own faculties. It came as a baffling and disappoint-
ing surprise when they were not, in spite of their efforts
at demonstrating a faculty orientation. Then, too, in their
zeal to move their institutions along the spectrum toward
nature university status, they may have been less democratic
than they thought, more or less unconsciously replacing the
old despotism with a more subtle manipulation.

Sheila Polishook,16 commenting on the emergence of
faculty unions at CUNY, attributes much of the faculty's
attitude to administrators' failure to "read" accurately
the faculty sentiments about the administration. She quotes
the CUNY president as saying, "It is as unusual to find
ifaculty members who consider themselves employees as to
find administrators who consider themselves managers."

’Phat view may have been naive. Professor Polishook pointed
out that "many" CUNY administrators had been trained in
educational administration, rather than the "academic"
disciplines, citing that as evidence that the administrators
considered themselves to be academic managers. Her reply

to the president's quoted statement was, "We are employed,

__

16Sheila S. Polishook, "Collective Bargaining and the
City University of New York," Journal of Higher Education,
41, No. 5, (May 1970). PP. 377-386.

 

37

we are salaried, and we work under fixed conditions,
controlled not by ourselves, but by those who hired us."

Whether or not the CUNY administrators regarded them-
selves as "managers," Polishook anticipates another set of
influences working on administrators to force them into a
management position gig 3 gig their faculties. One of these
forces is collective bargaining itself, of which one presi-
dent of a unionized institution said, "A cynical faculty
member might suspect that it is all a management plot."
More important is the management revolution in academic
administration which has come with leaner days in the
universities and the pressing need to allocate scarce
resources efficiently.

Indifference or disdain on the part of influential
senior professors is a factor in establishing a climate
favorable to unionization. When faced with the decision
Whether or not to unionize, the classical academic response
ought to be rigorous examination of the issues and reasoned
debate over them. That is what university faculties are
suPPPSed to do best. Instead, the response of the very
individuals who should be the most skilled practitioners
of that academic art is to quit the arena. Thus, the
decision to unionize is, in some measure, a decision by
defa1111:. A strange coalition forms between youthful, able,
stYlistically radical professors and the older "marginal"
faculty members whose personal style is likely to be severely

con'Servative. That coalition is enough to carry the day for

38

the union, given the inaction of the mature and professionally
powerful seniors.17
There is some indication that this pattern of behavior
may hue changing. In 1972 and 1973, a number of faculties
rejected unionization in agency elections. Commentators
are cxeutious about identifying the rejections as a trend,
and tflae only reasons they are willing to suggest are "more
aggrenssive, knowledgeable administration activity, combined

"18 One possibility is that

with.llingering faculty caution.
more syenior professors are doing their homework and entering
the Exelitical debate. In any event, it is too late for the
instidrutions already engaged in collective negotiations,
since «experience from other sectors of the economy indicates
that tflne adoption of collective bargaining is far easier
than i:ts abandonment, even when the results are unsatis-
factorfiy from the viewpoint of the organized employees them-
SEIVes;.19 A far greater likelihood, as Carr and VanEyck
SUQQGSSt, is the replacement of one bargaining agent by
another_20

In addition to the internal climate of institutions,

therEi are external forces which provide impetus in the
\

17Boyd, gp. cit., pp. 309-310.

in 18Jack H. Schuster, Emerging Issues in Faculty Bargain-

EHE) 4Address prepared for deIivery at thé l73fd’meetifig of

a1: Ihnerican Political Science Association, 1973, p. 6. See
‘33 Carr and VanEyck, op. cit., pp. 146—148, 152-156.

Th . lgphilip W. Semas, "Faculties at the Bargaining Table,"
r-xe Chronicle of Higher Education, November 26, 1973, p. 9.

 

 

20Carr and Van Eyck, QE- cit., p. 14.

39

direction of faculty unionization. Some of these forces
derive from the social environment. Collective bargaining
is a method for the resolution of group interests which is
widely accepted in industrialized society, and its methods
and terminology are understood by almost anyone who reads
the newspapers. Furthermore, unionization has been purged
of its ”strong-arm" connotations by its widespread adoption
among teachers in the public schools and among other white-
collar public employees. The present distribution of faculty
collective bargaining in higher education shows a marked
concentration among institutions in the industrialized
northeast quadrant of the continental United States, suggest-
ing that professors are more ready to organize when they are
located in geographical proximity to industry, and where the
cOllective negotiation of labor contracts is a frequent and
Visible event.21
A further important element in the social "ripple-
effect" is the manner in which faculty collective bargaining
is Communicated within the educational community. Lower
schOOl teachers were the first to organize, followed by
faculty in the junior colleges who were often a part of the

Same public school systems. Finally, collective bargaining
\

In _ 21Faculty Collective Bargaining in Postsecondary
FBEEEutions: - 'Eie Impact on the Campus and on Hie State, by
19‘; Education Commission of the States, (Report No. 28, May
"M 2) . p. 2. See also: Bill Aussieker and J. W. Garbar1no,
In.eaS-uring Faculty Unionism: Quantity and Qual1ty,"
\dsgpriai RelatiOns, 12, No. 2, (May 1973).

40

was adopted by the faculties of four-year colleges and
universities. Dunham remarks that some of the part-time
faculty at CUNY when that institution was unionized were

"moonlighting" public school teachers and already members of

the AFT . 22

What accounts for that spread, at least in part, is
the demonstration that collective bargaining works where
faculty salaries are concerned. The comparison of salary
scales before and after the introduction of collective
bargaining provides strong evidence of the ability of
collective negotiation to bring about rapid improvement
in compensation. Administrations have claimed that the
compensation packages won at the bargaining table were about
what they had planned to grant anyway, and so it may have
been; but the simplest interpretation of the evidence is

that collective bargaining provides immediate financial

gain for the faculty.23

The actual movement to organize requires the presence
0f Somme group or organization which is willing to offer
J‘tself as a bargaining agent.24 The American Federation of

Of Teachers (AFT), an AFL-CIO affiliate with long experience
\

22Dunham, 9_p_. cit., p. 107.

ti 23Boyd, 22' cit., p. 310. See also: Faculty Collec-
‘~X§Ll§§rgaining, gp. cit., note 21, p. 3.

 

gai . 24Joseph W. Garbarino, "Emergence of Collective Bar-

Uniittngy" in E. D. Duryea and Robert S. Fisk, eds., Faculty

i§j§¥%§_and Collective Bargaining (San Franc1sco: Jossey-Bass,
. pp. 13-15.

41

in negotiating for teachers in the public schools, was an
active early proponent of college faculty unionization. AFT
organizing activity drew in the National Education Associa-
tion, .also active in the public schools, as a competitor in
bargaining agent elections. The super-professional AAUP
at firnet treated the union movement in higher education with
disdaini as being unworthy of professors. The 1968 State-
;figflgs of the AAUP strongly support that anti-union position.25
In the: same‘year, however, Harry Marmion predicted that,
"The IUAUP may need to decide whether to continue on the high
road.ch professionalism or go to where the action is, where
the Hennbers are, and where many feel the future of higher
education lies."26
'The AAUP has evidently come to agree with Marmion.
Already in 1968, while continuing to maintain its anti-union
posturwe, the AAUP reached a position where it could recog-
niZe tile legitimacy of a "withholding of services" by the
facultqg under certain grave circumstances. Five years later,
the AAUP was representing the faculties of twenty-five
inStitutions of higher education as their exclusive agent for

collective bargaining. As for the other national organiza-

tions in 1973, the AFT was the bargaining agent at forty-eight

(M . 25Louis Joughin, ed., Academic Freedom and Tenure,
adlSon: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 349-350.

Ed 26Harry A Marmion, "Unions and Higher Education,"
\“Sational Recorg, 49, No. 1 (Winter 1968), p. 46.

\

42

institutions, the NEA at ninety institutions, and merged
affiliates of the AFT and NBA at twenty institutions.
Twenty-nine faculties were represented by independent faculty
associations. These figures represent both two-year and
four-year institutions, both public and private.

The influence of the law itself is a matter of central
importance, not only where the incentives to faculty union-
ization are concerned, but also where the consequences are
being assessed.27 The availability of a legal framework for
collective bargaining clearly encourages adoption of the
method. New York's 1967 "Taylor Law" is widely identified
as an important factor in the unionization of faculties in
New York's public universities.28

Since 1965, eighteen states have enacted legislation
‘which permits collective bargaining by public employees.
Three of these make special provision for the faculties of

public institutions of higher education. The great prepon-

derance of organized faculties are in states which have

 

27Kenneth P. Mortimer and G. Gregory Lozier, Collective

Bargaining; Implications for Governance (The Pennsylvania
State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education,
Report No. 17, June 1972): PP. 3—4. See also: Garbarino,
92° cit., p. 3:

"The extension to government workers, particularly

at the state level, of the right to organize for

collective bargaining is the most important single

reason for the present form and growth of academic

unions."

28William F. McHugh, "Collective Negotiations in Public
Higher Education,” College and University Business, 47, No.
6, (December 1969), p. 41. See also: Polishook, op. 935.,
and Schuster, op. cit., p. 4.

 

43

comprehensive public employee bargaining laws.29 In addition
to the states with public employee bargaining laws, six
others, including California, have laws requiring public
employers to "meet and confer" with their employees.30

The situation in Michigan is complicated by the fact
that the state's public universities are constitutionally
incorporated and thus exist as branches of government rather
than as public agencies. The applicability of the Michigan
Public Employment Relations Act is thus in question. Five
university faculties in Michigan are engaged in collective
bargaining. In each case, the faculty claims that they are
negotiating under the provisions of the act and the govern-
ing board claims that it is at the table ex gratia. The
Charade works well as long as the issue is not put to the
test in the courts. That is almost certain to happen rather
sooner than later, with important implications for the
autonomy of the Michigan institutions.

Federal law accomplishes for most private colleges and
universities what state legislation has done for public ones.
In 1970, responding to petitions from Cornell and Syracuse
Universities, the National Labor Relations Board agreed to
assume jurisdiction over employment relations at those two

private institutions, permitting them to negotiate with their

 

29Terrence N. Tice, "The Situation in the States," in
Terrence N. Tice, ed., Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies
(Ann Arbor: The Institute of Continuing Legal Education,
1973), pp. 178-238.

3oIbid.

44

employees under Federal labor law.31 In so doing, the
NLRB reversed an earlier position taken in its 1951 Columbia
University decision. There was no apparent recognition by

the universities, the several amici curiae, or the NLRB,

 

that the decision would open the way for the faculties of
private institutions to organize and negotiate with their
institutions in the status of "employees." The NLRB did
admit in its decision that it was "entering a hitherto
uncharted area." The NLRB has since ruled that it would
assume labor jurisdiction over private institutions having
a gross annual income of $1,000,000, or more, bringing
approximately 80 percent of private higher education under
its authority.32
The important issue raised by the NLRB decision is
the same one faced by public institutions which are organized
undertfluaprovisions of state legislation. The issue is how
to define and accomodate within the law the unique nature of
faculty employment, using criteria developed with entirely
different classes of employees in mind. The question comes
sharply into focus when decisions are made about who shall
be included within a bargaining unit and who shall be excluded.
This crucial discrimination between "managers" and "employed

professionals" is one which has important implications for

 

31183 NLRB 41, 74 LRRM 1269 (1970).

32Carr and VanEyck, gp. git., p. 28. See also:
Myron Lieberman, "Professors, Unitel," Harper's Magazine,
243, No. 1457 (October 1971). p. 62. Lieberman, at that
time, put the figure at "more than two-thirds."

45

the governance systems of educational institutions; and
frequently the decision is made not by the institutions
themselves, but by the employment relations boards applying
nonacademic criteria. The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education defines the problem crisply:

The Federal National Labor Relations Act is
based on industrial experience. State laws on
bargaining are based on the special nature of
the civil service. The sharp industrial deline-
ation between management and labor does not fit
higher education; nor does the hierarchical
civil service relation fit the more collegial
approach taken on a campus. Faculty members are
neither industrial workers nor civil servants.
Their special profession and the special nature
of the institution in which they are employed
both call for separate treatment.

Bargaining and Governance: More Causes
and Some Possible Conseqpences

 

 

Economic considerations provide much of the impetus
for faculty collective bargaining. They may even be the
most powerful influence at work on the individual professor
as he marks his ballot in an agency election. For the
faculty union movement as a whole, however, economics are
secondary to a set of motives related to the government
of institutions. Schuster says, "Despite collective bar-
gaining's ostensible preoccupation with economic issues,
the most consequential issues for the life of the university

0 O I O I 34
revolve around bargaining's impact on univer51ty governance."

 

33The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Gover—
nance of Higher Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, April
1973), p. 50.

34Schuster, gp. cit., p. 6.

 

46

Even if the single reason for unionization were the
matter of faculty salaries, the threat to traditional
governance systems is an obvious one. Ralph Brown sums it
up in his often-quoted version of the "domino theory":

Once a bargaining agent has the weight of statu-
tory certification behind him, a familiar process
comes into play. First, the matter of salaries is
linked to work load; work load is then directly
related to class size, class size to range of
offerings, and range of offerings to curricular
policy. Dispute over class size may also lead to
bargaining over admissions policies.35

The American system of higher education, both public
and private, is characterized historically by a strong sense
of public responsibility. There is an equally strong con-
cern for academic freedom and the autonomy of the faculty
in matters related to their educational functions. Inter-
posed between the two are the institutional presidents and
their administrations. The office of the president, in its
extended sense, is seen, on one hand, as implementing the
directives of the lay board, and, on the other hand, as
representing the judgments of the faculty to the board and
to the supporting public constituency. The scheme is gen-
erally described as a "shared authority" and it functions in
a kind of kinetic--and tenuous--political balance. The

effectiveness of the system depends heavily upon the poli-

tical skill of the participants and the measure of trust

35Ralph Brown, "Collective Bargaining in Higher
Education," Michigan Law Review, March 1969, p. 1075.

 

J

47

that exists between them. The system of shared authority
or "codetermination" contrasts with the line-and-staff
decision-making hierarchy of industry, the military, or the
civil service bureaucracy.
The concept of shared authority finds its most complete
and concrete delineation in the "Statement of Government
of Colleges and Universities," published in the AAUP
Bulletin (Winter 1966). The statement was a joint effort
by the AAUP Committee "T" on College and University Govern-
ment, the Commission on Administrative Affairs of the ACE,
and, at a later stage, the Associated Governing Boards.36
The statement acknowledges that, with few exceptions, the
governing board is the "final institutional authority."37
The statement is, however, stronger and more explicit in
describing the governing role of the faculty:
The faculty has primary responsibility for such
fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter
and methods of instruction, research, faculty
status, and those aspects of student life which
relate to the educational process. On these
matters the power of review or final decision
lodged in the governing board, or delegated by it
tothe president, should be exercised adversely only
in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons
communicated to the faculty. (Section V)38

The position of the president as the interlocutor of

the system is established by the statement that,

 

36Mason,"9p. Cit., p. xii. Text reproduced in Joughin,
pp. cit., pp. 90-101.

37Joughin, pp. 933., p. 96.

381bid., p. 93.

48

It is the duty of the president to see to it that
the standards and procedures in Operational use
within the college or university conform to the
policy established by the governing board and
to the standards of sound academic practice.

and,
His leadership role is supported by delegated
authority from the board and the faculty.3
[Emphasis mine.]

Most of the current literature on the governance of
higher education supports the concept Of shared authority,
although it is frequently acknowledged that the condition is
an ideal one and exists only to a relative degree in parti-

cular institutions.40

Existence of the concept, even as a
philosophical ideal, is valuable to the academic community.
As Sanford Kadish has observed, ". . .It has tended to be

the mode of rapprochement between bureaucracy and profes—

 

sionalism in institutions of higher education to which
faculties have traditionally aspired."41

Governance under the principle of shared authority is
continually in flux and there is an almost infinite variety
of forms which it can assume in operation. Mortimer and

Lozier identify three basic shared authority models:

". . .joint participation in decision-making: agreements to

 

391bid., pp. 97, 98.

40See e.g., The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Governance of Higher Education, op. cit., Recommendation 14,

p.'41. Mortimer and Lozier, pp. £33., p. 4.

4lSanford Kadish, "The Strike and the Professoriate,"
AAUP Bulletin, Summer 1968, p. 163.

 

 

49

separate jurisdictions among interdependent constituencies;
and collective negotiations."42 Israel Kugler, identifying
himself as a spokesman for the AFT and faculty unionism,
is more forceful in describing collective bargaining as an
effective and authentic instrument of shared authority:

A parliamentary model in which the working faculty

engaged in teaching and research would select all

administrators and have them responsible to the

faculty for the carrying out of faculty policy is

a desirable ideal, but a utopian one. Facing

reality, we must recognize that-professors are

not officers of an institution on appointment,

but professional employees. By banding together

in a union and seeking collective bargaining

status, the imbalance of power can be redressed

and the untrammelled authority of the administra-

tor-trustee combine effectively checked. A truly

shared authority is the result.43

There are several forces at work in the American

academic community which have prompted some faculties to
concur with Kugler and opt for collective negotiations as
an instrument of governance or as an adjunct to the more
traditional systems. Some of these forces are the product
of the 19603 "boom” in higher education and the concurrent
campus ferment.44 Universities, the established ones at

least, became centers of power to a degree unprecedented in

their history. That power was economic and political as well

 

V.— f

42Mortimer and Lozier, 2p. cit., p. 4.

43Israel Kugler, "The Union Speaks for Itself,"
Educational Record, 49, No. 4, p. 415.

44Fac‘u'ltngarticip'ation'i'n Asademic Governance
(Washington: American AssoCiétiofi for Higher Education, 1967),
po 9. I ‘

 

50

as intellectual. Power is a form of energy which, once it
exists, must go somewhere. In spite of his nod to "shared
authority," Kugler's statement translates: "Power." One
of the factors in the emergence of collective bargaining is
the possession of power itself, quite apart from the goals
it might be expected to serve.

In a more practical direction, the affluence of the
sixties produced explosive growth in the size and complexity
of many institutions, together with changes in their educa-
tional functions. Single-purpose teachers' colleges became
multi-purpose universities-~the so-called "emerging univer-
sities." The old governance systems were unable to cope
with the stresses of change. Even in established and dis-
tinguished universities, the mechanisms of university govern-
ment showed signs of stress, prompting the creation of
"governance commissions" on many, if not most, campuses.

The studies of governance at Princeton and at California are

45 Another product of the general

two important examples.
concern for governance was the joint AAUP-ACE-AGB "Statement"
cited above.

Duryea and Fisk relate the emergence of collective

bargaining to the whole "governance crisis" in higher

education:

 

w

A . _...l ... .

'SCaleb Foote and Mayer, Henry, The Culture of the
University:' GoVernance and EduCation (San Francisco:
jossey-Bass, I960).

51

The specific influences prodding academicians and
other professionals to turn to collective bar-
gaining are numerous, and not all bear on every
situation. More fundamentally, in our view, the
emergence of unions relates significantly to the
changing nature of college and university
government.46

The professional power resident in the faculties of
established universities had its "spilléover" effect on the
faculties of the "emerging" universities. Of these latter

schools, Garbarino says,

As their mission changed and new departments and

colleges were created, the new faculty recruited

for these units had high expectations of profes-

sional independence and of professional influence
over institutional policy.

The conversion to the prestigious university status
also legitimized high expectations among the old
faculty. However, the administrators and estab-
lished faculty leadership of some of the new
systems were slow to adopt the forms of governance
and faculty power associated with universities,

at least in the opinion of some of their faculty
constituents, and unionism appeared as a device

to hasten the process.47

Throughout the 19605, a new set of social priorities
began to make its influence felt with implications for
university government more serious, even, than the growth

of professional power. The "knowledge explosion" and the

consequent rise in academic prestige led to a theory of

 

46E. D. Duryea and Fisk, Robert 8., "Impact of Union-
ism on Governance," in Dykman W. V., ed., The Expanded
Campus, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 19727. p. 1072

47

 

Garbarino, 9p. cit., p. 11.

m

52

social, economic, and professional reward based on merit.
The new social thrust arose from an entirely different
direction: the "revolution of rising expectations" produced
by the success of the civil rights movement. Equality of
social opportunity, with its corollary in equality of

access to higher education, became the leading social
priority. Across the society, the dominant political theory
became "one man, one vote," with maximum extension of poli-
tical franchise. Within the universities, students pressed,
with some success, for a voice in determining the academic
policies which affected them. Again, the catchword was
"power"--"Black power," "student power," and ultimately
"professor power."

The egalitarian revolution affected faculties in two
basic ways. One of these was in the ideological identifica-
tion of faculty members, particularly younger faculty members,
with the aspirations of the disadvantaged and disenfran-
chised--a condition which many felt they shared. Ladd and
Lipset see a link between the ideological orientation of

faculty and their attitudes toward faculty unionism.48

They
see ideological considerations, however, as balanced by

factors related to professional achievement:

 

48Everett Carll Ladd and Lipset, Seymour M., "Union-
izing the Professoriate," Change, 5, No. 6, (Summer 1973),

p. 41. The perception is supported quantitatively by the
Carnegie Commission, pp. cit., p. 94.

53

The liberalism of the elite school faculty pushes
them one way, but the factors relating to their
professional status at once shove them in the
opposite direction. .

. . .There is an important clash, then, between

the interests and values of successful academics

and of trade unionism, which is largely egalitarian.49

On the other hand, the student power movement, supported
by younger and professionally less powerful professors pro-
voked, in some instances, a backlash from conservative and,
given the general correspondence between age and ideology,
older faculty members. The highly vocal quality of student
protest gave students access to presidents and a priority
on administrative agendas which was threatening to the
generally silent "establishment" professoriate. They, too,
were hung on the horns of a dilemma, their professional
instincts disinclining them toward unionism, but their
apparently "neglected" status prompting them to seek some

50 An interesting and continuing feature of

base of power.
the campus power contest is the interaction of student power
with faculty power. Student power was a factor in the
emergence of faculty unions. Presently, faculty unionism
and faculty power appears to be a factor in the growing
interest in the organization of student unions.51
The whole power crisis in higher education caused many

faculty members to become disenchanted with, and even

 

49Ibid.

50Carr and VanEyck, pp. pip., p. 94.

51Schuster, pp. cit., pp. 7, 9.

54

contemptuous of, academic senates, the most common vehicle

of shared authority. In some institutions, the senate had
never commanded very much respect. A common View of senates
was that they often debated issues without result until the
questions became moot. Ih the academic culture the academic
senate is often caricatured as a "debating society." In

fact, senates in many institutions are self-perpetuating
oligarchies of tenured professors, or dominated by administra-
tive members and presidential appointees.52 In any event,
senate credibility is undermined by its dependence on the

53 In some cases, senates had——

administration for funding.
and have-~sizable pp £3359 power in academic decision-making,
but the pp jppp authority still lies with the administration
and the board and that is unsatisfactory to some faculty

54 The union offers itself as an avenue to power

members.
which is recognized in the law.

Furthermore, senates have not as a rule proved respon-
sive enough to demands for necessary curricular change and
educational innovation. This is a matter of frustration to

enthusiastic teachers anxious for educational reform. To

them, the union offers a means which is justified by the

 

52The Carnegie Commission, pp. cit., p. 47. McConnell
pp. cit., PP. 101-103.

53Mortimer and Lozier, pp. cit., p. 5.

54Facu1ty'PartiCipatiOn in Academic Governance, pp. cit.,
pp. 14-15.

55

educational end, even if it requires the sacrifice of some
aspects of the professional image.55
Academic senates are not, of course, the only vehicle
for the exercise of faculty shared authority. Probably the
fundamental locus of decision-making as it involves the
great bulk of the faculty is the academic department. In
the departments those decisions are made which affect the
individual professor most directly: the matters of appoint-
ment, reappointment, promotion, tenure, class assignment and
curriculum. The department is also the "first instance"

recourse in faculty grievances.56

These are the very deci-
sions which are at issue when faculty collective bargaining

is under consideration and the manner in which those decisions
are arrived at is likely to be directly affected by
negotiations.

Departmental styles and internal organizations are as
diverse, almost, as the individuals of which they are composed.
Dressel identifies a correspondence between the professional
quality of departments (as rated in the Cartter Report) and

a democratic style of departmental decision-making.57 There

is also evidence to indicate that faculty favor collective

 

55Kugler, pp. cit., p. 416.

56Archie R. Dykes, Epculty Participation in Academic
Decision-Making (Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1968), p. 30.

57Paul L. Dressel, The Confidence Crisis, (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1970), p. 39, p. 142.

 

 

56

bargaining more in institutions where departmental organiza-
tions appear to be less democratic.58
If some incentives to unionize arose out of affluence

and the flow of power, other incentives came with depression
and threats to that power.59 The ideological controversies
of the mid-sixties, beginning with the Free Speech Movement
at Berkeley and culminating in the convulsive student unrest
over the Southeast Asia War in the spring of 1970, provided
political excuse for reduced public funding to higher educa-
tion. Public accountability became an important new factor
in the alignment of power on campus. California's governor,
Ronald Reagan, used the occasion of a public groundbreaking
at Bakersfield State College to serve public notice on the
academics:

Our public institutions have been established and

financed by the people. They are the vehicles

for the expression of cultural values and goals of

the people, as well as the repository of knowledge

and the distributor of truth. The members of the

various education boards are all agents of the

people. Through these instruments the people

should have not only 8 voice, but also accounta-

bility and recourse.6

GOvernor Reagan is certainly no revolutionary, but his

cry of "power to the people" echoes the rhetoric of the student

 

58Duryea and Fisk, pp. cit., pp. 108-109.

59Ping, pp. cit., p. 104.

60Ronald Reagan, "Excerpts of Prepared Remarks by
Governor Ronald Reagan," (Bakersfield State College ground-
breaking ceremony, April 11, 1969) Mimeograph, (Sacramento,
California, Office of the Governor, 1969).

57

political activists, leading some to speculate that he and
Mario Savio could have used the same speechwriter!

Politics aside; the demands for accountability have a
direct influence in the direction of unionization. For one
thing, legislatively imposed "accountability" with its thinly-
disguised overtones of anti-intellectualism has contributed
to the atmosphere of tension among faculty members, exacer-
bating intra-mural tensions and driving them toward whatever
basis of collective security they can find, one of which is
the faculty union. But accountability has more fundamental
implications. Those implications were apparent even before
the period of student unrest and before the financial reverses
of the early 19703 were fully felt. Educational costs were
rising too rapidly and too much of the increased cost was a
result of fiscal inefficiency in university operations.61
In the decade between 1958 and 1968, college enrollment
nationwide doubled, but income and expenditures tripled and
capital expenditure quadrupled.62

The result of the requirement for accountability is the
development of planning systems within universities which
apply the principles of management science. A few alert
administrations began the development of planning and manage-

ment systems before they were imposed by the funding agencies.

Where they have not been initiated from within they are

 

61Earl F. Cheit, The New Depression in Higher Education,
(New York: McGraw-Hill,‘l971Y, p. 5.

62Ibid.

58

rapidly being imposed from without in the form of PPBS
budget reporting.63
Just as collective bargaining, by casting faculty in
the role of employee, casts administration in the role of
management, the "managerialization" of administration has
the effect of further catalyzing the relationship. A whole
new dimension is thus added to the governance problem: how
to develop decision-making patterns that will allow for
expert management, while preserving for the faculty their
necessary role in making the educational judgments which
fall within the province of their unique professional
expertise. Institutions involved in faculty collective
bargaining have evolved three basic bargaining formats in
an effort to balance all of the complex ingredients in the

governance problem.64

Limited bargaining involves an agree-
ment to negotiate only on the issues of faculty compensation

and the status of the union. Process bargaining adds to the

 

economic issues bargaining on procedures, particularly those
governing personnel decisions: promotion, tenure, reappoint-

ment, and grievances. Comprehensive bargaining throws open

 

the campus government structure to negotiation, including
the decision-making systems concerned with the substance of
academic judgments. In comprehensive bargaining, the issue

of what is to be bargained is itself bargainable.

 

63Education Commission of the States, pp. cit., p. 15.

64Ping, pp. cit., p. 100.

59

Most unionized faculties have professed a desire to
limit bargaining to "terms and conditions of employment"
or to bargaining on compensation and personnel procedures.
A notable exception is Boston State College, Massachusetts,

where the entire governance system of the college is specified

65

in the negotiated agreement. The intention of the union

is generally sincere, but the line between limited or process
bargaining and comprehensive bargaining is a difficult one

to maintain, for the reasons which Dean Brown so succinctly
stated. The AAHE Task Force on Faculty Representation and

Academic Negotiation issued an early warning:

While we support a division of issues between

a bargaining agent and an academic senate when

both are well—established on a campus, we recognize
that any such demarcation is likely to be un-
stable over time.

Five years later, the same cautionary note was being sounded

by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education:

The basic choice at the present time, we believe,
is among (1) codetermination and (2) collective
bargaining, or (3) some combination between the
two where codetermination is effective in some
subject-matter areas (such as the curriculum) and
collective bargaining in others (such as salaries).
This latter alternative may not turn out to be a
possible combination in the longer run, however,
because collective bargaining may tend to sup-
plant codetermination in an irreversible process.
And it should be clearly understood that faculty
members cannot have it both ways--they cannot
engage in codetermination and in collective bar-
gaining on the same issues at the same time.

 

65Carr and VanEyck, pp. cit., p. 209.

66AAHE Task Force, pp. cit., p. 65.
67Carnegie Commission, pp. cit., p. 47.

60

Evidence is beginning to appear in support of the
predictions. Negotiated agreements at Central Michigan
University have supported the principle of codetermination
in academic matters. Nonetheless, an Unfair Labor Practice
claim has been filed by the CMU faculty bargaining unit with

68 The claim

the Michigan Employment Relations Commission.
is directed against "teaching effectiveness" policies devel-
oped by the Academic Senate and accepted by the Board of
Trustees. The claim alleges that the policy affects "terms
and conditions of employment" and hence falls among the
bargainable issues under the negotiated agreement.
McConnell sums up the governance issues sharply:

Crudely put, the division is between the principle

of shared decision-making and shared authority in

a community with common interests, as espoused

by the AAUP; and the assumption of a permanent

conflict of interest between faculty and admin-

istration requiring confrontation, collective

bargaining, and coercive sanctions, as held by

the AFT. 6

The consequences of academic collective bargaining

are still largely a matter of speculation, particularly
where the effect on governance systems and decision-making
patterns is concerned. What is universally agreed is that
significant effects can be expected. The traditional models

of governance in higher education assign a good many

"management" rights to faculty members. They are responsible

 

68MERC Case No. C 74 A-19.

69McConnell, pp. cit., p. 109.

61

for some purposes to administrative officers, but adminis-
trative officers are also responsible to the faculty.70 A
dean is accountable in both directions, being both the ad-
ministrative executive for his or her school and the
advocate of the school and its faculty with the central
administration. The president is as much an advocate of
the institutional faculty to the governing board as he or
she is an agent of the board in the exercise of executive
authority. The question then arises in connection with
collective bargaining, "Who bargains with whom?" Industrial
collective bargaining makes a clear distinction between
management and labor. No such clear demarcation is possible
in institutions of higher education.71
Clearly, faculty will not be permitted to "sit on
both sides of the table." There is the real likelihood
that the kind of clear separation between manager and employee
which exists in industry will be forced upon higher educa-
tion as a consequence of faculty unionization, fundamentally
altering the academic relationships which have long existed.
What is at stake is not simply some ideal of collegial good
fellowship, although that, too, may suffer. What is infin-

itely more important is that the quality of academic decision-

making which depends heavily upon distribution of various

 

7oFacultprarticipation in Academic Governance, pp.
cit., p.’l9.

710. Dalls Sands, "The Role of Collective Bargaining
in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review, 1, 1971, p. 158.

62

decision-making functions across the academic community,
may be deteriorated in a number of ways.

In the first place, the assumption that a permanent
conflict of interest exists between faculty and administra-
tion as it exists between industrial labor and management,
may cause the ethics and tactics of political power to be
substituted for the primacy of reason and rational persuasion.
Bucklew points out that some of the most reasoned argument
he has heard on campus occurred at the bargaining table.73
That speaks well for the negotiators in that particular
setting, but it does not alter the fact, observed by so many
others, that the bargaining system has an adversary relation-
ship as its basic premise, confrontation and coercion as
its method, no matter how civil a form the process may take.
Wollett underscores the point:

Collective negotiations is itself a political
system and the leaders of a. . .negotiations
structure-~the negotiators, the executive boards,
the departmental stewards--are themselves poli-
ticians. They are not enlisted in the service of
reasonableness, rationality, or the persuasive
power of ideas. They are concerned with getting
more, as management is with giving less. They
understand that their ability to achieve this

objective depends upon the effective mobilization
and utilization of political power.74

 

72Finkin, pp. cit., p. 154.

73Semas, pp. cit., p. 11.

74Donald H. Wollett, "The Status and Trends of Collec-
tive Negotiations for.Faculty in Higer Education," Wisconsin
Law Review, 1, 1971, p. 32.

 

72

63

What is agreed among virtually all analysts of academic
collective bargaining is that the process will force a clear
and formal distinction between academic management and pro-
fessional employees. The relationship between them will be
specified and codified in legally binding contracts. Mortimer
and Lozier state what is a general consensus:

One feature of collective bargaining is the dis-
content on the part of many faculties to rely on
informal or noncodified procedures in matters
relevant to the terms and conditions of their
employment and to the provisions for faculty
participation in institutional decision-making.
As a result, collective bargaining portends to
interject major changes in faculty-administrative
relations in higher education.75

The increased specificity and codification of per-
sonnel procedures may very well improve their fairness--
although not necessarily their benevolence--to individual
faculty members. Codified grievance procedures will increase
the likelihood that each adverse personnel decision will
routinely be tested through institutional proceedings and
in the courts. That can prove hideously expensive in time
and energy to all parties76 and would further strain
faculty-administrative relationships.

A more serious effect of strict legal contractualiza-

tion could be what Garbarino calls a "convergence toward the

 

75Mortimer and Lozier, pp. cit., p. 1.

76Neil S. Bucklew, "Fiscal Judgment in Bargaining
Can Uncover Hidden Costs," College and University Business,
50 (March 1971): pp. 47-48.

 

64

77 The politics of a union require that positions

average."
be taken which reflect the interests of the voting majority.
Those positions are unlikely to be the ones selected by the
academic elite. The dynamics of collective bargaining, as
described by Oberer and others, will probably operate to
replace the professional power and influence of the ablest
scholars and teachers for the will of the majority of the
faculty expressed on a one man, one vote basis.78 The
effect would be to substitute adequacy for excellence as
the criterion of academic performance. The effect is
already visible in union demands that initial academic
appointments be classified as "probationary." That would
create a condition in which institutions would be required
to "show cause" for nonreappointment--"instant tenure,"
in effect.79
Boyd identifies a possible threat to academic freedom
itself in the collective and egalitarian quality of faculty

80 Academic freedom is a protection which the

unionism.
academic community has maintained against the encroachments

of repressive political systems and authoritarian religion.

 

77Joseph Garbarino, "Creeping Unionism and the Faculty
Labor Market," Higher §pucation and the Labor Market (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1973). p. 34.

78Walter Oberer, "Faculty Participation and Decision
Making," in Stanley Elam and Michael H. Moskow, eds.,
Employment Relations in Higher Education (Bloomington,
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa, 1969), p. 143.

79Ladd and Lipset, pp. cit., p. 42.

80Boyd, pp. cit., p. 315.

65

An equally serious challenge to academic freedom arises

from within the faculty in what John Stewart Mill called

the "tyranny of the majority.5 A dissenting minority will

be disenfranchised at the bargaining table. The principle

of tenure was developed as the ultimate bulwark of academic

freedom. If tenure comes to be treated as one of the "terms

and conditions of employment," as is almost certain to happen

in collective negotiations, tenure becomes bargainable and

subject to being traded off for other short-term gains in

the contract.81 That is only one way in which academic

freedom itself can become, as Boyd says, "a casualty of the

bargaining table." Dressel characterizes the collective

bargaining issue fundamentally as a struggle between the

opposing values of freedom and equality.82
The implications of faculty collective bargaining for

the autonomy of institutions are obvious. Negotiations

and the ensuing processes of contract administration bring

agents other than faculty, students, administrator and

governing boards into the decision-making milieu. One of

these external agents is the national bargaining association,

unless the institution belongs to that minority which have

,independent bargaining units. In any event, state or national

énnployment relations boards and the courts will make and.

\

81William W. Van Alstyne, "Tenure and Collective
Bargaining," in C. Kerry Smith, ed., New Teaching, New
Learning (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971). pp. 10-17.

82Dressel, Return to Responsibility, pp. cit., p. 89.

66

enforce decisions which directly affect internal institu-
tional decisions and decision-making processes. Further-
more, there will be pressure by bargaining units in public

institutions to bargain directly with the ultimate fiscal

authorities.83 Dressel says,

Almost certainly, collective bargaining in higher
education will move to state-wide or system-wide
levels and in the process will destroy much of

the autonomy of the separate campuses. Thus,
collective bargaining in a state system of higher
education will ultimately promote centralization
of decision making. Collective bargaining will
contravene the individual and departmental autonomy
for which many faculty members have battled for

so long.84

Perhaps the most substantive article on the effects of
faculty collective bargaining to appear within the last
Year is the one by Charles Ping which treats the relationship
bet“Ween faculty unionism and institutional planning.85 Ping
describes a planning format which is both rational and real-
istic. An information base is constructed, including com-
Prehensive cost analysis. Assumptions are made explicit.
Institutional goals are specified in terms which permit sub-
SQQUent evaluation. The planning decisions, including the
Setting of priorities, utilize the particular capabilities
Which belong to each segment of the academic community. Ping
describes the distribution of the various roles in the plan-

ning system:

83Ibid.

84Ibid., p. 89

851bid.

67

Faculty have primary responsibility for research,
courses, majors, and other programs of instruction.
The determination of institutional objectives and
priorities provides a basis for decisions on the
program objectives of particular units. While
consultation with and critique by faculty are

basic to informed decision making, and accounta-
bility to the community is essential to acceptance,
decision making as a whole involves determination
by administrators, governing boards, and, in public
institutions, state agencies. Thus, although the
division is not complete, planning activity is
basically a responsibility of the faculty; review
of planning is basically a responsibility of the

administration.

This; analysis is important because it moves the discussion

of shared authority out of the traditional setting and into

the :Eramework of a management system. While the planning

Systenn which Ping describes applies highly-quantified cost
accoruating procedures, it is fundamentally informed by the
acadennic values and educational philos0phies of the tradi-

tiona 1 academy .

In relating faculty unionism to the problem of deli-

berate and rational planning, Ping identifies a classical

Hegeldian correspondence of thesis and antithesis. The thesis

is tllaat unionization is a stimulus to planning and supports
1t it; a number of ways. Planning and bargaining are both
formEiland systematic attempts to describe and influence

future conditions. Both require the development of a highly

detailed and accurate base of information, and both require
the: Ilse of scrupulous cost accounting procedures. The

C U o '
oqléllstions which establish the "the51s" are not speculative.

“-~1‘__
86

 

Ibid., p. 101.

68

They are observed and experienced products of faculty

collective bargaining.
The "antithesis" remains in the realm of speculation.

It is that "bargaining may be a deterrent to effective

program-oriented planning." The reasons Ping adduces in

support of the antithesis are similar to those brought
forward by other writers. Ping sees those elements in
the collective bargaining form, as it is presently under-
stood, which cannot permanently exist with any governance

or decision-making pattern which is based on faculty and

administration shared authority. The "conflict of interest"

assumption will drive faculty bargainers into a protective
stance regarding salaries, job security and academic "due
Process." The result will likely be to "give form and

expression to a sense of alienation from the institution

and its primary role." "Protection is an understandable

ObjeCtive," says Ping, ". . .it may reflect special interests

0f the part with little regard for the whole so important

In institutional planning."87

\
87

 

Ping, pp. cit., p. 104.

CHAPTER III
ALPHA AND BETA STATE COLLEGES

In all, five institutions of higher education were

visited in the course of the dissertation research. All

are members of the American Association of State Colleges

and Universities. One of the five schools visited was sub-

sequently excluded from the study since its working experi-
ence with faculty collective bargaining was found to be

less than one year. The remaining four institutions are

referred to by pseudonym as Alpha State College, Beta State
College, Mentor University and Tutor University.
The four colleges and universities fall naturally

into two pairs, although that was not intended when they

were selected for study. The fact that one pair, in their

aCtUal identities, are state colleges and the other pair
are universities is only a superficial discrimination.
The}? are all of roughly similar size and internal adminis-

tr‘E‘t-‘L‘re organization. The principal difference is that

the tWO state colleges belong to multi-campus state systems
Of higher education, while the two universities are governed
by individual governing boards. The differing forms of
State control impose somewhat different leadership roles
upon the central campus administration and result in signi-

fi . . .
czarltly different problems in faculty collective bargaining.

69

70

The pairs of institutions are accordingly treated in

succeeding chapters of the dissertation.

Alpha State College
Alpha State College is one of a number of schools

which comprise a state system of public higher education.
Policies for the operation of the colleges and universities
in the system are established by a state board of higher
education and the office of the chancellor. Local control
is vested in a board of trustees whose executive officer is
the president of the college.

Alpha was originally a municipal normal school serving

a medium-sized manufacutring city which in turn is part of

a larger metropolitan complex. The school maintained its

mUHiCipal connection for more than sixty years. In the 19203
it became a state teachers college, expanded its program to
a full four years, and began offering the bachelor's degree.
In the 19503 the college was relocated to a very attractive

suburban campus, and administrative efforts were undertaken

to“in the words of the college catalogue--"strengthen the

liberal arts potential of the college." Two residence

halls were constructed which presently accommodate less
than ten percent of the more than seven thousand students
enrolled. Two more residence halls will open in 1974 and
Will approximately double the number of resident students.
but Alpha will obviously continue mainly as a commuter

co . .
llege. The institution now characterizes itself as a

7l

coeducational, multi-purpose college offering graduate
programs at the master's degree level and undergraduate
curricula leading to the bachelor of arts or bachelor of
science degree in the traditional disciplines of the liberal
arts, in the fine and performing arts, in teacher education,
nursing, and in business administration.

The student clientele is drawn largely from the

suburban complex. Many students are the children of blue-

collar families which have moved from the city into the
suburbs within the last twenty years, and most are the first
generation of their families to attend college. Efforts

are being made to expand the enrollment of students from the

core city and from racial minorities. Programs are offered

in Black Studies and Urban Studies, and imaginative special
comPOnents of the teacher education program are aimed at
Providing special preparation for work in the urban setting.
Concern is expressed by the president and the chief academic
officer for the development of programs designed to meet the
Special needs of the surrounding community and its students.
The Visitor also senses a desire to shape the institutional
image on the model of the private university.

The internal governance system of the college includes
an All-College Senate with representation from faculty,
Studel'its and administration, and a Faculty Forum which
represents the exclusive concerns of the faculty. Both

bo - .
dles are advisory to the president and have no direct

authority.

72

The faculties of all the state colleges and univer-
sities were organized in 1971 into a single collective bar-
gaining unit. The unit is now affiliated with the American
Federation of Teachers. Bargaining takes place at the system
level. Campus presidents are consulted concerning the state's
bargaining position, but actual negotiations are carried out
by the state office of employee relations. On the union
side . each campus local is represented in negotiations.

The negotiated agreement provides for union-administration
conferences at the campus level to resolve those issues
which are purely local. Members of the bargaining unit are
ful1--time teaching faculty, department Chairpersons, non-
managerial administrative staff, librarians, student per-
sonnel staff, demonstration teachers, and nonteaching

Prefessionals holding faculty rank.

The President
The President and the Vice President for Academic
Affairs were both present at the interview. The Vice
President was a recent appointment and had, in fact, been
on the campus for slightly over a week. His experience was
insufficient to respond independently to the questions. The
President chose to respond to the topics by category,

refeI‘ring to particular items by way of example.

99333\Se_- Related

 

Little change has occurred in the patterns of presi-

dential decision-making and leadership as they regard the

73

Twable 1. Alpha State College Summary Table of Affected Items

 

 

Item Respondent

 

Pres. VPAA Dean Dean

 

Course - Related

 

Admissions policies

Curriculum and degrees

Grading standards

Academic calendar , X

Change of program ' ‘ X
Sponsored research

Public service/Extension

Class size X X

EWacilities - Related

 

Schedules and space
Office assignment
Maintenance

New facilities
Parking

Ffiinance - Related

 

Budget preparation X
State budget process

Internal allocation

Student fees

Auxiliary service fees
Management and planning

Private funding

Student financial aid

S taff - Related

 

Faculty appointment X X X
Faculty retention X X X
Faculty tenure X X X
Retrenchment

Faculty promotion X X X
Evaluation of instruction X
Faculty work-load X X

Faculty compensation

Grieveance procedures X X
Admin. personnel policies

Administrative appointment

Affirmative action X

><

Eigudent - Related

Student development
Counseling and health
Residence hall programs
Conduct and discipline
Activities and organizations
Participation in governance

 

NOTE: In this and subsequent Summary Tables, an indica-
‘tion is made when the respondent has given specific indication
(bf some effect of faculty collective bargaining on the listed
decision-making item.

74

academic program. Academic program decisions are not subject
to negotiation and, in any event, most academic policies are
the product of decision which occur at the level of the

chancellor's office and the state board.

Facilities-Related

Facilities planning and utilization are management
rights under the negotiated contract. If there is a change
in the handling of decisions regarding the schedule, use of
Planning of facilities, it is in the direction of greater

administrative control .

Finance-Related
The process of budget preparation has been more affect-
ed by the requirements of the state chancellor's office than
by faculty collective bargaining. Internal allocation is
accomplished by "line item" appropriation, so the local
campus administration has little control in any event. The
largest item in the budget is compensation which is determined
in collective bargaining at the state level and the outcome
0f negotiations is reflected in the line-item appropriations.
While the impact of negotiations on compensation items
is C1insect and provision for negotiated increases is made
in the appropriated budget, no similar provision is made for
the hidden costs of the contract. There is no provision for
additional administrative staff to handle the tasks associated

Wlth administration of the contract at the campus level.

75

Where a liberalized faculty leave of absence policy is
negotiated, there is no provision for temporary faculty to
cover the absence. The only avenue open is to spread the

student load by increasing class size.

Staff—Related

Collective bargaining has markedly increased the
general atmosphere of contention between faculty and admin-
istration. There is little assumption of mutual trust.

This is not to say that most of the faculty, or even a majority,
are adversarial; but the climate is seriously affected by the
abrasive minority which constitute the union leadership.

That may be a purely temporary condition. The president has
had to spend a great deal of time during the past academic

year meeting with faculty in small groups to "mend the poli-
tical fences" and attempt to increase the level of trust.

The leading faculty issues have been compensation and job
Security, with academic policies receiving little attention.1

Grievance procedures have required a great deal of
time in the office of the president and vice presidents.

The negotiated procedures for the handling of faculty grie—
vancZes require careful preparation and documentation. All
but one of the grievances processed have concerned nonpromo-

tlon or nonreappointment. The final step in the grievance,
\

1At the time of the visit, final preparation were being
Wade for the spring commencement exercises. A good deal of
1'“terest and speculation centered around a provision in the
new union agreement which makes the wearing of academic garb
Optional where the faculty are required to attend ceremonial
ufictions. Administrators were wondering how many faculty

would exercise the option not to robe.

76

procedure occurs in the chancellor's office and certain
types of grievance may be submitted to binding arbitration.
Other grievances may be submitted to advisory arbitration.
None of the grievance decisions originating on the Alpha
campus have been reversed.

The most important secondary effects of the negotiated
grievance procedure, in addition to the increase in the total

number of grievances, are the effects of potential grievances

 

0n the processes of appointment, promotion, and the granting
of tenure. Line administrators are required to give careful
and detailed scrutiny to all personnel transactions which
take place under their supervision. Procedures are explicit
and require detailed compliance at the risk of creating a
grievable error. New appointments are evaluated much more
carefully in order to maximize the likelihood of subsequent
favorable personnel decisions. As a consequence, the aca-
demic quality of faculty appointments will probably improve.
Where procedures require the decision of faculty com-
mittees, as in the case of reappointment or promotion, a
pr°blem has frequently occurred. Faculty committees have
tended to give only positive recommendations, forcing the
necessary and difficult negative decisions upon the presi-
dent. During the last year, an interesting exchange took
Place between the president and the All-College Promotion
com1'l'littee. The committee recommended candidates for pro-
motion far in excess of the available openings at the higher

ranks. The recommendations were rejected by the president

77

and, after, considerable dialogue with the committee, a pro-
cedure was agreed upon in which the committee categorized its
recommendations as "highly recommended" and "recommended",

thus accomplishing the necessary discrimination!

Spident- Related

Students have seats and votes in the All-College Senate,
Inuztfliere is little overall student interest or involvement
in insatitutional politics. Since the students are mainly
anmmrters, they attend classes and go home. There is no
discernable effect of collective bargaining on the way in
Vflfitfl the president deals with students and student—related
decisions. A possible effect is that more presidential time
is absorbed with faculty matters, so student concerns are

19ft 'to the Dean of Student Affairs.

Dean U.

Dean U. has been at Alpha State College for several
years; and during the academic year 1973-1974 served as
ACtiIlg'V'ice President for Academic Affairs. Prior to the
Visit: the dean had marked several items on the list of de-
CiSjJDIn-making topics which he perceived as having been
impcui‘tantly affected by academic collective bargaining. In
the (flourse of the interview, it became apparent that still

Other tOpics were affected in a secondary manner.

78

Course-Related
Curriculum Content and Degree Requirements

Subsequent to the introduction of faculty collective
bargaining there has been less faculty interest in the aca-
demic program generally. The issues of compensation and job
security tend to dominate faculty concerns. Dean U. identi-
fied several reasons which might account for the change in
the faculty's interests. Since the focus of union activity
lies in the areas of compensation and job security, these
become the absorbing topics of conversation among faculty
members. The faculty perceives a real power to affect, through
negotiation, the conditions of their own employment, whereas
their perceived ability to influence the academic program

through two levels of bureaucracy is limited.

.Academic Calendar

Before collective bargaining, there was an informal
understanding the faculty would be present when classes were
.in session and for such time as might be required to plan
:for the next year,or to carry out committee responsibilities.
rI‘he negotiated agreement now specifies thirty-two weeks of
regular classes which are to take place between September 1
and June 30. Precise credit-hour loads are specified
(Eilthough not class sizes or student credit-hours). Addi-
ti-<:>na1 teaching assignments, such as summer session or over-
10ads entail extra compensation. The effect is not that

faculty remain on campus until June 30, but rather that they

79

leave as soon as their specified teaching duties have been
completed, making it difficult to assemble faculty for

planning and preparation. The "letter of the law" prevails.

Facilities-Related and
Finance—Related

No important changes were noted which might be attri-

butable to collective bargaining.

Staff-Related

Appointment of Faculty

Before the introduction of collective bargaining,
appointments tended to be casual. Departments selected
new faculty and the appointments were processed as a matter
of routine. The president, the academic vice president, and
the deans now insist on careful justification of new faculty
appointments. Planning is done further in advance and
selection processes are completed earlier. There is very
little last-minute hiring. Departments may be forced to
cancel classes or expand sections in preference to hasty
(appointments of new faculty. When questioned, the dean

(admutted that student programs could be disrupted.

Ihetention (or nonretention) of Faculty

Again, prior to the introduction of faculty collective
hfiirgaining, decisions on retention or nonretention were made
irIformally. This is not to say that such decisions were

iIll-considered or capricious, but there were few formal

80

processes. No documentation was required in support of
decisions to reappoint or not to reappoint.

While the negotiated agreement specifies only that
appointment and reappointment of faculty members is by the
college Board of Trustees upon recommendation by the presi-
dent, the agreement contains the requirement that criteria
and procedures for reappointment be explicit and be communi-
cated in written form to all employees. Major changes in
the procedures are negotiable at the local campus level.
Each faculty member's personnel file is open to him or her,
and all items which bear upon reappointment or promotion are

to be transmitted to the faculty member with allowance of

time for a reply.

As a consequence of these procedures and the opportun-
ities their complexity affords for the occurance of grievable
error, much more of the dean's time is devoted to procedural
reviews of personnel recommendations. The actual procedure
at.Alpha State College is for departmental faculty committees
‘to make reappointment recommendations directly to the presi—
4dent who then transmits his own recommendations to the Board
<Jf Trustees. The dean is not included in the formal chain
(If transmission, but it remains his or her delegated responsi-
bifllity to insure the procedural correctness of all actions
crud recommendations originating in the college of which he or
She is the dean. Dean U. estimates that fifty percent of

hifii working time is now spent on problems of reappointment‘

anti nonreappointment.

81

Dean U. observes that the issues of reappointment and
nonreappointment are the greatest source of faculty discon—
tent and that the issues provide a "union rallying-point."
As a consequence of the union attitude, the adversarial mood
is exacerbated, as well as the general level of discontent.
A further procedural problem occurs because the procedural
errors frequently result from improper actions of faculty
committees. Hence, faculty members, either by design or
inadvertance, can create the very errors which they will

subsequently attack in grievance proceedings.

Awarding of Faculty Tenure

Before collective bargaining, tenure tended to be
automatic with longevity. Under the contract, specific
criteria are established, creating the expectation that
tenure will be granted when the requirements are met. Again,
the Procedures for the granting of tenure are very formal
and comprehensively documented. The general statements con-

cerning the appointment and reappointment procedures apply.

Promotion of Faculty

Prior to the negotiation of a union agreement, the
dean had a much greater advisory input into promotion deci-
sions. Promotion procedures are not contractualized and
p rovide for an All-College Promotions Committee which recom-
mends directly to the president. The dean has input only
when informally consulted by the president. The dean is

d
ept‘ived of some instruments for the development of his or

82

her college faculty. Promotion is difficult to effect in

extraordinary circumstances, as in attempting to hold a very

capable professor .

Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

As a consequence of the need to document personnel
decisions, evaluation is more specific and contains more
objectification and quantification. The connection between
evaluation and personnel decision, however, interferes with
the development of evaluatiOns which have the improvement

of instruction as their objective.

Establishment of Faculty Work-Load

Faculty assignments were negotiated informally with
faculty before the advent of collective bargaining. Occa-
Sional overloads would be accepted with the informal under-
standing that the affected professor would be "taken care of"
in a subsequent semester. Under the new dispensation, teaching
aSSignments are directly linked with compensation and class
loads are specifically limited. Dean U.'s statements were,
"The faculty are picayune and careful in taking classes."
"Nobody does anything for nothing." "We have to become
accountants." Before the negotiation of course loads.
facallty considered graduate courses to be a teaching "plum"
and Such courses were treated as a reward. Now they are
carefully calculated within the permitted work load or they

r
equire overload compensation. The only aspect of work-load

83

which is not now affected is the size of individual classes,
so the only way to increase faculty productivity is to

increase class sizes. That may not survive another contract.

Faculty Compensation

This has disappeared from the dean's decision-making

agenda. He has no power to influence.

Faculty Grievance Procedures

As in the interviews with the president and the vice
President, the grievance procedure was a recurring theme in
the visit with Dean U. Before the grievance procedures
were negotiated, they consisted of informal, off-the-record
conferences between the parties to the grievance with the
dean usually assuming the role of mediator. The formal
Procedure which is a part of the union agreement now requires
very specific actions according to a strict timetable.
Evidence and disposition of cases became part of a cumula-
tiVe record. There is an assumption that all cases will
be carried to the highest level, which is arbitration under
Procedures of the state employment relations commission.

The direct effect of the grievance procedures is to
inctease the amount of the dean's time which is spent in
their processing. The more important secondary effectis
to increase the amount of time and attention which must
be given to all personnel transactions. All such trans-

ac ‘ . . .
t3~Ons--app01ntment, reappOintment, nonreappOintment,

84

promotion, tenure--must be supported by detailed evidence
and careful records of procedure. Each transaction must
be prepared for third-party scrutiny in anticipation of
later grievance. Moreover, the "grievance mentality" of
faculty introduces an adversarial quality into every en-
counter between the dean and members of the faculty when-
ever the encounter even remotely touches upon the "terms
and conditions of employment."

The level of sensitivity which Dean U. displayed
toward the matter of grievance might have been the pro-
duct of his own fearfulness, except that his own matter
was open, confident and easy. That manner lends credibil-
ity to his interpretation of the real and fundamental
effect of the negotiated grievance procedures on his per-

formance as a dean.

Student-Related

 

Dean U. identified no direct student-related effects
of faculty collective bargaining. He mentioned, however,
the possible impact on the quality of student academic
advisement which occurs when faculty counseling and advise-
ment is treated by faculty members strictly as an increment
of work load. When that occurs, the concerns of the

advisor could supercede the needs of the advisee.

Dean L.
Dean L. was the second of two deans to be interviewed.

She is an "old timer" at Alpha State College, having come

85

up through faculty ranks. Her college includes the education
departments. In the main, she reinforced the perceptions

of Dean U. regarding the effects of proceduralization on

all aspects of personnel management in the school. Accord-
ingly, her perceptions are reported to the extent that they
either contradict or significantly supplement those of

Dean U.

Course-Related

 

Since the curriculum in Dean L.'s college includes
a variety of courses and programs of a nontraditional
nature, making use of flexible time structures and various
mixed-method and team-teaching components, she was par-
ticularly concerned with the effect of strict negotiated
work-load calculations on her ability to staff nontradi-
tional courses and to implement new ones.
Introduction, Delection, or Change
of Program

The general comment on Course-Related t0pics is par-
ticularly directed toward the matter of programmatic
development. Dean L. indicated that she has not yet been
compelled to change her method of working with faculty
members to develop new and innovative courses of study.
Her personal style has been to outline the general objec-
tives of particular programs and to give wide individual
”leeway" to faculty members in designing courses to meet

the objectives. That is still the case, but a whole new

86

set of problems is introduced. These problems involve the
complicated calculation of faculty work-loads to comply
with the negotiated limits. The effect is to restrict

new course development.

Staff-Related

 

Retention, Reappointment, Nonreappointment of Faculty

Dean L. indicated that problems had occurred in her
college as a result of nonreappointment decision, and that
formal grievances had resulted. She expressed the obser-
vation, however, that the difficulties represented the
"clean-up from a sloppier time." Before the advent of
collective bargaining, appointment decisions were often
haphazard. The negotiated procedures will probably result
in better personnel decisions in the future. 5d hog
decisions will give way to more careful advance planning.
As Dean L. says, "I have to keep pressing department
Chairpersons to do their work in advance. They are begin-

ning to get the message."

Beta State College
Beta State College is also part of a multi-campus
state system of higher education. Policies for the govern-
ance and administration of the system are established by
a state governing board whose chief executive officer is
the Chancellor. A local lay council acts in an advisory

capacity to the college president in matters of local concern.

ins

16

RM

9“
wh‘

87

A faculty senate represents the combined faculties of the
institutions within the system at the state level. An
elected deliberative body called the Senate represents the
local faculty, students, administrators and nonteaching
professionals in making recommendations to the President,
who is a member of the Senate, to other administrative
officers and to other faculties and groups within the
university system.

The college originated in the mid-nineteenth century
as a church-related two—year institution. Toward the end
of the century it became a nonsectarian county normal
school. In the 19205, the college became a state normal
school offering a four-year degree program. The campus
setting is bucolic, but within easy commuting distance
from a major urban center. The original campus is a part
of the present one. Between 1965 and the present, the
college experienced dramatic growth in enrollment and
physical plant. Enrollment in 1965 was about 2500 students
and the present enrollment is approximately 10,000 students
by head count. About 80 percent of the students live on
the campus or in private housing in the adjacent village.
The remaining 20 percent commute from the city. The student
body come largely from lower-middle income families.

The academic program includes curricula in the arts
and sciences and in education. Both bachelor's and master's

degrees are offered. During the late 19608, according to

88

the President, the college seemed almost certainly de-
stined for full-fledged university status within the
state system. That aspiration came to grief, temporarily
at least, with the financial crisis of the 19703. A
number of very handsome modern buildings provides visible
evidence of the college's growth and development, and--to
an extent--its aspirations.

In 1970, the academic and professional employees
of the state higher education system, excluding certain
executive administrators, were organized for collective
bargaining in a professional association affiliated with
the National Education Association. The contract current
at the time of the visit was completed in August of 1971.
A new agreement was in the process of negotiation. Con-
tracts have been limited to terms and conditions of
employment. Procedural provisions of state board of
trustees personnel policies are subject to grievance under
the negotiated agreement. Where the procedures call for
an exercise of judgment, however, the judgment is immune
from grievance and from substitution with the judgment
of an aribtrator. Negotiations take place at the state
level between the bargaining agent and the state office
of employee relations. That office is a part of the state
executive and is not part of the state higher education
system. The contract requires that periodic conferences

be held on the local campus between the campus President

89

or his or her designee and representatives of the local
chapter of the bargaining agent.

Assessment of the impact of faculty collective
bargaining on the leadership roles of the principal campus
administrators proved frustrating. The President gave
the visit a high level of importance and provided extra-
ordinary access to the college administration. The day
of interviews began with a meeting of the full adminis-
trative council, augmented by the deans with whom individual
interviews would later take place. The President indicated
that the occasion afforded opportunity for the institution
to "take stock" of the changes which might have occurred.

In spite of the extended discussions, however, few if any
objective changes were identified which could be unambi-
guously attributed to the existence of faculty negotiations.
The most significant effect that could be noted was the
level of concern about collective bargaining itself, quite
apart from any observed or experienced effects.

Anticipating possible conclusions of the dissertation,
one reason for the lack of perceived effects may stem from
the high level of bureaucratization which appeared on the
Beta State College campus and in the state system of higher
education. If one hypothesis is that an effect of academic
collective bargaining will be the increased formalization
and specification of personnel procedures, along with a

proliferation of bureaucratic controls, those effects will

90

not appear if the level of proceduralization is already
high. That was the case at Beta State, as was noted in
almost every individual interview._

Bureaucratization of a college or university is more
than a formalization of procedures. It is a state of mind
affecting in varying ways and to different degrees all
of the participants in the academic process. At Beta,
the central administrative officers appeared to view
themselves as a highly sophisticated and competent manage-
ment group, which every indication suggested that they are.
It would be unfair to suggest that the administrative
style appeared to be more corporate than academic, but the
clear impression was that the academic leadership was
interpreted largely in terms of management expertise.

That style might also have been encouraged by the highly
complex higher education system of which the college is

a part.

The President

Course-Related

All items related to the academic program are reserved
for decision within the governance system of the university
and its component colleges or campuses. The system is
described in university planning documents as "consultative
governance." The stated policy of the board of trustees
is to preserve the distinction between collective negotia-

tion over salaries and conditions of employment and the

91

Table 2. Beta State College Summary Table of Affected Items

 

 

Item ; ; - Respondent

 

Pres. VPAA Dean Dean

 

 

Course-Related
Admissions policies - X
Curriculum and degrees
Grading standards X
Academic calendar

Change of program X X
Sponsored research .

Public service/Extension

(Textbook selection) X

Facilities-Related

Schedules and space

Office assignment

Maintenance

New facilities

Parking X

Finance-Related

Budget preparation

State budget process

Internal allocation

Student fees

Auxiliary service fees

Management and planning x
Private funding

Student financial aid

Staff-Related

Faculty appointment

Faculty retention

Faculty tenure X
Retrenchment X X
Faculty workload

Faculty compensation

Grievance procedures - X X X
Admin. personnel policies

Administrative appointment

Affirmative Action X
(Faculty attendance) X x
(Faculty development) X

 

Student-Related

Student development

Counseling and health

Residence hall programs

Conduct and discipline
Activities and organizations
Participation in governance X

 

 

92

operation of the governance system in all other matters.
The President was very specific in stating that position
and in asserting that the processes of decision-making as
they relate to the academic program are unchanged. The
specificity and emphasis with which the point was made
suggests that a threat to the existing system of govern-

ance and management is perceived.

Facilities-Related

The management of existing facilities and the
planning of new ones are a "management right." There
has been no expressed faculty discontent over the alloca-
tion of space, although the union has requested repre-

sentation on the campus parking committee.

Finance-Related

 

The budget preparation system is unchanged, except
that the compensation item is determined in collective
negotiations at the state level. The budget process is
complex, involving detailed prebudgeting, line-item
appropriation, and postauditing. No significant change
appears in the finance-related decisions or decision-

making processes as a result of faculty collective bargaining.

Staff-Related

 

Again, formal personnel procedures and policies
and the presidential decisions relating to them are

substantially unchanged. Faculty and nonteaching

93

professional appointment, promotion and tenure policies
were revised just prior to the advent of collective
bargaining and the revised procedures are recognized in
the contract. Negotiated grievance procedures apply only
to the procedural regularity of personnel decisions.
Grievance reviews may terminate in arbitration, but only
with respect to the procedural regularity of decisions.
Where the personnel policies of the board of trustees
call for an exercise of judgment, the judgment itself is
not grievable. As a result, there are few grievances
relating to nonpromotion or nonreappointment. Most of
those that occur are likely to end as civil rights com-
plaints before the state civil rights commission.

The President meets regularly with two faculty
groups which are concerned, either specifically or
generally, with the terms and conditions of faculty
employment. One of these is the college senate committee
on the "faculty environment." The committee is charged
with recommending to the senate general policies on a
list of items among which are remuneration, tenure, leaves
of absence, loads and schedules, and group insurance.

The committee is a useful instrument for the voicing of
faculty concerns and for interpreting campus and univer-
sity policies. Deftness is required of the President,
however, to talk with this faculty group without commenting
on the negotiation process in a manner which might con-

stitute an unfair labor practice.

94

The other faculty body with which the President
meets regularly and which has aspects of faculty employ-
ment as its main concern is a conference group representing
the faculty bargaining agent. The meetings are required
by the negotiated agreement and their purpose is “to dis-
cuss matters of mutual concern." Both the President and
his principal aides who represent him from time to time
indicate that the meetings are an occasion for the venting
of discontent or for a general harassment of the adminis-
tration, often over inconsequential issues.

While both of these sets of meetings may serve some
purpose in the way of clearing the air and maintaining
communicative contacts, there was no indication that they
constitute effective avenues for the exercise of presi-
dential leadership. There is simply no visible way in
which the discussions can influence policy. That the
sessions with the union representatives are characterized
by petty contentiousness may simply be evidence of frus-
tration of the campus faculty with an inability to affect
the major decisions which occur away from the campus.

The most obvious change in the conditions bearing
upon the President's exercise of leadership, as he per-
ceives it, is the emotional climate of the campus. Union
activists are a minority of the local faculty, but their
behavior has contributed to a level of contentiousness

which was not present before the emergence of collective

95

bargaining. Faculty dissidents have always been present,
but union activity provides a focal point and constant
source of encouragement for their dissidence.

The President feels that collective bargaining has
had the effect of concentrating faculty concerns on the
conditions of their own employment, crowding aside more
professional interests in the development of their own
institution. Whether or not his perception is accurate,
the fact that the perception exists constitutes a change
in the conditions affecting his choice of leadership

techniques and tactics.

Student-Related

 

There appeared to be no change in the relationship
between the President and the student body which might
be connected with faculty negotiations; nor was there
any indication that faculty-administration tensions, to
the extent that they exist, affect either the relation-
ship between professors and their students or between
the administration and the student body. The note was
made, however, that the faculty union is pressing for a
reduction in the level of student participation in local

campus governance .

The Academic Affairs Vice President
The Vice President responsible for matters related

to the academic program largely reiterated the observations

96

of the President regarding the effects of academic nego-
tiations, or the general absence of such effects, on
college operations. He revealed, however, an uneasiness
about possible future effects should the sc0pe of nego-

tiations expand.

Course-Related

 

In connection with a discussion of admissions policies
and standards, the comment was made that the maintenance
of enrollment is a common faculty concern at present,
whether or not the faculty is unionized. Faculty in all
institutions have become aware of the direct correspon-
dence between student enrollment and the number of avail-
able faculty positions. The faculty union, with its high
level of concern for employment security, is alert to any
changes in admissions policy which might affect student
enrollment. The same set of relationships might cause
the union to take an interest in grading standards, to
the extent that those standards affect the retention of
students.

The union is correspondingly interested in the kinds
of programmatic changes that have the effect of increasing
enrollments in some departments and decreasing enrollments
in others. Student enrollments are leveling off and at
the same time students interests are changing. Programmatic
response to changing student demands, as well as to public

demands for increased "vocational" emphasis in the curriculum,

97

will have the effect of accelerating intra-institutional
enrollment shifts. That is particularly threatening to
departments in the liberal arts and sciences. Those are
already the departments in which the union has its most
vocal support, and changes in the academic program will
encounter opposition from the faculty union.

In no case was there direct indication that decisions
regarding the academic program have actually been influenced
by academic collective bargaining, but the Vice President
is conscious of the union as a watchful presence and will
not be likely to propose changes without assessing the
probable response of the union and the extent to which
the union influence will affect the chances for the success

of the contemplated proposals.

Finance-Related

 

Given the fact that virtually all finance-related
decisions occur at the level of the Chancellor's office,
and changes related to faculty bargaining are made at
that level, there is very little effect upon the deciSion-
making of the campus Vice President. One finance-related
item did, however, attract comment. That was "Development
of management information and planning systems.“ Whether
or not the Vice President had in mind an actual system
for management planning, the topic drew the observation
that the faculty are worried about the use of data and

the confidentiality of their own records. They resist

98
the systematized collection and use of information, reflec-

ting a general lack of trust. The union capitalizes on

the issue to solidify its faculty support.

Staff-Related

 

Two recent grievance matters were described and
discussed which the Vice President feels are illustrative
of the way in which the union presence is felt in his area
of concern. The first was a grievance against procedures
of the state university system in which he was only in-
directly concerned. The state Auditor General's office
issued a directive requiring nonteaching professionals to
complete attendance forms which record their presence at,
as well as their absence from, their work. Formerly only
absences were reported. Several nonteaching professionals
raised a formal grievance under the negotiated contract,
claiming unilateral change in the terms and conditions
of employment. The grievance did not prevail.

In this instance, the campus administrators were
bystanders. The grievance was against a state policy over
which they have no influence, but which they are committed
to enforce. They have sympathies with the grievants,
many of whom do not measure their working days by set
hours and often exceed the stipulated minimum. The com-
pensation for a willingness to work long hours when
responsibility requires should reasonably be the pro-

fessional privilege of regulating ones own time. The

99

state policy prevents that and encourages the "clock-
punching" mentality. Union policy is sometimes complicit
:hmthatattitude, but in this case an employee prerogative
was involved and the union raised the banner of profession-
alism.2

In the other case, the target of a faculty grievance
was the Vice President himself. The affair became a gauge
celebre on the campus. The opening of a new bookstore in
the town made it appear desirable to collect information
on which to base estimates of textbook needs for the
forthcoming semester. Accordingly, the Academic Office
directed faculty members to report their textbook selec-
tions. The union took the lead in charging the administra-
tion with textbook censorship and raised the matter as
an academic freedom issue! The Vice President was taken
completely by surprise, since the information was being
collected for purely logistical purposes. The interpre-
tation placed on the event by the Vice President was that
the union was groping for issues with which to embarass
the administration.

The major staff-related concern was in the area of
faculty development, where the Vice President shared the

widespread fear that academic collective bargaining would

 

2In the new negotiated agreement, concluded after
the visit, the union conceded the issue and the contract
now requires regular reports on both attendance and
absence by all bargaining unit members, both faculty and
nonteaching professionals.

100

lead to the negotiation of policies which would reduce

the ability to alter the faculty composition. In the

event that retrenchment of faculty becomes necessary,
negotiated retrenchment procedures specify termination in
the inverse order of appointment. That would have the
effect of cancelling out the improvement in faculty quality
which has been accomplished with the most recent appoint-
ments. Also seriously affected would be the Affirmation
Action effort of the college, since a higher proportion

of women and minority persons are included among the more

recent appointees.

Dean E.

_As with the other officers, Dean E. maintained that
the actual changes produced by academic collective bar-
gaining on decision-making processes at the college are
minimal except for maintaining a climate of general faculty

irritability.

Course-Related

The Dean was particularly concerned about the pos-
sible effect of the negotiated retrenchment policies on
the curriculum. The "last in, first out" requirement
disregards the interests of the academic program. He
offered the Opinion that hard-won developmental changes
in both the faculty and curriculum of his school could

be reversed. Program quality would be similarly affected,

101

since retrenchment decisions would be based upon seniority
in length of service rather than upon the competence of
the faculty members or their importance to the academic
program. Some agonizingly tough decisions would be taken
away from the deans, but along with those decisions would
go much of the ability to maintain program quality in

the face of retrenchment.

Staff-Related

 

In addition to the comments on faculty development
made in connection with the matter of curriculum develop-
ment, Dean E. saw his function in relation to important
personnel decisions as having been seriously affected by
faculty collective bargaining. Prior to the advent of
faculty negotiations, formal procedures for reappointment
and tenure or "continuing appointment" provided for a
chain of recommendations and reviews leading to the campus
President, in the case of reappointment decisions, and
to the Chancellor, in the case of decisions on continuing
appointments. The procedures began with departmental
peer review and recommendation with subsequent review by
the deans, the Academic Vice President and the President.
Attempt was made through consultation to achieve consensus
among the recommending and reviewing parties.

The procedures themselves remain unchanged in their
formal outline, but the existence of the contract grievance

procedure shifts the emphasis in decision-making away from

102

the decisions themselves to the regularity of the proce-
dures by which the decisions are arrived at. The Dean
feels that the quality of the decisions may have deteri-
orated. Advance indications of the content of the contract
in negotiation at the time of the interview--subsequently
confirmed--were that the new contract would require certain
reviews of both procedure and reasons for negative decisions
on continuing appointment. Dean E. regards the development
as a further erosion of his ability to develop faculty

and curriculum.

CHAPTER IV
MENTOR AND TUTOR UNIVERSITIES

Mentor University ‘

Mentor University has a particularly interesting
history of faculty collective bargaining. Opened in the
late 19505 as a public liberal arts college affiliated
with a major state university, the institution achieved
independent university status in 1970. The state consti-
tution grants autonomy under the control of individual
lay boards to the public baccalaureate institutions.
Mentor University now has a student enrollment of slightly
more than eight thousand and offers a wide range of pro-
grams at both the bachelor's and master's degree levels.

Mentor exhibits a pattern of institutional emergence
which is distinctively different from that of the former
teachers' colleges. The educational philosophy which
shaped the original Mentor College was unapologetically
elitist, emphasizing the liberal arts. Admission was
selective. A faculty was recruited d3 2939 which reflected
that quality and character. Most of the original faculty
had Ph.D. degrees, many of them from academically presti-
gious universities. Over eighty percent of the present

380-member faculty hold the doctorate.

103

104

Given its professional self-image, the Mentor faculty
would have appeared to offer an inhospitable environment
for unionism. Actually, however, the reverse proved
to be the case. The school became one of the earliest
four-year institutions to be organized for faculty collec-
tive bargaining. Furthermore, the initial experiences
with bargaining were stormy ones. The reasons for union-
ization were complex. They were also related, paradoxi-
cally, to the academic professionalism which in ordinary
circumstances would be expected to discourage union
organization.

For one thing, Mentor was caught in one of the
educational dilemmas of the late 19605; the tension between
equality and excellence. As public policy increasingly
favored equality of access to higher education, the elitism
and selectivity of Mentor became correspondingly difficult
to justify, either politically or philosophically. The
expanding enrollment of the institution began toreflect
a cross-section of the state population, and of the neigh-
boring urban population. The faculty, particularly those
who had been attracted to the school by the excitement of
building a prestige academic program, were disturbed and
some felt betrayed.

Furthermore, academic unionism was looming in the
land. Other institutions in the state were organizing.

The former teachers' colleges were inclined toward the NEA

105

affiliates as bargaining agents. Theadjacent urban and
industrial areas harbored the active presence of industrial
unionism and the AFT. Both of those alternatives were
unacceptable to the leaders of the Mentor faculty. Con-
cluding that unionization was inevitable in any event, the
faculty leadership launched a successful campaign for the
AAUP as faculty bargaining agent. Unionization offered a
new basis of faculty power and the AAUP carried the pro-
fessional image that reflected the self-image of the faculty.
The general discussions which occurred with the
various officers of the administration concerning collec-
tive bargaining and the "Mentor Experience" conveyed the
impression that the faculty had, at the outset, expected
more than the negotiationg process was able to deliver.
The motives behind the organization were, to a greater
extent than elsewhere, connected with enlargement of the
base of faculty power in institutional policy-making.
There appeared to be the naive expectation that the same
issues could be dealt with both at the bargaining table
and in the established system of academic governance.
What emerged seems to have been a kind of academic cari—
cature of industrial negotiations and the product was a
high level of frustration. These general impressions

were made explicit by one officer.

106

Table 3. Mentor University Summary Table of Affected Items

 

 

Item . - Respondent

 

Pres. VPAA Dean Dean

 

Course-Related

 

Admissions policies X
Curriculum and degrees

Grading standards

Academic calendar

Change of program

Sponsored research

Public service/Extension

xxx
x
x

xx‘

Facilities-Related

 

Schedules and space

Office assignment

Maintenance

New facilities X
Parking

Finance-Related

 

Budget preparation

State budget process

Internal allocation

Student fees X X
Auxiliary service fees

Management and planning X

Private funding X

Student financial aid

Staff-Related

Faculty appointment
Raculty retention

Faculty tenure
Retrenchment

Faculty promotion
Evaluation of instruction
Faculty work-load

Faculty compensation
Grievance procedures
Administrative pers. pol.
Administrative appointment
Affirmative Action
(Atmosphere of collegiality) X X X X

 

xxx x xx
xxx x x x
xxx

x

Student-Related

Student development X X
Counseling and health

Residence hall programs

Conduct and discipline

Activities and organizations
Participation in governance

 

(General)
(Governing Board relations) X

 

107

The President

The President was selected from the faculty and had
been one of the original Mentor College cadre. He holds
a doctorate in one of the "hard" academic disciplines from
a prestige university. At the time of the interview, he
had been in his position for approximately five years.

A recurrent theme in the President's comment was the
separation of functions which occurs, in his perception,
as a consequence of the bargaining relationship. Prior to
unionization, virtually all decision involved some form
of consultation with the faculty. The relegation of some
items to the bargaining table reserves the remainder to
the category of "management perogatives." The only excep-
tions are those clearly academic matters which remain in
the traditional department and senate governance system.
The manner in whichthis was voiced suggested the under-
lying attitude that, "If that's the way they want it,

that's the way it will be. They bargain--we manage."

Course-Related

 

Admissions policies and standards have been a par-
ticularly sensitive issue, given their important relation—
ship to the institutional self-image. Before the advent
of collective bargaining, admissions policies were the
subject of faculty committee and senate action. Admissions
policies are now decided administratively, based on an

interpretation of public policy in higher education and

A

108

upon the student enrollment requirements for funding
purposes. Admissions standards are announced by the
Director of Admissions. The President views this change
as a product of a clear separation of functions which
occurs as a result of collective bargaining.

Curriculum content and degree requirements, grading
standards and policies, and changes in the academic pro-
gram remain the subjects traditional academic legislation.
The President's comment was that these are about the
only items that remain within the traditional academic

decision-making system.

Facilities-Related

 

These were identified as a "management function"
as they have always been. On new construction, faculty
members are consulted in an expert advisory capacity when
the President feels that the plan will be improved by
such consultation. He feels no compulsion to consult
for any political reason. "Adequate office space" is a
requirement of the contract, but no specific guidelines are
set forth. Parking space "at reasonable rates of charge"
is also a contract requirement, but no actual decisions
have been materially influenced by either of these

contractual items.

Finance-Related
There is little perceived impact of negotiations on

the state legislative budget process. The President

109

mentioned the effect which bargained compensation increases
have on student fees. Since the legislative appropriation
is based on a set percentage rate of compensation increase,
additional increases which may be negotiated can be met
only by transfer of funds from program support and by
increases in tuition.

Contract administration is a significant cost item
in the institutional budget, but the President feels that
these costs are at least partially recouped by a saving of
faculty and administrative time in committee work. That
observation is significant because it suggests that an
effect of collective bargaining is the removal of a wide
range of decision-making items from committee consultation
to a more efficient administrative management system.

This is a further indication of what the President sees
as the "separation of functions."

The President feels that he has been successful in
raising private funding for special projects or equipment.
Before unionization, he felt it his obligation to seek
such funding when he received a faculty mandate to do so.
He now sets his own priorities in the solicitation of private
gifts. His comment was, "I solicit money for the things

which I personally support."

Staff-Related

 

Surprisingly, the President had little comment on

the impact of collective bargaining on staff-related items.

110-

Whether the comment fits in this category or not, he did
mention as an important effect of collective bargaining

on his own decision-making role a change in his relation-
ship with his governing board: The need to consult with
the board on matters related to negotiations involves the
board in details of institutional administration. Once
involved, the board carries its interest over into the
day-to-day operations of the campus. A widely-held admin-
istrative opinion is that for the principal policy-making
body to become thus involved in the details of policy
administration is unhealthy. The President clearly shares
that view and he is particularly conscious of his own

problem in this regard.

Student-Related

 

Discussion of Student development and academic sup-
port brought forth additional comment on the matter of
the changing nature of the Mentor student body. That
change was a leading faculty concern at the time of
unionization, as has already been noted. The identifica-
tion of a desirable "mix" of students was, prior to
unionization, the subject of consultation with the faculty.
The President now feels free to design the characteristics
of the student body and to establish admissions policies

and academic support programs necessary to achieve those

characteristics.

111

The Provost

The interview with the Mentor provost was one of the
most open and illuminating of the entire series. He
appeared to have grappled with the fundamental implications
of academic collective bargaining and was particularly
thoughtful in his responses. Like the President, he was
an original member of the faculty and came to his adminis-
trative position out of the faculty ranks. He provided
much of the narrative history, from the administrative
viewpoint, of faculty collective bargaining in the

institution.

Course-Related

 

Agreeing with the President that admissions policies,
standards and strategies had become matters for adminis-
trative decision, and that most other matters directly
related to the academic program remain matters for decision
within the traditional academic decision-making system,
the Provost singled out the Change of Program and Sponsored

Research items for special comment.

Change of Program

Faculty, in their economic role, see their personal
interests in compensation and job security as being related
to the ability of the institution to generate revenue.
Faculty are thus supportive of curricular efforts which
make the institution attractive to larger numbers of

students. This involves the faculty in a conflict of values,

112

given the original commitment to selectivity. A further
element of intra-faculty conflict of interest is introduced
as different units compete with each other for student
enrollment. In some ways that circumstance is beneficial
to students, but a "commercial mentality" is evident which
could sacrifice fundamental academic quality to the compe-
tition for student popularity. Program changes are also
opposed which might have the effect of shifting student
enrollment across departmental lines.

Those behaviors are accounted for in part by the
general conditions prevailing in most institutions of
higher education--leveling or falling enrollments and
reductions in the level of public funding. The faculty
union is complicit in the process, however, since the
ability of the union to achieve bargaining demand is clearly
dependent upon the institution's ability to attract students.
The student-faculty ratio, as an index of faculty work-load
is also an obvious union concern. The maximum ratio of
students to faculty is negotiated. The negotiated ratio
applies, however, to the institution as a whole, preserv-
ing a degree of flexibility for differences between academic
units.

Once again, the union could find itself on both sides
of the same issue. An increase in the student-faculty
ratio would constitute an increase in faculty work-load,

which the union would wish to oppose. On the other hand,

113

such an increase might be necessary to provide resources
to underwrite other union demands in the area of compensation.
The presence of a faculty bargaining agent thus
injects a new set of considerations into the Provost's
leadership decisions in matters of curriculum. Where
formerly the only questions were the educational desira-
bility and practical feasibility of an action, issues of
student enrollment now occur as related to faculty compen-
sation and job security. Since student enrollment is
related to course and curricular offerings, the syllogistic
logic makes the bargaining interest a major concern in
course-related decisions. Education and the student

interest compete for priority with bargaining strategy.

Sponsored Research

"Sponsored research" is generally understood to mean
research which is funded by grants from agencies outside
the university. In this case, however, the Provost was
concerned about the effect of the negotiated contract on
the allocation of research funds provided from institutional
sources.

A sum of money from the university General Fund is
established in the negotiated faculty agreement for the
support of faculty research projects. A short time prior
to the interview, the faculty senate passed a resolution
establishing a program for the improvement of instruction

and requested university funding for research in connection

114

with that program. The Provost was thus faced with a
dilemma. Prior to the advent of collective bargaining,

he could have come to a decision based purely on the merits
of the proposal as related to the whole range of institu-
tional priorities. Even though he supports the proposal
which has emerged, he must now be very circumspect in his
response. Since funds for faculty research are a nego-
tiated item, would he be violating the contract by approving
an allocation which was not negotiated? In terms of
administrative bargaining strategy, would he be giving
something away gratis which might otherwise be used as
"trading capital" at the bargaining table? Even more
fundamentally, would the consequence of granting the
request be to establish a pattern by which the faculty

gets a double chance to achieve its demands, once by

legislation and if unsuccessful there, by negotiation?

Facilities-Related

 

Maintenance of facilities has always been an adminis-
trative responsibility. New facilities planning involved
consultation with faculty as a matter of necessity. In
the devision of responsibilities and prerogatives that
has occurred since the advent of faculty collective bar-
gaining, facilities planning is both an administrative
responsibility and a management right. When faculty are
consulted in decisions related to facilities, the consulta-

tion occurs as a functional aid to administrative decision

115

rather than out of any assumption that faculty have a
"right" to be consulted.

Both parking space and faculty office space are
mentioned in the negotiated agreement, although they
have not yet become matters of controversy or serious

negotiation.

Finance-Related

 

The Provost reflected at some length on what amounts
to the fundamental equation in the finance of educational
institutions. The factors in that equation are the dollar
resource inputs and the output of instructional activity,
generally measured in terms of student credit-hour production.
As a negotiator for the univeristy confronted with bargaining
demands for increased compensation, the classic "trade-off"
which prevails in industrial bargaining is the most obvious
option for the academic bargainer--increased compensation
can be granted in return for increased faculty productivity.
At that point, however, the Provost is required to shift
roles from management negotiator to academic leader. In
that latter role a different set of considerations is
brought to bear. As chief academic officer, his judgment
is that the faculty is already too "productive." Increased
productivity, measured in that student credit-hour currency,
can be achieved only be deteriorating the student-faculty
ratio. In short, the practical considerations of bargaining

tactics come, at some point, into conflict with convictions

116

which the Provost of Mentor University espouses as an
educator.

The compensation-productivity equation contains
another variable. If a "productivity increase" is un-
acceptable on either side of the table, the remaining
alternative is to identify additional financial resources.
Once all of the possible institutional economies have been
achieved, the remaining options are to divert funds from
instructional support or to increase student fees. The
diversion of support funds has an obvious adverse effect
upontflmaquality of instruction, while an increase in the
cost to students deprives some students of their access
to education in that institution. Ultimately, the indus-
trial sequence is played out--the product is priced out

of the market.

Staff-Related

 

While the Provost acknowledged that faculty collec-
tive bargaining had produced some effects on personnel
practices of the university in terms of increased formaliza-
tion of procedures, he felt that much of that trend has
been produced by forces other than the union. Little
negative effect was apparent on the ability of the institu-
tion to attract and retain capable faculty members, although
some senior professors have resigned, citing the union as
the cause.

The chief staff-related effect clearly attributable

117

to collective bargaining occurred in the working relation-
ships between administration and faculty. Prior to the
advent of unionization, the institution had enjoyed an
unusually collegial atmosphere. The faculty senate was
powerful, good-spirited, and judicious in its deliberations,
and senate recommendations had never been overturned by the
administration. Collective bargaining at Mentor was not

a reaction to weak faculty governance, although the senate
may have been perceived as too cautious and slow-moving--in
the manner of faculty senates. Furthermore faculty and
administrators frequently exchanged roles, moving freely
back and forth from one constituency to the other. As

has already been noted, both the President and the Provost
came from the faculty as a part of that movement.

Collective bargaining has changed that, probably
forever. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to
recruit a dean or assistant dean from the faCulty. The
adversarial relationship between faculty and administration
is now a recognized fact, expressing itself as a kind of
constant tension.

Realization of the full effect of the changed rela—
tionships has come slowly to some faculty members. The
Provost cited the repeated instance of faculty members who,
in the time-honored manner of professors, seek to negotiate
independently with the office of the dean or provost over

various terms and conditions of their appointments. They

118

are puzzled and offended when they are informed that the
issues they wish to raise are matters for collective
negotiation and regulated by the contract.

The negotiated agreement contains a procedure for the
resolution of grievances related to faculty employment or
arising from applications or interpretations of the agree-
ment. The procedure terminates in binding arbitration.

The arbitrator may not, however, substitute his or her
judgment for an academic judgment in the matter of estab-
lishing or changing the classification of academic employees.
One case had proceeded to arbitration in four years. The
existence of the procedure tends, in the view of the Provost,
to invite grievance and is certainly a contributing cause

to the specification and formalization of all personnel
policies and procedures. That bureaucratic growth has made
necessary the establishment of an office and staff to

deal with personnel management, representing an additional
diversion of resources from the academic program. The
Provost was careful to say that the growth of the personnel
bureaucracy "came with" collective bargaining, but is not
entirely attributable to bargaining. He is also of the
opinion that increased formality in procedures and the
addition to the staff of persons with personnel management
expertise has had healthy effects.i What is changed is the
flexibility to deal with faculty individuals as individuals.

Unique circumstances of financial need or time allocation

, j '\ .l

119

cannot be worked out in consultation where the contract

lays down conditions equally applicable to all.

Student-Related

 

Once again the relationship between the bargaining of
faculty compensation and the student-faculty ratio was
mentioned, as well as the impact of negotiated compensation

on student fees.

Dean E .

Dean E. is an energetic and articulate person who had
obviously given a good bit of thought to the general theme
of the interview. He limited his responses to a few items
in the list of decision-making topics, but his answers

were sharp and to the point.

Course-Related

Flexibility in the planning of the academic program
in the school is curtailed. Curriculum is tied to money
and money is limited by the compensation settlement. The
implication here was that certain aspects of program quality
are being bargained away. Dean E. also clearly interpreted
his own role as dean to be that of a leader in curriculum
development and he expressed resentment at encroachments
on his time that grow out of the process of collective
bargaining and the demands of administration under the terms
of the negotiated contract. His statement was, "I have

less time and energy to think about curriculum." Much time

120

is spent in meetings to develop back-up information and
strategy for bargaining. The management of formal per-
sonnel procedures becomes increasingly time-consuming.
Prior to the emergence of the union, faculty were
involved in their instructional programs and were inclined
to curricular experimentation. They are now hesitant to
experiment, since an experimental or "pilot" program
generally requires a voluntary overload. Faculty hesi-
tance to accept that kind of additional work has, basically,
three sources related to collective bargaining. One of
these is acceptance of the premise that work-loads and
compensation are fixed and "no one works for nothing."
Some refuse to spend extra time, even though their own
professional inclination is to do so, because they feel
union pressure. Evidently, both sides in the bargaining
relationship are sensitive to the danger of giving away
what might be used as bargaining capital at the table.
Even where a faculty member and the dean are agreed upon
some new and exciting project which should be undertaken,
they may still be unable to implement the project because
of a mutual fear of committing a breach of the negotiated
agreement which might give rise to a grievance by an
uninvolved third party acting on behalf of the union.
The summation of this discussion was that the negotiated
contract makes the creative relationships between the dean
and his school faculty extremely sensitive, even where

mutual good will exists.

121

Facilities-Related

 

No effects are apparent.

Finance-Related

 

As a general response to the category of finance-
related decision items, Dean E. reiterated the relationship
between negotiated compensation, curriculum, and finance
which he had discussed in detail earlier in connection
with course-related items. So pivotal is the matter of
resource allocation that finance-related effects appear
most significantly in the two areas of decision-making
which concern Dean E. most directly--academic curriculum

and staff.

Staff-Related

 

The almost universally noted effects of procedure
formalization, together with their encroachments upon the
time and energy of the dean were again noted. These items
were mentioned, however, in a manner which, while not
conveying the feeling that they are unimportant, suggested
that they are simply taken for granted.

Principally, faculty collective bargaining has had
the effect of reducing flexibility in the ways by which
the dean and his faculty can cooperate to solve problems.
An example which Dean E. gave was the limitation on his
ability to assist faculty in their professional development,

to find ways of shifting work load to provide time for

122

special studies or projects, or to make available oppor-
tunities for professional travel. Before the adoption of
faculty negotiations the dean exercised judgment. Confer-
ences would take place with the concerned faculty member
or members and department Chairpersons to discuss problems
or prOposals and to identify courses of action which were
reasonable, possible, and in the best interest of the
school. Faculty travel funds are now negotiated and
contractualized and it is extremely difficult to work

out ways for getting extra travel funds when the contract
amount is insufficient. Travel funds are too often viewed
as a compensation item, overlooking the fact that sometimes
faculty travel is important to the work of the school.

The same kind of problem occurs whenever it appears de-
sirable to make adjustments in work load.

Dean E. shared an interesting and still-unresolved
problem which provided further illustration of restricted
flexibility in decision-making. A group of faculty had
requested that instead of adding a number of authorized
faculty positions, their department be given the equivalent
amount of support funds. Before the advent of collective
bargaining, the matter could have been decided on its
merits. Now, the issue must be carefully examined in
terms of the ways in which such a shift might be affected
by the contract and what the implications might be for

future negotiations. The matter is one which could very

123

easily find its way to the bargaining table and an addi-
tional dimension of sensitivity occurs accordingly.

The appointment of new faculty provided another
example of the way in which collective bargaining reduces
the operating flexibility of the dean. Dean E. gave the
example of the appointment in June of a new instructor who
expects to receive the Ph.D. in November. Formerly, the
dean would have offered the appointment at the Instructor
level, but would have established the salary offer at the
level of Assistant Professor. Now, both rank and pay
must wait for actual receipt of the degree. The dean has
thus lost an important hiring inducement. Under the
contract the hiring salary establishes the salary base line
and increases are automatic from that point. The only
way in which the dean can exert influence over salary is
by fixing the entry point, and in the case cited, even
that influence is severely limited. The proSpective faculty
member would be penalized in the matter of compensation
for the duration of his or her career at Mentor University.
That is of less concern in times when a surplus of qualified
faculty exists, but there are still academic areas in which
schools must compete for the best new faculty members and

the dean suffers from a limited ability to offer inducements.

§Epdent-Related

No direct student-related effects were noted.

124

General Comment

Dean E. ended the interview with a brief summary

statement of his own philosophy relative to collective

bargaining in the university setting. He noted that collec-

tive bargaining is an adversary proceeding, but he empha-
sized that the adversary relationship need not be a hostile

one. It is a special pleading for one's own cause, as in

a court of law. Even a civil adversary relationship is

difficult to mix with traditional academic collegiality,

however. The whole structure and ethos of the university

is against it. Having said that, Dean E. remarked that the

university culture will be able to make the adjustment.

There are obvious conflicts in that statement, and

it was difficult to judge where the real sentiments of

the speaker lay. Clearly an academic traditionalist,

he seemed determined to make the best of the new order

and turn it to advantage wherever possible.

Dean 0.

Dean 0. was more philosophical in his response and

Commented generally on three categories of decision-making.

Qise-Related

Changes in the development of courses and curricula

whi ch are the consequence of academic collective bargaining

may exist more in perception than in reality. There is,

however, the impression of impediment to the development

0
f new programs, particularly at the graduate level. The

L

125

impediment comes in three principal forms which are incon-

gruent with academic professionalism. That professionalism

represents more than a congenial and comfortable style of
life. It is the set of disciplines, behaviors, and rela-
tionships which are necessary to the performance of

cooperative intellectual tasks.

Dean 0. feels, in the first place, that collective
bargaining introduces a counterproductive divisive element
into relationships in the academic (setting, diverting
concern and effort away from the tasks of improving educa-
tional performance and establishing a vital intellectual
Climate on the campus.

Corollary to that initial perception is the obser-
Vation that effort of faculty participants over and above
Certain stipulated assignments cannot be taken for granted;
and yet such committed effort is essential if the institu-

tion is to meet the demands for new educational programs

reSponding to changed societal needs. What is mourned

is the passage of the committed community of scholars.
Thirdly, Dean 0. feels that unionization places a
Priority on political democracy at the expense of the

reasoned deliberation which is essential to the tasks of

Sch01arship and educational planning.

%nce-Related
After reciting the chain of effects which relate

c . o
0‘1 lective bargaining to compensation to instructional

A

126

resource availability, Dean 0. singled out the matter of
funds for research as being worthy of special comment.
The Mentor faculty as a whole regards faculty research as

highly important and has negotiated university support of

faculty research into the bargained contract. Research

thus receives an important incentive, but administrative
influence over the use of research funds is restricted.

Allocation of funds to research projects in accordance

with the significance or institutional usefulness of the

re search is difficult .

gaff-Related
Increase in the formalization and specification of
all personnel procedures is an obvious concomitant of collec-

tive bargaining. The presence of the union as an espouser

of faculty grievance contributes to the high level of

C=C>ncern for procedural correctness. Procedural formality

itself, however, reflects a general societal obsession

with contracts and contractual protections. Collective

bargaining raises the visibility-level of procedures,

but could be less a cause than a symptom of the general

abSence of trust in the society.

Tutor UniVersity

Tutor University shares the common heritage of former

teachers' colleges which have become, or are in the process

of becoming, multi-purpose public universities. Founded

 

127

as a normal school and business institute, the school has
passed through successive stages of state normal school,
state teachers' college, and state college. Tutor was
accorded university status in the early 19605 under the
same provisions of state law which apply to Mentor Uni-
versity. The institution presently enrolls more than
fourteen thousand students and offers a variety of degrees
at the Baccalaureate and Master's level. Educational
Specialist degrees are offered in three areas and one
doctoral program is in the final stages of approval.

Tutor was one of the earliest four-year institutions
to organize for faculty collective bargaining and it
provides an almost classic case-study of the unionization
of a faculty. Nearly all of the elements were present
which have been identified as contributing to faculty
adoption of collective bargaining. The growth years of
the 19605 brought a variety of changes to the campus which
were disturbing to the older teachers' college faculty.
New young professors joined the faculty, bringing with them
a broader professional outlook. The student body became
more representative of the entire state population, rather
than of the predominantly rural university locale.

At the time of faculty unionization, a new president
had been in office for one year. He was viewed as liberal
and democratic, but his predecessor had been regarded as

an autocrat. Some interpreters of the event are of the

128

«opinion that the union was a weapon forged for use against
that earlier administration. Some of the faculty had
reason, however, to mistrust the new administration.
Student protest was occurring across the nation and on
the Tutor campus, and students were seen as having more
ready access to the President and a higher place on his
(agenda of priorities than had the faculty. Growing
student p0wer was threatening a hegemony of older faculty.
'The younger faculty had their own causes to press:
(advancement in rank and access to economic benefits at a
Inore rapid rate than would be permitted by the actuarial
:rates of their faculty seniors. "Old Guard" and "Young
'Turks" had different aims, but common cause.

The President adopted a cooperative attitude toward
'the union, determined to prevent collective bargaining
:from disturbing collegial relationships any more than
rNecessary. By and large, union-administration relation-
SIlips have remained civil. From the beginning, both the
uu'lion and the administration have attempted to separate
afimademic issues from "terms and conditions of employment,"
rEiferringthe latter to collective negotiation and the former
'tCD faculty senate processes. The senate is viewed by the

faiculty as possessing considerable power, but cumbersome

‘111 its Operations. Recent union negotiating demands have

bEigun to encroach upon senate decisions.

The bargaining agent for the Tutor faculty is a

zl<>cal affiliate of the National Education Association.

129

Table 4. Tutor University Summary Table of Affected Items

 

 

Item

Respondent

 

Pres.

VPAA

Dean

Dean

 

Course-Related

 

Admissions policies
Curriculum and degrees
Grading standards
Academic calendar

Change of program
Sponsored research
Public service/Extension

Facilities-Related

 

Schedules and space
Office assignment
Maintenance

New facilities
Parking

Finance-Related

 

Budget preparation
State budget process
Internal allocation
Student fees

Auxiliary service fees
Management and planning
Private funding

Student financial aid

Staff-Related

 

Faculty appointment
Faculty retention

Faculty tenure
Retrenchment

Faculty promotion
Evaluation of instruction
Faculty work-load

Faculty compensation
Grievance procedures
Admin. personnel policies
Administrative appointment
Affirmative Action

Student-Related

Student development
Counseling and health
Residence hall programs
Conduct and discipline
Activities and organizations
Participation in governance

 

(General)
(Governing board relations)

___

xx

xx

xxxxx

xxxx

><><><

130

The President

Historians of the emerging institution of higher
education have commented that a turning-point in the
evolution from teachers' college to multi-purpose univer-
sity occurs wehn an institution appoints its first president
whose academic antecedents are not in some field connected
with teacher preparation. The President of Tutor University
occupies that position in his own school's history. His
Ph.D. is in one of the basic disciplines of the liberal
arts and was earned at a "prestige" university. He has
been a faculty-member and dean and he clearly feels that he
possesses the academic instincts of a professor. Before
becoming president at Tutor, he served as a vice-president

in a large complex university.

Course-Related

The President is deeply concerned about the need
for curricular change at Tutor University and is frustrated
'that what he views as necessary changes have not occurred
3m0re rapidly. He is not conscious of any overt, direct
<3ffect of faculty collective bargaining on the strategies
fOrcurriculum development which have been employed by the
iniministration under his leadership. There are, however,
some:fundamental indirect effects. Collective bargaining
traditionally addresses the issue of job security. In a
Period of change in the patterns of student enrollment,

with the implications of enrollment for faculty positions.

-.

131

the problem of job security for the faculty has impinged
upon the process of curriculum development. Faculty
members have little faith in the ability of the institu-
tion or its administration to predict the direction that
enrollment patterns are likely to take. Any curricular
change is mistrusted because of the uncertain consequences
in terms of faculty jobs. The job security goals of the
faculty union bring union influence to bear in opposition
to new curricular structures.

As an example, the President cited the failure in
two successive years of attempts to reform the under-
graduate program of general education. The faculty Senate
made extensive studies and committees put in long hours of
work, but no scheme emerged which the Senate regarded as
acceptable. The "hidden agenda" played upon by the union
was the job security of the faculty, particularly in the
school of Arts and Sciences from which the faculty union
draws its greatest support.

Privately, the President feels that the matter of
job security could be dealt with openly in collective
negotiation with the union. That obstacle removed, the
educational issues could be dealt with on their own merits.
He is unable, however, to secure agreement on that point
among the other members of his central administration.
Therefore, the official position of the administration

is that clear separation must be maintained between

132

"academic issues" and "terms and conditions Of employment."
The latter are matters for collective negotiation, while
the former are deliberated in the departments, schools
and Academic Senate.

The President pointed to what he characterized as
a paradox--that administrative attitudes toward collec-
tive bargaining with the faculty, rather than the collec-
tive negotiation format itself, hinders the ability to
deal wih the human implications Of curricular change.
He views collective bargaining as an instrument for the
achievement Of academic goals and is hopeful, although
not optimistically so, that a new model of collective
bargaining will evolve which is unique to the academic
community. Administrative Opposition to faculty negotia-
tions per se exacerbates adversarial behavior on the part
of the faculty union and interferes with the development
Of a collective bargaining model appropriate to the
university. With faculty and administration thus at
logger-heads, adversarial ”trade union" attitudes
dominate the faculty position and ultimately the model is
determined by the labor arbitrator along industrial lines.

The Tutor experience supports the President in his
view. Relationships between the administration and the
union have remained civil, but a succession of issues which
lie on the blurred borderline between "academic concerns”

and "terms and conditions Of employment" have been raised

133-

by the union as "unfair labor practices." The principal
example is a "teaching effectiveness program" passed by
the Senate and adopted by the Board of Trustees. A pro-
gram for the improvement of instruction seems clearly to
lie within the province of the academic decision-making
system, but the faculty union claims that the matter
should have been negotiated at the bargaining table and
the claim is supported by the state's employment relations
commission. The matter is in the courts. What the par-
ticular issue illustrates is that collective bargaining,
by linking employment concerns to academic ones, is almost
certain to encroach more and more upon academic decision-
making. The administration is engaged in a losing defen-
sive struggle, and what is given up in the process is the
ability to mold the character of the bargaining form
that ultimately emerges. In the end, academic issues will
be negotiated in trade-union terms. A

The President returned to his argument for an academic
model of collective negotiation. He pointed out that,
with a few exceptions, the faculty union leadership has
represented the best leadership Of the faculty as a whole.
The same faculty leaders are present both in the Academic
Senate and the union. He recalled the plaintive question
of one member of a faculty negotiating team: "Hey, we are
the same people. Why do you trust us in one setting and

not in the other?” Given a mutual willingness to make the

134

system work, the President feels that collective bargaining
could develop into a new kind Of collegiality. Again,

he remarked that what stands in the way is an administra—
tive mind-set, and that for him publicly to break ranks with
that position would be regarded by his administrative ‘
colleagues as a betrayal Of high principle.

Perhaps the most important consequences for the
President and for his style Of administrative leadership
are seen as the unresolved differences which consume human
:resources and divert energies from essential academic tasks.
'rhose differences occur within the administration, between
eadministration and faculty and between faculty members.
lie adds to that list the unresolved ambivalences in his

crwn mind which take their toll Of his own energies.

IFacilities-Related
The negotiated agreements at Tutor University have

11<>t contained references to facilities in the manner of

some K-12 and community college contracts. The item,

however, elicited a contingent Observation from the Pre-

£3£ikient. The Observation was that collective bargaining

jLEB :not, in itself, new to the campus.' The university has

been negotiating with maintenance, food service, clerical,

and security employees for years, frequently over matters

JLI‘G‘rtolving facilities. He cited the case of a colleague-

p“resident whose institution was in regular negotiation with

C)
vet fifteen employee unions, not counting the faculty.

135

Experience with collective bargaining is a valuable aid

to dealing with the faculty in negotiations. The system

is a highly-evolved form Of problem-solving in industrial
society. It is a means for resolving the power-balance,

on the order of the forms of international diplomacy which
were developed in the Nineteenth Century. Some people

have learned to deal with the system and they have learned
what issues can be settled at the bargaining-table and how
the various problems should be approached in negotiation.
The worst consequences of collective bargaining occur when
the participants are naive or inexperienced. The President
cited as evidence occasions where parties at impasse have
called in expert bargainers and the impasse has been rapidly

broken.

Finance-Related

 

The first Observation addressed by the President to
this category Of decision-making items was that university
finance has been scandalous without unions! Secretiveness
has developed and faculty unions are not alone in being
misled about the state of the university budgets--presidents
are frequently fooled by the technocrats who control the
flow of information. The result of that is that the amount
of money whichremains for allocation in accordance with the
president's judgment is severely reduced. That margin is
small enough, at best, and it is further reduced when por-

tions Of the free monies are "squirrelled away" (the

136

President's term) by account directors under Obscure budget-
lines for their own purpOses. éThe President sees his
principal financial goal, therefore, as gaining control
of the budget.

In some ways, faculty collective bargaining has
assisted him in that task, but the cost Of the process
may Offset the advantages gained. That is almost certainly
the case in the short run. Nevertheless, faculty negotia-
tions have speeded the process of developing management
information systems within the university. Proposals
arising in negotiations need to be costed-out rapidly
and accurately and projected over, perhaps, five years.
That need has led to the development Of a highly-sophis~
ticated data-processing program for payroll. In terms Of
personnel, the President estimated that approximately four
and one-half administrative positions have been added to
deal with faculty collective bargaining. That does not
mean that all of the officers' time is spent on matters
related tO faculty bargaining, but without bargaining the
university could probably have gotten along without them.
One vice-president has been added with primary responsi-
bility for bargaining and contract administration. A staff
attorney has been added and at least one additional systems
analyst has been hired. The university Controller, once
a middle-management position, has emerged as a high-level

executive Officer, and additional personnel have been added

137

to the Office Of institutional research. That administra-
tive growth is costly. Furthermore, it conflicts with
another important goal of the President, which is to reduce
the ratio of administrative personnel to faculty.

While the President sees no serious or long-range
effects of collective bargaining on the legislative budget-
appropriations process, he believes that some unfortunate
consequences have been suffered and he feels that he has
been "beaten over the head with the contract" in legis-
lative budget hearings. Some legislators feel that the
administration has "caved in" to union pressures and have
made it clear that the university should not expect the
legislature to fund the contract over and above the
standard appropriations for compensation increases.

A union argument has been that the union organization
at the state level would be a valuable ally in the campaign
for additional appropriations. That has not proven to be
the case. Industrial uniosn are a potent political force
in the state, but they do not view academic unions as
trustworthy members Of the labor fraternity. In addition,
the state affiliate Of the NEA, with which the faculty
union is associated, has focused its lobbying influence
on K-12 appropriations and has been instrumental in diver-
ting money away from higher education.

One further element enters into the President's

problem in dealing with both the union and the legislature.

138

He cannot argue publicly with the legislature for higher
compensation for the faculty and simultaneously negotiate
with the faculty for lower increases. He finds his points
with the legislature turned against his representatives

at the bargaining table.

Staff-Related

 

The administration Of Tutor University is decentralized
in its operations. The final decision in staff-related
matters, that is to say those final recommendations which
go from the administration to the governing board, are
determined by the Provost in consultation with deans and
department Chairpersons. The President is involved when
required to resolve indecision or controversy. He deals
with the "hard cases" involving reappointment, promotion
or tenure. His Observations, are, accordingly, somewhat
detached.

He commented on the forces which, in his observation,
collective bargaining has either intensified or injected
into staff-related decision-making. These he described as
an "Obsessive egalitarianism" and a prevading climate Of
legalism. The former reduces the ability Of academic
leaders to make discriminating judgments about individuals
and the latter requires the establishment of elaborate
files Of objective evidence which may or may not bear upon
the real reasons for the decisions which are taken. The
quality of the evidence is determined by its acceptability

in grievance proceedings and court cases.

139

The President feels that the effect Of these forces
will be to establish a condition of "instant tenure" for
each faculty member appointed. Termination will be pos-
sible only because of the institution's dire financial
distress or for documented incompetence of the faculty
member. Discretionary judgment will necessarily be moved
back to the appointment process. High risk appointments,
which can yield some Of the most exciting additions to the
faculty, will be discouraged. The President predicts the
development of highly-detailed preappointment investigative
procedures.

The matter Of faculty compensation called forth con-
siderable reflective comment from the President. He began
by stating the premise that compensation ought not be
determined by "market-place considerations" alone. He
explained that by suggesting that salaries and fringe
benefits ought not be based purely on the amOunt necessary
to attract and retain a competent faculty, but on some
computed level which is scaled to the local cost Of living
and to the standing Of the university among similar insti-
tutions in the state. He estimated that Tutor should pro-
bably stand about fifth among the institutions in its
state with respect to median faculty compensation. That
was Obviously a subjective judgment "Off the top of the head."

He went on to suggest, however, that a good, scholarly

study could arrive at a formula which would include not only

140

the factors already menioned but also some gross proportion
of the university budget which ought to be committed to
faculty compensation. That study would also relate faculty
compensation to those environmental factors which would
translate in terms of faculty satisfaction: library,
laboratory supplies and equipment, university support Of
creative and scholarly activities, and cultural enrichment.
He commented, epigrammatically, that "most faculty members
want to be comfortable in a rich environment, not rich in
an impoverished environment." If anxiety and economic
insecurity were removed, the university would have nO dif-
ficulty attracting and retaining an excellent faculty.
Returning to his earlier theme, he Offered the Opinion

that a collective negotiation model could be developed
which would lead to a comprehensive and Objective analysis
of resources and their apportionment in a way which would
lead to faculty satisfaction and responsible use of public
funds, ". . .and that," he said, "is the test Of successful

negotiations--where both parties leave the table satisfied."

Student-Related

 

The student concern is high on the President's list
of personal priorities. Student interest in faculty collec-
tive bargaining is on the rise and in quiet and unsophisticated
ways they are beginning to question the process. They have
adopted the "consumer" role, questioning the impact Of

faculty negotiations on the cost of their education and

141

also upon its quality. They have observed a certain
faculty preoccupation with themselves which encroaches upon
professors' interests in providing quality instruction--or
so some students believe.

Early in the history Of faculty negotiations in the
university, a question was raised publicly about the role,
if any, which students should have in the process. The
administration proposed the inclusion of student body
president as an Observer at the bargaining sessions. That
was rejected by the union which argued that the student
body president was biased toward the administration, and
the proposal collapsed. As a counter, the union presented
a set Of bargaining demands which were a reprise Of demands
that had been made at one time or another by students. The
demands were abandoned without serious negotiation and were
viewed by the administration as an attempt to ingratiate
the union with the student body. What became immediately
apparent was that the attempt tO include students in nego-
tiations had risked making students pawns in the tactics
of bargaining and had encouraged students to "choose sides."
In the President's view that would be unhealthy and for that
and other reasons he now opposes the presence of students
at the bargaining table. He imagines a negotiated agree-
ment, however, which might include a student critique of
the initialled contract before it is submitted for

ratification.

142

There was only one effect noted which bore specifi-
cally on the relationship between the President and the
student body in the on-going life of the unversity. The
President feels that the secretive behavior associated
with bargaining--the guardedness with which information
is treated--interferes with relationships by preventing
him from being as fully open and honest with students as
he would be were there less need to guard information.
Relationships with both students and faculty assume an
additional measure of sensitivity, since so much that is
said and done takes On an interpretation connected with

negotiations.

General

The collective bargaining relationship with the
faculty has, in subtle ways, altered the relationship
between the President and the governing board. He has
always viewed himself as a "double agent" in that relation-
ship, representing the interests Of the faculty to the
board and interpreting board policies to the faculty.
The adversarial concept Of collective bargaining held by
most board members makes it difficult for the President
to act as an interpreter of the views Of the academic
professionals without appearing to be their covert ally.
Board members may question from time to time ”just which

side Of the table he sits on." In the opposite direction,

143

the same adversarial climate erodes the trust in the
President which faculty members must have if he is to be
regarded as an authentic interpreter Of policy. The
faculty are liable to suspect that his utterances are
tactical, rather than forthrightly interpretative. The
President's generalized judgment is that, in unionized
institutions, the tolerance for ambiguity on the part

Of academic leaders will be raised to a higher level of
importance.

The President of Tutor university retains a high
level of satisfaction with his academic leadership role,
although he remarked that that is not so with some of his
colleague presidents. He quotes one colleague as saying
that, "When my school gets a faculty union is when I will
learn to enjoy golf." The President went on to Observe
that a number Of presidents in unionized institutions
had begun to regard their roles more as routine management
jobs and less as callings, and had turned to sources Of

personal satisfaction outside of the institutional setting.

The Provost
Like the President, the Provost Of Tutor University
began his academic career as a professor in one of the
fundamental disciplines of the liberal arts. His career
has included the deanship of a liberal arts college and a
year as acting president of the same college. His appoint-

ment as Provost occurred about one year prior to the

144

negotiation of the first faculty contract. He is the first
Officer at Tutor University to hold the title of Provost
and holds the concurrent title of Vice President for
Academic Affairs. The addition Of the Provost's title
signifies a position in the administration close to that of
a "co-president," in that his authority in academic affairs
is virtually equal to that Of the President.) His principal
achievements at Tutor University have been the establishment
of a data-based system Of academic planning and the intro-
duction Ofa.highly'innovative nontraditional "university
without walls" program. He impressed the interviewer as

a tough-minded leader with a profound affection for the
traditional values Of the academy. Acknowledging the same
detailed effects of faculty collective bargaining that

were mentioned by other academic officers, he carried their
implications to their most fundamental level in terms

of their impact upon academic values.

Course-Related

 

The Provost's first comment on the course—related
decisionmaking items was that the presence of collective
bargaining with the faculty raises Obstacles tO the Open
exploration Of ideas. Considerations of bargaining tactics
gain priority over the discussion of proposals on their
merits. In his view, collective bargaining formalizes a
structure which is predominantly concerned with job security.

Such a structure is inherently conservative and opposed to

145

revolutionary change. The first response of the faculty

to a proposal for change is the question, "What will this
do to my 'matrix of security' in the department and school?"
.As evidence he cited the same debate over general education
that the President mentioned.

His procedure in introducing curricular change has
been to assemble faculty task forces to gather data, examine
issues and produce recommendations. These efforts have
tended to be time-consuming and ultimately abortive because
of the "hidden agenda" of questions related to job security
and compensation. He attributes the "foot-dragging" of
faculty in response to the task forces and their recommen-
dations, at least in part, to the very fact that the
initiative was an administrative one.

That observation led to a comment on a change which
he perceives in his personal relationships with faculty.

He acknowledged that when he first moved from faculty to
administration he took some good-natured ribbing from his
faculty friends about his having "gone over to the other
side," but collective bargaining has made that earlier
separation more real. The sense of an abstract ex officio
suspicion of his motives on the part of faculty has in-
creased. Some Of the words he used were, "I have grown
paranoid-- always sensitive to footsteps behind me Of
people who are looking for an opportunity to attack."

An example he used was the teaching effectiveness

146

program, also alluded to by the President. He considered
the plan a reasoned and reasonable academic response to

the problem of improving instruction—-and it was greeted
by an Unfair Labor Practice charge by the faculty union.

He confesses that the signals were there while the plan was
being developed, but he failed to assess their importance.

At the time of the interview, the Provost was engaged
in a struggle to maintain the separation of matters related
to the nontraditional degree program from the issues being
negotiated with the union. The inherent conservatism of the
union and the loss Of flexibility which he sees as occurring
as a consequence Of bargaining has convinced him that to
bargain anything which touches upon the nontraditional
program would remove the capacity of the program to respond
rapidly to new educational needs.

In summary, the Provost called out two basic charac-
teristics of faculty collective bargaining which he believes
interfere with curricular development. The first of these
was that collective bargaining is extremely expensive in
terms of time and energy-—both physical and intellectual
energy; and the expense accrues both to faculty and adminis—
trators. He expressed a personal resentment Of his own
expenditure of mental effort in connection with the nego-
tiation and administration Of the bargained agreement and
indicated that he had "more important things to do." He

also Observed that he had witnessed the utter consumption

147

of the mental capital of bright people. Secondly, he indi-
cated that the legal quality Of the role-definitions which
emerge from the negotiated contract inhibit initiative,
even where there is a willingness to press ahead with some
academic enterprise. There is a nagging fear on the part
of some faculty members that to go beyond contractual
requirements may constitute a breaking Of the ranks with
fellow faculty in the union. The consequence is a blocking

of the individual faculty-member's right to self-determination.

Facilities-Related

 

There was little perceived change in the manner by
which decisions are arrived at in respect to facilities.
The Tutor contracts have avoided trivial specifications
concerning Office space, heat, lighting and some of the
other items which have been bargained elsewhere. Program—
statements for new buildings are developed in consultation

with the people who will use them.

Finance-Related

 

Finance-related decisions are of one piece with all
Of the decisions related to allocation Of institutional
resources, both human and physical. The Provost maintains
that resource allocation is, and always has been, a re-
sponsibility and prerogative of administration as the per-
sons who maintain a comprehensive view Of all the competing

needs. That principle was under attack and was eroded

148

during the late 19605 and early 1970s as a product of
the "participation revolution" which characterized those
years in American universities. Because those were years
Of affluence for universities, it was convenient to permit
a widespread sharing of finance-related decisions. Tough
and controversial decisions were not required since money
was sufficient to support most Of the private interests.
Resources were occasionally misused as a consequence. The
fiscal crisis of the mid-19705 made a different kind of
stewardship essential tO institutional survival.

Collective bargaining actually aided in the return
Of fiscal management to the administration. The bargain-
ing process permitted a clearly-focused line Of decision-
making. The clear separation Of functions which others have
noted as a product Of collective bargaining gave adminis-
tration the right to allocate money, subject to bargaining
over faculty compensation. The bargained compensation
item reduces the absolute amount of money available for
allocation, but the power to allocate rests with the
administrative managers. In terms of administrative style,
some of the modes of commerce were adopted--tardi1y for
the fiscal health of institutions. The planning system
adopted by Tutor University was made possible by such a
return Of control.

Union bargainers are intent on finding new areas Of

the budget which might provide funds for conversion into

149

compensation settlements. Student financial aid could
become just such a target-category. The Provost reported
that such a possibility had been raised in his presence

by a union spokesman.

Staff-Related

 

The fundamental impact perceived by the Provost was,
once again,the change in the quality of relationships
which resulted from the formalized procedures which appear
to be inevitable with unionization. A trivial but highly
indicative example was the change which tOOk place in the
letters to the faculty dealing with matters related to their
appointments. It was customary to include courteous expres-
sions of appreciation in such correspondence, softening
their bureaucratic tone. That changed after a facu1ty
member who failed for reappointment raised a grievance
citing the ”courtesy language" Of his letter as a formal
evaluation! Even these modest efforts tO be humanely
gentle became matters Of controversy. The climate of
relationships is not hostile, and the faculty member in
the case mentioned was not angry, even though he was dis—
appointed. He merely identified what he thought was a
procedural loophole.

The point is that collective bargaining requires
such legal precision in every communication that great care
is necessary in the framing of correspondence, and in

building the files Of evidence which support the decisions

150

which are communicated. That is a consequence Of collec-
tive bargaining important in itself; but more important,

to the mind Of the Provost, is the manner in which those

requirements increase the trend toward depersonalization

Of the college.

The appointment process has changed in that the
Provost has insisted on more careful scrutiny Of credentials
and has taken more pains in the interviewing Of prospective
new faculty members. In interviews with highly promising
candidates, the Provost has had to respond to various
questions concerning the effect Of the faculty union on
the professional environment.

Retrenchment is a matter of vital concern to the
union. While the Tutor faculty has increased somewhat in
total number over the last few years, some departments
have suffered the loss Of faculty positions due to the
shifting patterns of student enrollment. The reductions
have been accomplished by nonreappointment Of nontenured
faculty. A number Of the nonreappointments have led to
grievances by the faculty members affected and the union
has supported them. The Provost feels that the union claims
the right to deal with retrenchment as an issue separate
from the academic issues involved.

The evaluation of instruction, as has already been
mentioned, was attacked by the union in an Unfair Labor

Practice charge claiming that evaluation is a condition

151

of employment subject to collective bargaining. The union
attitude toward evaluation diminishes the capability of
department Chairpersons, deans, and the Provost to make
rational judgments about people. The necessity imposed by
formalized procedures, supported by threat of grievance,
is that all judgments be objectified and that evaluators
are able tO say only those things which can be documented.
What is lost are those "sloppy but important" subjective
judgments. One quality of the able academic leader was,
at one time, the ability to make wise subjective judgments
about the quality of people. The exercise of that important
ability is now discouraged.

At this point, the Provost asked leave to digress
and became quite eloquent on the matter Of the need to make
several kinds Of discriminating judgments within the academic
community. An abstract of his remarks is that the matter Of
discriminating judgment lies at the heart Of the jUStifica—
tion for the existence of a college or university. Uni-
versity education consists in learning the ability to separate
the true from the false, the good from the bad, the beauti-
ful from the ugly, the right from the wrong. Faculty collec-
tive bargaining, by its emphasis on equal treatment for all,
is complicit in an erosion Of the commitment both to the
possibility and the desirability Of reasoned and discrim-
inating judgment. "How," he said, "are we to respond to

our students who are subject to the academic judgments of

152

faculty who, in another setting, reject the principle of
judgment?" The ultimate result is a fundamental change in
the nature Of the academic community from one dependent
upon its own internal dynamic to a system dependent upon
the extrinsic judgments of the courts.

Faculty tenure is undergoing a subtle but fundamental
change. In every case where an "agency shop" contract
has been negotiated, tenure has become subservient to the
contract. The current contract at Tutor contains what is
commonly described as an agency shop clause, in that faculty
members are required by the contract to pay an agency fee
if they do not pay union dues. Tenure is protected by a
modifying clause which places the burden Of collection on
the union. The "subtle change," however, occurs as tenure
is increasingly regarded as job security and loses its
important status as a bulwark Of academic freedom.

The effect Of collective bargaining on faculty
compensation was described succinctly as a reduction in
the amount of total resources available and, consequently,
of the "free money" which might otherwise be used by the
Provost in the development of the academic program. A
second effect is, in Biblical paraphrase, "to lay dollars
on equals and unequals alike." Where someone is doing
something really fine,there is difficulty in finding ways
to recognize that excellence. Being unable to reward

extraordinary people with money, the Provost is driven to

153

finding devices for accomplishing the same purpose less
straightforwardly.

A series Of staff-related effects perceived by the
Provost involved changed relationships with his administra-
tive subordinates. The precision required in personnel
operations makes closer monitoring necessary over the work
of subordinates. More time is required in consultation and
more documents need to be re—drafted to accommodate some
technical detail. The Provost is also conscious of a
close watch by middle-level administrators over the rela-
tionship between the central administration and the faculty
union. As yet no administrative-professional union has
emerged; but there is an association of administrative and
professional staff members which could rapidly become a
union if it were felt that settlements with the faculty
were made at the expense of administrators. That is a
potential problem which the Provost must continually keep

in mind in his relationships with his professional staff.

Student-Related

 

The Provost has little direct contact with students,
but they are his uppermost concern as the Objects of the
whole educational task. He worries about the dollar—impact
on students as tuition increases constantly become nec-
essary for institutional survival and quality.

The Provost is also concerned over the long-range

implications of "triads" formed by the shifting alignments

154

(If faculty, students, and administration. Three parties

1J1 discussion tend to fall into "two against one" coalitions.
.As student support is courted by faculty on one hand and
adndnistration on the other, a likelihood exists that

students will be both used and abused.

General

Summarizing his reflections on the effects Of faculty
collective bargaining on his own academic leadership role,
the Provost confessed that he has suffered some loss Of
perspective. A professor by instinct, he finds himself
increasingly anti-faculty in the tone Of some of his
spontaneous remarks. He expressed dissatisfaction with the
"posturing" which has characterized the bargaining rela-
tionship--the pattern of absurd demands being answered by
contemptuous responses. Along with the tactical "posturing"
goes the guardedness Of conversation and erosion of openness
and trust. The result is a species of institutionalized
dishonestyixmwhich the Provost is complicit and which is
foreign to his own instincts. He is Optimistic, however,
in his own deep-seated belief in the reality Of a community
of scholars and Of his own ability to experience richness
and delight in that community. He is unwilling to concede
that the pattern of relationships which presently appear
to emerge from collective bargaining is characteristic of

the university Of the future.

155

Dean I.

Dean I. has been the dean Of his school for almost
seven years, having come from the professorial ranks at
another university. He continues to be a more productive
scholar than is usual for administrators in emerging
institutions. As such, he is symbolic of the whole pro-
cess of institutional emergence among the former teachers'
colleges, exhibiting a set of academic values and experi-
ences broader than those which characterized the deanship
in schools whichthought primarily in terms of preparing
teachers for the public Schools. His comments reflected

that background.

Course-Related

 

Given his general orientation, Dean I. had less to
say than might have been expected about the effect of
faculty bargaining on curricular development. He indicated
early in the interview that, in his opinion, the key tO
course and curriculum development is the development of a
faculty. Hence, many Of his reflections upon leadership
in course-related matters are subsumed in his comments on
staff-related issues. His principal assertion in the matter
Of curriulum was that the bargaining relationship Operates
tO stifle curricular innovation, since new developments
generally involve effort over and above the expected minimum,
and the union posture generally is to discourage such extra

effort.

156

Facilities-Related

 

There are no direct effects of collective bargaining
on decisions relating Uofacilities. An indirect effect is
created, however, by the cost of negotiated compensation
patterns. Money is negotiated away in compensation which
could be spent in the improvement Of facilities and

equipment.

Finance-Related

 

Finances are allocated through the institutional
planning system. The Dean's influence is exercised in
connection with the Operation Of that system. While most
Of his decisions revolve, in one way or another, on the
availability Of financial resources, there is no direct
relationship between collective bargaining and specifically
finance-related matters. Once again, the indirect effect
is felt through the general limitation on available money.
The crucial matter of faculty compensation falls among

staff-related matters.

Staff-Related

 

In discussing staff-related issues, Dean I. put forward
a conceptual model from which most Of his specific comments
flowed. Faculties in emerging universities tend to fall
into something like a normal curve in terms of ability and
incentive. A few professors will be self-motivated achievers

and a few will habitually perform at the minimum. Between

157

are the bulk of faculty members who will be influenced in
their performance by "the carrot and the stick" with the
most powerful influence being the "carrot"--that is, the
promise of reward for improved performance. The "juiciest
carrot" is financial reward, i.e., merit pay increases.

A tenet of faculty unions, including the one at Tutor, is
Opposition to merit pay, and the Tutor contract includes
negotiated compensation increases which are applied without
reference to judgments of merit. The most powerful incen-
tive to improvement is thus removed. Tutor University's
"Achievement Award" system simply reinforces those

faculty members who would be most likely to achieve without
it.

Beyond that, the negotiation of financial rewards
applied equally tO all has the effect Of encouraging
performance, not at some median level, but at the minimum.
A direct effect Of the "union mentality" is perceived in
this connection. Dean I. reported changes which he had
Observed in individual faculty members which he attributes
to union-inspired pressure to relax their professional
efforts. That pressure may be simply an effect Of the
union environment, or it may be more direct. In one instance
a grievance proceeding was threatened, though never pursued,
against a faculty member whose colleagues thought was doing
too much. If that was true, and the Dean clearly perceived
it to be, the implications for academic freedom are fright-

ening--and that fact was acknowledge in the interview.

158

In the whole issue of faculty develOpment, which he
regards as his single most important concern and central to
the educational quality Of his school, Dean I. feels that
necessary instruments for his exercise Of leadership have
been removed. With the bulk Of the faculty whose performance
is influenced by external forces, recognition by the society
of professionals was once a potent incentive. That profes-
sional recognition has been superceded by the ethos Of the
union. That ethos is one which so strictly links economic
rewards to stipulated work that minimum performance is
encouraged and even demanded.

Negotiated compensation has removed matters of salary
and salary as related to judgments of merit from the
decision-making agenda. In establishing the entry-level Of
compensation for new faculty, considerations have reduced
themselves to, in Dean I.'s words, "The calculation of
what a year's experience is worth dollarwise." He regards
that as a necessary but defective criterion, since it makes
no distinction between persons who have developed with
experience and those who have simply "repeated the first
year over and over again." The precise price-tagging of
increments of academic experience is made necessary by
negotiated systems Of inequity-adjustment, supported by
the threat of formal grievance.

That comment led to a discussion Of procedure-formal-

ization in all personnel transactions. Dean I. estimated

159

that he finds it necessary to consult the negotiated
agreement an average Of twelve times weekly. His judgments
are based on an interpretation of contract-language, rather
than upon his own reasoned assessments or some form Of
consultation, as would be the case if the contract were

not present. Files are being built for procedural purposes
only, so that decision can be defended before grievance
panels or in the courts.

Most procedures, Dean I. feels, should have been
developed anyway, and some improvements in personnel pro-
cedures have resulted. On the other hand, he feels that had
the procedures not developed in a context of collective
bargaining they would have been done differently and better.
He cited a study of faculty work-load units which was com-
missioned by the Academic Senate, but was heavily influenced
by union sympathizers. Had the union influence not been
present, he feels that a useful report would have been
produced in brief form. As it stands, the report is
"twelve inches thick" and inconclusive. That occurred,
he believes, because of a calculated union effort to Obscure
the issues and stall the development of a Senate assessment
Of work-load unitl the issue could be treated at the
bargaining table. He believes that the union presence in
the Senate is regularly employed to serve similar tactical

ends.

160

Student-Related

 

Dean I. has personal contact with students who are
members Of his Advisory Council and others who come to
him for advice. He does not characterize these students
as ones who are concerned about "student power" but about
the personal implications Of the bargaining process for
their personal educational programs. The student concerns
are described as a general anxiety, particularly about
the possibilities of a faculty strike and its possible
effect upon their propspects for graduation. The Dean has
sought to allay those anxieties and to encourage others

to do the same.

General

Dean I. is concerned both for professionalism and
collegiality as those environmental factors are influenced
by collective bargaining. He concedes that his own collegial
relationships are diminished by the size of his school. He
has also found it necessary to withdraw somewhat in the
interests of decision-making Objectivity. He feels, however,
that the union has "played upon" these occurrences. His
withdrawal is occasioned in part by a caution about the
handling of information. He is uncertain about how informa-
tion might be used which he shares, either deliberately or
inadvertently, so that he is continually concerned about
the need to guard his conversation. That fact alone inter-

feres with free communication, and he feels that he is a

161

effective communicator between his faculty and the central
administration as a result.

The Dean's most important constituency is his corps
of department Chairpersons. They are members Of the
bargaining unit, but carry administrative responsibility.
Their ambiguous position has led to two types of behavior.
In one pattern, the chairperson identifies with the faculty
and becomes an adversary of the Dean. In the other pattern,
he or she identifies with administration and may become an
adversary of the faculty. In either case, the collegial
and consultative relationship which ought to exist with

the office of the Dean is disturbed.

Dean T.

Dean T. has held his deanship at Tutor University
for about eight years, becoming well-established in the
position before the organization of the faculty union.

He was a member Of the university bargaining team in the
first contract negotiations to take place on the campus.
While the great majority of Officers interviewed in the
course of the research were cordial, interested and Open,
Dean T. was unusually so. He was an easy person with

whom to visit. The observation is more than incidental.

He indicated than an important aspect of his administrative
style has been to cultivate easy and Open personal rela-
tionships with faculty, and that Openness is what he per-
ceives to have been most seriously affected by the climate

of faculty unionization.

162

He established the theme early in the interview.

In response to the initial questions concerning course-
related items, he said, "Let me ramble a bit first." The
"rambling" centered upon the altered relationships which

the Dean perceived as a consequence of collective bargaining.
He had successfully established a relationship with faculty
which permitted a free flow Of conversation, dialogue and
good-natured argument. Faculty felt free to drop in at the
Office late in the day to chat. Those conversations usually
had an agenda which might not be immediately apparent, but
in the process of getting to the point a great deal Of
information could be gleaned about what was going on in the
departments. The real agenda of the visits was usually
related to faculty salary or to projects for which the
support of the dean was being enlisted.

The informal relationships which the dean found so
useful, upon which he had come to depend, and which he
found genuinely enjoyable ended with the appearance Of the
union. Dean T.'s interpretation of the "drying up" Of the
relationships was that faculty members no longer feel a
need to enlist the dean as an advocate with the central
administration. The union now occupies that position.

Even the conversations which take place in social settings
have been affected. Dean T. senses that if he joins a
group Of faculty at coffee subjects are changed and drift

Off into irrelevancies.

163

The analysis Offered by Dean T. is that collective
bargaining is a highly formalized pattern Of information-
exchange and faculty members are afraid to convey infor-
mation, even inadvertently, outside Of the formal structures
established by the bargaining relationship. The contrac-
tualized relationship affects more than the kinds Of
discussion which might involve bargaining subjects. The
whole process of contract administration lays out formal
procedures for communication between the faculty and admin-
istration. For example, a faculty member who has a complaint
will be more likely to follow the form for raising a grie-
vance rather than raising the matter in a more or less
casual conversation with the dean. That is contrary tO
the administrative style which Dean T. had cultivated as
his principal leadership technique. He said, "It is more
time-consuming and I need to work harder to keep the formal
structures from interfering with communication." He also
stated positively that, "The more people lean toward the
union, the less I see of them. That wasn't so before.

”Now, when I need to see them I have to look for them."

An interesting exception to that rule has been some
union members who were involved as adversaries of the dean
at the bargaining table. A new relatiOnship of confidence
and "collegiality" appears to haveemerged from those
arduous sessions. Apparently, a certain comeraderie grows
between bargaining adversaries, at least in the experience

of Dean T.

Course-Related

 

The Observation on relationships touches almost every
category of decision-making items. Beyond that, Dean T.
sees little direction effect on course-related items. New
program development is not difficult. He indicated that
there is still enough faculty ambition tO keep up-to-date,
but he could wishzflmrmore future orientation——more Of a
desire to lead the professions, rather than merely to stay
abreast of developments that occur elsewhere. Faculty
research has been affected. Strides were being made in
the direction Of encouraging "forefront" research, but the
union has contributed to a relaxation of attitudes. Where
compensation and job security is the issue, the union

inspires confidence and the professional effort is relaxed.

Facilities-Related

 

The indirect effect Of collective bargaining is to
divert funds into compensation which might have been free
for minor remodeling of facilities. That was once an

on-going process and has ceased to all intents and purposes.

Finance-Related

 

The process Of budget-preparation is made much easier
for the dean. There is no need to build cases for differ-
ential faculty compensation based on merit. The tough
decisions regarding the apportionment of compensation

increases have disappeared in the bargaining process. The

165

process of determining amounts for supplies and equipment
is also made simpler by an institutionwwideplanning process
which is concomitant with, if not an effect of, collective

bargaining.

Staff-Related

 

All personnel Operations lose flexibility. The nec-
essity of one rule for all achieves a kind Of superficial
fairness, while depriving the Dean Of the ability to deal
with individual situations, either of merit or demerit.
Grievance procedures exist under both the negotiated contract
and Senate rules. Dean T. sees the same influences at
work in both, however. The presence of the union as a
supporter of grievances under either system increases the
"grievance mentality" of the faculty. The effect on all
personnel procedures is the familiar one of increased
proceduralization and scrupulous attention to the construc-
tion Of faculty dossiers. The processes for the appointment
Of new faculty have been considerably tightened in view Of
the difficulty likely to be encountered if a faculty member
is not reappointed and eventually tenured.

In regard to compensation, the reduction of flexibility
extends not only to the matter Of direct compensation,
but also of the sorts Of informal compensation that once
constituted an important system of rewards. Those rewards

could once have been granted in the form of professional

166

opportunities, interesting assignments, or equipment and
other academic support. These are not difficult to provide.
Dean T. returned to the theme Of faculty relation—-
ships in connection with the discussion Of staff-related
items. The biggest change he notes is a deterioration in
collegial relationships. He described "collegiality" in
his experience as the blend of intellectual interests and
personal affections which enriches the entire life Of the
institution and constitutes an important form Of reward
for all who work in the university. He confesses that his
own zest is depleted by the emerging climate and that his
leadership tends toward a "middle management" role, domin-

ated by the supervision of formal procedures.

Student-Related

 

There was no perceived effect on the relationships
between the dean and the few students with whom he has
regular contact. He has student members on his advisory
committee, but there is a stipulated understanding that
faculty matters will not be dealt with in the presence

of students.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS, SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The officers interviewed were willing and, in most
cases, even eager to talk about their perceptions of the
effects Of faculty collective bargaining on their institu-
tions and upon the academic society generally. They were
less able, though no less willing, tO describe the effects
of the bargaining relationship upon themselves and their own
administrative functions. That was to be expected given
the difficulty involved in any kind Of rational self—
examination. When the interview nOtes were translated
into narrative, however, clues appeared which permit some
conclusions to be drawn about the ways in which this limited
sample Of college and university administrators see their
own academic leadership roles as having been affected by
faculty collective bargaining.

Most of the persons who have been involved in the
public discussion of academic collective bargaining are
ones who have become, in some degree, experts on the subject.
They are faculty and administrators who have been leaders
in the processes Of unionization, negotiation, and contract

administration in their own institutions. Some are labor

167

168

attorneys, personnel administrators, or scholars and
teachers Of administration and higher education. A few

Of the fourteen persons formally interviewed in this
research fall within those categories. The majority,
however, are working academic administrators for whom
faculty unionization has become a condition of the working
environment and is not a principal focus of scholarly or
professional interest. They have simply had to live with
the "fall-out" of faculty negotiations.

Reflection on the evidence suggests that there are
three levels of self-perceived effects Of faculty collec-
tive bargaining which bear on the academic leadership roles
of administrators in institutions of higher education.

The first of these is the range Of effects which the officers
see as having altered procedures and climates within the
institutions. These general institutional effects alter

the matrix within which administrators must function and

the changes are ones to which academic leaders are forced

to adjust their leadership behaviors.

A second level of effects are the specific adjustments
which the Officers have made to cope with the requirements
of negotiation and administration Of their Offices in the
presence Of the union and the negotiated agreement. These
are the things which administrators are required to do or
feel compelled to do or to refrain from doing as a conse-

quence of the bargaining relationship with the faculty.

169

The third level of effects is the subjective one which
consists of changes in the values and attitudes of the
academic leaders. These may be the most important effects
in terms of their impact on theleadership function, since
they are so intimately involved in goal identification and
in shaping the personal styles by which goals are communi-
cated and support enlisted for their implementation.

These subjective effects are also the most difficult and

risky ones to assess.

Institutional Effects

 

Throughout the presentation of interview evidence,
topics have been discussed in the order adopted for the
interview structure; that is: Course-Related, Facilities-
Related, Staff-Related, and Student-Related. The evidence
compiled reveals a primary concentration of perceived effects
in Staff-Related items. Effects which were perceived in
other areas were most frequently identified as the secondary
consequences Of Staff-Related changes. Analysis Of the
evidence is aided, therefore, by a change in the order in
which the decision-making categories are treated. The
order which will be adopted for this purpose is one which
represents the radiating consequences Of staff-related
effects. That order is: Staff, Finance, Course, and
Student. Facilities-Related effects appear to be so
minimal as to require no extended comment. In all of the

institutions visited, facilities management has been

170

regarded as an administration responsibility and the
faculty unions appear willing, thus far, to leave decisions
regarding facilities to administrators.

The institutional effects which are described are
the ones perceived by presidents, academic vice-presidents,
and deans in their own immediate surroundings. They are
not derived from comprehensive and Objective case-studies.
Their importance and their value is that they represent the
sets Of conditions to which the Officers interviewed have
found it necessary to adjust their own behaviors. The
effects noted are "real" to the extent that respondents

regard them as "real."

Staff-Related

Faculty collective bargaining is, by definition, a
staff-related occurrence. Within the category of Staff-
Related items, union negotiating efforts appear tO have
been concentrated on compensation and other items which
bear upon compensation and job security. Collective bar-
gaining introduces a method of determining faculty compen-
sation which differs radically from the systems which
traditionally have prevailed in institutions of higher
education. That traditional pattern featured independent
negotiation by individual professors with department
chairpersons or committees, deans, and the central adminis-
tration. Merit considerations and circumstances of

individual need were generally taken into account. The

171

traditional system of determining salary and fringe benefits
may have been compromised in some institutions prior to

the introduction of collective bargaining. Growth in the
size of faculties and administrative attempts to "rational-
ize" compensation using personnel-management methods had
already begun to depersonalize the process, although merit
features were generally retained to a greater extent than
that permitted by collective bargaining.

Negotiated contracts in all of the institutions
visited have included formulized computation of salaries
and fringe benefits, with the formulas being applied to
all members of the bargaining units. Compensation decisions
are consequently effectively removed from administrative
desks to the bargaining table. Once the agreement has been
reached, the only responsibility which falls upon the
administration is to insure that the contract is impeccably
applied. In addition to the primary impact on the way
compensation decisions are arrived at, there are secondary
effects connected with those other staff-related concerns
which have implications for compensation: appointment
and promotion procedures and the assessment Of faculty
work-load.

A leading concern of industrial unions has been the
jOb security Of bargaining unit members. Their academic
counterparts do not appear to differ in this respect. When

the continuing power of the union depends upon the support

of a majority Of the bargaining-unit membership, the union

172

must concentrate its efforts on those matters which are Of
the greatest immediate concern to the members. At a time
when academic employment is threatened, job security is
clearly one of those urgent matters. Reappointment, non-
reappointment, tenure and faculty retrenchment become
crucial issues, either for direct negotiation or for
careful monitoring by the union of policy decisions occur-
ring in the governance processes. A high level Of sensi-
tivity is given to all employment security-related matters
by the threat Of grievance in decisions concerning individ-
uals and the threat Of Unfair Labor Practice claims in
decisions Of policy.

Each Of the respondents mentioned the vastly increased
specificity and formality Of procedures that is a feature
of contemporary life in their institutions. Each employ-
ment-related decision requires documentation acceptable
in a court of law since each such decision, however routine
it may appear, is a potential cause Of grievance and legal
action. Faculty unionism may be as much a symptom as a
cause of the "proceduralization" Of employment relations.
There was evidence at all Of the institutions in the
research that personnel management systems were being
developed prior to, or concurrently with, the unionization
Of the faculty. All of the institutions had unionized
employees before their faculties became unionized and

employment relations apparatus was present to deal with them.

173

Whatever the causal relationship between faculty
collective bargaining and proceduralization may be, the
Officers interviewed were unanimous in their perceptions
that the presence Of a faculty union had increased the
climate of legalism in relationships with the faculty.
Procedures connected with all faculty personnel transactions
had become detailed and explicit. The union appears
ready to espouse grievance proceedings, whether the
grievance procedures are a part Of the negotiated agreement
nor are ones established through the governance system.

In each of the institutions, some indication was
given of changes which had occurred in the relationships
between faculty and administration which could be attri-
buted to the union presence. At Alpha and Beta colleges,
the changes appeared to take the form of a general low
level Of contention over relatively minor issues. At
Mentor and Tutor universities, the issues appeared to be
more substantive. Evidence of that is the Unfair Labor
Practice charge at Tutor and, Of course, a full—fledged
faculty strike at Mentor. Particularly at Tutor, repeated
mention was made Of the effect Of unionization on the flow
Of communication with the faculty and the general sensi-

tivity surrounding the sharing Of information.

Finance-Related
Collective bargaining has one obvious impact on

institutional finance and finance-related decisions.

174

Negotiated compensation settlements are taken "off the top"
of any new money appropriated. :What remains is the amount
available for allocation to program. Academic program
support and faculty compensation are competing considera-
tions at the bargaining table. At Alpha and Beta, where
negotiations take place at the state level, and where the
budgets reach the campus in line-item appropriations, the
main effect is felt in the hidden costs Of collective
bargaining-—the administrative and clerical time which is
consumed by contract administration. With no additional
money appropriated for these purposes, the result is
usually tO add to administrative work-load. That actually
serves one budgetary purpose Of the Chancellor's office--to
increase campus "productivity."

At Mentor and Tutor, where appropriations are not
by line-item, and where bargaining takes place on the campus,
the problems are compounded. Negotiators for the univer-
sities are protecting free money for programs and the
university administrations must make internal adjustment
for compensation settlements. In any event, the result
is to reduce the amounts available for noncompensation items

and to restrict flexibility in academic program development.

Course-Related
The negotiated agreements in effect at all of the
institutions included in the research encompass only items

which can be considered "terms and conditions Of employment."

175

The agreements at Alpha, Beta, and Mentor contain "past
practices" clauses which protect the existing governance
systems Of the institutions and the rights Of faculty tO
participate in those systems to the extent provided by
existing policies. The SCOpe Of negotiations at Tutor is
limited to "compensation and other terms and conditions

of employment." Such restrictions are intended to separate
matters related tO the academic program from those issues
which are specifically related to employment. The latter
falls within the scope of collective bargaining while the
former remains for decision within the campus governance
system. That theory may not stand the test of practice
because of a complex interaction which occurs between
matters related to staff and finance and course-related
issues. That interaction was evident from the remarks

of Officers in all of the institutions, although it became
particularly explicit at Mentor and Tutor.

Again, the compensation and job security syndrome
was seen to operate. Compensation settlements have the
direct effect on program support and development money
that has already been described. In addition, at least
one person in each institution identified the connection
between compensation and faculty work-load. Program
development frequently involves an uncalculated amount
Of additional faculty time. The "no pay, no work" position

of unions generally leads faculty under union influence

176

to insist that time spent on new program development be
assessed as a portion of the total work-load and compen-
sation credit granted. None of the persons who commented

in this vein intended to imply that all faculty adopt such

a view, but the union positions adopted in regard to faculty
work-load make the matter sensitive and in some cases

actual restrictions were noted.

Job security concerns create another range Of effects
on course-related decisions. These hinge in part on the
relationship between faculty composition and curricular
development. Faculty quality is also directly linked to
the quality Of academic programs. Procedural constraints
on nonreappointment Of nontenured faculty reduce the amount
of flexibility for adjustment to changing programmatic
needs. The decision not to reappoint or not to tenure
increasingly requires a documentation of cause, and such
decisions aremore likely than not to be tested in grievance
proceedings. Where the problem is that of protecting
faculty quality in the face Of retrenchment, the seniority
system favored by unions would make the date of appointment
the determining consideration apart from any assessment of
quality or of the relationship between individual faculty
competencies and the curricular needs of the department.
That is particularly damaging to institutions where the
best-qualified professors and the ones whose training
and interests are directed toward the most recent develop-

ments in their fields are among the most recently appointed.

177

Gains in Affirmative Action are likely to be lost in the
same process.

Job security becomes an issue in curricular change
in another way. Professors are leery Of any change which
has an unpredictable effect on departmental enrollments.
The academic vice presidents at Beta College and Tutor
University were particularly articulate in describing this
attitude and its effect on the possibilities of gaining
faculty support for any restructuring Of the curriculum.

Faculty concern over job security is certainly not
something which arrived with faculty unions. The fiscal
and enrollment crisis in institutions Of higher education
have made the times anxious ones. The union either "plays
upon" these anxieties for purposes related to its own base
of power, or it offers personal protection in the face of
them, depending on the viewPOint one adopts. The adminis-
trators interviewed frequently acknowledged that the union
position is understandable, but that it conflicts with their
own leadership goals. Only the Tutor president suggested
that the validity Of the job security goals Of the union
might be accepted and used as the basis for cooperation in
solving the course-related problems that occur.

Contrary to what might have been expected, faculty
power for its own sake, as represented by union "clout"
in academic decision-making, did not appear as an issue.

Agency-election rhetoric apparently gave way to the "bread

178

and better" concerns, in the institutions visited. What
did become apparent was that administrations and unions
might find themselves negotiating the academic program
anyway as employment-related matters become inexorably

linked to educational ones.

Student-Related

A more vocal generation of students liked to point
out that almost everything that goes on in the university
is a "student-related" concern to the extent that it
affects the quality, cost, or convenience of education. In
the institutions visited, however, administrative Officers
note few, if any, direct student-related effects of faculty
collective bargaining. Students generally have taken
little interest. At Alpha and Beta colleges, where bar-
gaining takes place away from the campus, it would be
entirely possible for a student to be unaware that the faculty
is organized for collective bargaining. That would not be
the case at Mentor and Tutor universities where collective
bargaining is a highly-visible occurrence on campus.

The most important student—related effect, reported
at both Menotr and Tutor, was the financial one. Where
the main issue in negotiations is compensation, and the
"free money" is being divided at the bargaining table
between compensation and program support, an Option is to
increase the amount by raising tuition. A similar effect was
noted at Alpha State College, where the only way of dealing

with faculty work-load limits was to increase class size.

179

At Tutor University, students have become alert to
their stake in faculty collective bargaining as a result Of
the possible impact either on the cost or the quality of
their education. Regardless of how real the threats may
be, they have become matters Of public discussion in
connection with negotiations and student concern has been

raised accordingly.

The Administrative Response

 

The most Obvious institutional effect attributed to
faculty collective bargaining, and the effect most frequently
noted by the officers interviewed, was the "proceduraliza-
tion" of employment relations. Personnel policies and
procedures have become more explicit, more subject to appeal
and grievance, more likely to result in some form of legal
action. The persons most frequently involved in faculty
personnel transactions are the deans and chief academic
Officers. These described the effect on themselves as a
limitation Of the Options Open to them. While the Officers
may be subjectively conscious Of losing Opportunities to
be flexible in their handling Of decisions, the person
sitting across the desk from them is likely to describe
the changed behavior as "more rigid." More than personnel
decisions are involved. Once again, the "ripple-effect"
occurs as decisions related to course and finance become
involved with the staff-related constraints which emerge

from collective bargaining.

180

A more important change in the administrative role
results from the climate of proceduralization and legali-
zation, and the change has implications not only for specific
administrative action but also for leadership styles and
for the personal attitudes of the administrators. Decision-
making in institutions of higher education has traditionally
been more decentralized than in other types of administra-
tive organizations. 93 jugg power resides almost exclusively
with governing boards and is delegated through an adminis-
trative hierarchy. 22.:2929 power, on the other hand, is
Often widely distributed to faculty legislative bodies,
to committees, to academic departments, and to individual
professors, as well as to lower echelons Of the administra-
tion. Many academic leaders hold the Opinion that the
academic quality and educational effectiveness Of institu-
tions depends upon just such a distribution of power. In
the institutions that were visited, the procedural and
legal climate was seen as requiring a congruence between
99 1353 and g2 £3929 power.

Several of the Officers described the effect as a
delineation and separation Of functions between faculty
and administration. The earlier, more traditional, academic
system functioned more or less effectively because it tol-
erated certain ambiguities about who actually possessed
decision-making power in a variety of circumstances. The

legal and procedural requirements of collective bargaining

181

do not permit such ambiguity.' The framework Of law which
structures and regulates the Collective bargaining rela-
tionship is derived from the industrial system. It assumes
the existence of two parties, management and labor. The
bipartite structure Of collective bargaining under the
color of law requires academic negotiators to assume the
separated and defined roles of management and employees.
The result is to force aconvergence in administrative
functions and leadership styles toward a management posture,
even where the administrative Officers themselves do not
seek that role. The Mentor president expressed it force-
fully: "They bargain, we manage."

Some Of the Officers acknowledged that the "management
posture" Of academic administrators cannot be entirely
attributed to faculty collective bargaining. One product
Of the 19705 fiscal crisis in higher education is the high
level of importance which has been given to management
accountability in public colleges and universities. Manage-
ment science provides the technique and the economy furnishes
the inventive. In response to public demand, state govern—
ments are insisting that appropriated tax dollars be
scrupulously managed in their use, and that insistance is
handed down through each level of the educational bureau-
cracy. Accordingly, executive administrators are required
to assign a high priority to gaining management control

over those decisions which lead to a commitment Of resources.

182

In that way, faculty collective bargaining, by forcing a
definition of the management function, assists in the
establishment of management control.

The perceived effects Of proceduralization varied
among the institutions visited. Particularly at Beta
State College, the highly proceduralized state system Of
higher education had anticipated most of the procedural
effects which were attributed elsewhere to faculty collective
bargaining. At Beta, administrative Officers, particularly
at the level of president and vice president, already ap-
peared tO regard themselves as managers with authority
delegated from the state system Chancellor. Bargaining
occurs at the state level and its effects on the local
campus were perceived by the Beta Officers to consist
mainly of changes which had occurred in the climate of their
relationships with the local faculty. At Mentor and Tutor
univerisities, administrators at all levels were seeking
to define their own roles and were grappling with the
academic implications of an increasingly management-oriented
administrative style.

Alpha State College exhibited a third pattern of
administrative response. Extraordinarily detailed personnel
procedures and resulting faculty attitudes toward their
academic employment were attributed to faculty collective
bargaining. Bargaining in that state, however, takes
place between faculty representatives and the state govern-

ment, and the procedures which result are promulgated by

183

the Office Of the state Chancellor of higher education.
"Managerialization" Of the state system has not developed
tO the state Of sophistication evident at Beta College.
Officers at Alpha are responding to directive which they
have little part in making and they are attempting to
shape their individual relationships with faculty around
those procedures.

The more procedures preempt the individual judgment
Of academic leaders, the less inclined they may be to
exercise leadership and judgment where opportunities exist.
Dean T., at Tutor University, remarked wistfully that he
was feeling more and more like a "middle manager." Dean
I., at the same institution described the number of times
that his decisions were determined by the contract, and
all Officers, particularly at the dean level, made reference
to the amount of time consumed simply by procedural matters.
Strong leadership character will be required for those
Officers to resist falling into a purely ministerial role.
(This faintly pejorative use of the word "ministerial" is
borrowed from legal terminology which employs the word to
describe an act or duty which admits of no personal discre-
tion in its performance.)

Uniformity in the administration of explicit proce-
dures requires a centralization of administration. That
trend was most noticeable at Mentor and Tutor Universities
where centralization was replacing an earlier decentraliza-

tion. The occurrence once again reflects the convergence

184

of dg fagtg power in the direction of £3 lure authority.
The Observation Of the Mentor president that the governing
board had become more involved in day-to-day administrative
decisions may be evidence of that convergence. The loss

of decision-making "flexibility" mentioned by several of
the deans may also illustrate the trend. They could be
losing their original authority not only to abstract "pro-
cedures" but also to the higher administrative authorities
with whom they must now consult in the application Of those
procedures.

In the chaotic institutions which emerged from the
19605, the virtues Of uniformity and centralized management
control may seem attractive. There are some institutions,
however, in which the ill-defined and ambiguous processes
Of shared authority and peer judgments have worked well.
Mentor and Tutor universities appeared to be such institu-
tions, or were close to becoming so. They may pay a price
in quality with the introduction Of procedures that can be
defended before a labor arbitrator, particularly if those
procedures too greatly restrict the ability or the incentive
of "front-line" administrators to exercise their leadership.
Alpha and Beta state colleges, and their administrative
Officers, show less change and less stress resulting from
centralization of authority. That is probably because, as
campuses Of larger state systems, their decision-making was

already more centralized.

185

Anticipating the effects on the academic quality of:
institutions, some administrations have pinned their hOpes
on a limitation of the scope of negotiations. They hope to
limit the effects Of proceduralization by confining the pro-
cedures to matters related to faculty employment, leaving
the academic program within the existing governance forms.
They are, in effect, attempting to adopt two modes Of
relationship with the faculty. In one mode the faculty
would be employees and the administration would be manage-
ment. In the other mode, the faculty would be professional
participants in a system of shared authority. All of the
institutions visited were attempting to maintain such a
separation. That may succeed, but the evidence indicates
that the policy will only serve to delay the inevitable.

The "ripple-effect" will continue tO cause an erosion of
the territory protected from negotiation, even where the
erosion is resisted both by the union and the administration.

Accompanying the specific effects on procedures and
decisions that were Observed in the institutions, a range
Of effects appeared which are related to the emotional
climate of relationships on the campuses. Most of the
presidents, vice presidents, and deans in the interview
group attempted tO remain Objective in their assessments Of_
the impact Of faculty unionization upon themselves and their
leadership roles. Presidents particularly appeared guarded

in their comments, except possibly the president Of Tutor.

186'

Nevertheless, a reading of the interview narratives might
lead the Objective outsider to conclude that what was being
constructed was a tract against faculty unionism. The tone
was adversarial, even where that was not intended.

At Alpha and Beta colleges, where the substantive
effects Of collective bargaining occurred at a level above
the local campus, the principal effects noted on campus
were onces having to do with a general climate of conten-
tiousness. The issues that could be decided on the campus
were few and relatively trivial. As a consequence, the con-
tentiousness took the form Of petty bickering. The textbook
controversy at Beta is an example. Beyond that, there was
on both campuses a kind of ill-defined anxiety among ad-
ministrators about where and when the next issues might
appear. At Mentor and Tutor, where substantive issues are
settled in on-campus bargaining, and where the administra-
tors are principal actors in the negotiating process, the
anxieties were better defined although there still remained
some uneasiness about possible unanticipated occurrences
connected with the union relationship. The Tutor prOvost
spoke of "listening for the footsteps" behind him.

At Tutor, relationships between the administration and
the faculty union appeared to be formal and civil, with
matters Of controversy being referred to formal procedures
and to the courts. On-going relationships on the campus

remained civil while matters were being settled by attorneys.

187

At Mentor, there appeared to be an assumed adversary rela-
tionship with the faculty union, although Dean E. felt
compelled to emphasize that an adversary relationship need
not be a hostile one. His need to comment in that vein
may reveal that the adversary relationship in his institu-
tion had, in fact, at some points been pontaminated by
hostility.

The Tutor president put the adversarial relationship
into perspective when he remarked that the assumption of
an adversarial posture by an administration, however civil
a form that may take, increases the likelihood that the
union response will be adversarial. The Tutor provost was
less sanguine. His Opinion is that union control of its
membership and its negotiating potency requires a militant
"posturing." He reversed his president's analysis claiming,
in effect, that administrative adversariness is a product
of union militance.

A more neutral analysis can be derived from the
statements of all the Tutor Officers concerning the sensi-
tivity Of information and the constraints on free and open
conversation with faculty members. Collective bargaining
is a formal, structured relationship. Communication that
once flowed spontaneously between faculty and administration
is now funneled into formal channels. Informal understandings
are reduced to writing and memorandum records are kept as

evidence for possible grievance proceedings. Responses are

188

confined to the cold print. In the process, something is
lost which would be present in free human interaction.

Something is also gained in precision and even-handedness,
but the loss in terms of responsiveness to individual con-
cerns and the pure richness Of human intellectual compan-

ionship may not be worth the price.

Summary

Preceding chapters Of the dissertation report the
perceptions of a group Of academic administrators concerning
the effects of faculty collective bargaining on their own
leadership roles and functions. This concluding chapter
develops an analytical outline within which to assemble and
relate those perceptions. The outline begins with the
Observation that the fundamental concerns Of faculty unions
are matters related to faculty compensation and job security.
The primary effects Of collective bargaining are felt in
decisions related to those two concerns. The decision-making
items most directly affected are compensation, faculty
work-load, promotion, reappointment-nonreappointment, tenure,
and retrenchment.

The items primarily affected impinge upon another set
of decision-making issues which are themselves consequently
affected in important ways. These include items directly
related to the academic programs Of the institutions:
financial support, course and curriculum development, and

faculty development. The climate of relationships within

189
the academic communities, particularly relationships between
faculty and administration, is altered. Students are
affected by the impact of collective bargaining on the
cost of education and, in some institutions, by the dis—
turbed relationships.

The formalization Of staff-related procedures reduces
the freedom of administrators to make discriminating judg-
ments in individual cases. They may become, or may be
perceived as becoming, rigid and bureaucratic in their
general administrative behavior. Moreover, the procedural
and legal framework Of collective bargaining requires both
a congruence between d3 jugs authority and d3 fagtg power
and a clear separation Of role and function between faculty
and administration. The result appears to be a centrali-
zation of administrative decision-making and a shift in the
locus Of final decision toward the holders of £3 1253
authority. A second result is to encourage a managerial
posture on the part Of campus administrations. The formal
and Often adversarial relationships between faculty and
administration may interfere with the informal human inter-
actions which many administrators consider essential to

their exercise Of academic leadership.

Conclusions

 

Two future possibilities exist for academic leadership
in a framework Of faculty collective bargaining. The first

possibility is that collective bargaining may enhance

190

leadership. Tough-minded people on both sides of the table
would focus on who has the right to make what decisions.
Aggressive, anticipatory decision-making could be the result
as roles become sharply delineated. On the other hand,
collective bargaining may drive some leaders, equally tough-
minded, out of leadership positions in.higher education who
were there out Of some vision Of what the academic community
might have been, who feel that such a community ought not

be committed to self interest, and that it represented,
perhaps, the last Opportunity to live with a convictional

and function idealism.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

This research has dealt with the impact of an histor-
ical event on one category of higher education institutions.
These institutions have been characterized as "emerging"
colleges and universities. The term "emerging" embraces a
wide range Of changes and developments in size, educational
mission, and academic quality. An important research under-
taking would be to develop measurable indices of institu-
tional maturity. Such basic research would provide a
necessary "baseline" for many kinds of "impact studies.

The difficulties in such research are Obvious. There
is little consensus on the precise direction which institu-
tional development ought to take. In fact, a healthy
attitude evident in many developing institutions is that

their mature character need not duplicate either each other

191

or the model Of the complex prestige university. Measure-
ments Of development, therefore, would need to include
evaluation Of the goal-setting processes as well as pro-
gress toward the goals identified.

As difficult as the task might be, it is not impossi-
ble. Institutional research is increasing in sophistica-
tion in most developing institutions as a product Of fiscal
necessity and public accountability requirements. Data is
becoming more readily available at less cost to the insti-
tutions in time and effort. Research Of the kind described
would be worth the investment if it led to a more precise
identification Of development goals, a more reliable measure
Of progress toward them, and a "baseline" for assessing
the effect of conditions or events occurring within the
institutional environments.

More directly related to the issue Of faculty collec-
tive bargaining and its effects on colleges and universities
would be research into the developing body Of relevant law.
Collective bargaining is a process sanctioned and regulated
by law. The law, including legislation, court decision, and
rulings of the regulatory agencies, establishes the condi-
tions for collective negotiation and influences its outcome.

Collective bargaining has developed within the indus-
trial system. Its extension tO the public sector and to
higher education has raised important and difficult questions.
New legal forms will be required if collective bargaining

law is to be developed in ways which take account of the

192

organizational differences between colleges and universities
and the industrial system or other public agencies.

Legal research in connection with faculty collective
bargaining would consist of analysis of public employee
collective bargaining legislation, and analysis of court
decisions and regulatory agency judgments in matters arising
from the bargaining relationship within colleges and univer-
sities. The usefulness Of such research, beyond its own
historical and philosophical content, would be to inform
future decisions Of legislatures, courts, and regulatory
agencies. The outcome might be new collective bargaining
forms which would help tO preserve the character of colleges

and universities as communities of scholars.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Books, Papers and Reports

Adell, B. L. and Carter, D. D. Collective Bargaining for
University Faculty in Canada. Kingston, Ontario:
Industrial Relations Center, Queen's University,
1972.

Baldridge, J. Victor, ed. Academic Governance: Research
on Institutional Politics and Decision Making.
Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1971.

 

 

, ed. Power and Conflict in the University:
Research in the Sociology Of Complex Organization.
New York: J. Wiley, 1971.

Begin, James P. FacultygBargaining: Historical Overview
and Current Situation. New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Institute of Management and Labor Relations, 1973.

Blackburn, Robert T. and Bylsma, Donald, Jr. Changes in
Organizational Structure and Locus of Decision-
Making: A Test Of Theory in Community Colleges
Before and After Collective Negotiations. ERIC
057 791, 1970.

 

Bylsma, Donald and Blackburn, Robert T. Changes in Faculty
Governance and Faculty Welfare: Some Empirical

Consequences Of Collective Negotiations. ERIC ED
058 882, 1971.

 

Boissonnasa, C. M. Faculty Governance and Collective Bar—
gaining in Institutions Of Higher Education. Ithaca,
New York: Industrial Relations School, Cornell
University, 1972.

 

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Governance
Of Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

 

Carr, Robert K. and VanEyck, Daniel K. Sgllective Bar-
gaining Comes tO the Campus. Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, 1973.

 

Cheit, Earl F. The New Depression in Higher Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

 

193

194

Commission on Academic Tenure in Higher Education, William
R. Keast and John W. Macy, Jr. Faculty Tenure.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

 

Deegan, W. L., McConnell, T. R., Mortimer, K. P. and
Stull, H. Joint Partigipation in Decision Making:
A Study Of Faculty Government and Faculty-Administra-
tive Consultation at Fresno State College. Berkeley:
Center for Research and Development in Higher Educa-
tion, 1970.

Duryea, E.D., Fisk, R.S. and Associates. Faculty Unions and

Collective Bargaining. San Franciso: Jossey-Bass,
1973.

 

Dressel, P. L. The Confidence Crisis. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1970.

and Faricy, W. H. Return to Responsibility.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972.

 

Dunham, E. A. Colleges Of the Forgotten Americans: A
Profile Of State Colleges and Regional Universities.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Dykes, A. R. Faculty Participation in Academic Decision-
Making. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education, 1968.

Faculty Collective Bargaining in Postsecondary Institutions:
The Impact on the Campgs and on the State. The
Education Commission Of the States, Report NO. 28,
May 1972.

Faculpy Participation in Academic Governance. Washington,
D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1967.

Foote, C. and Mayer, H. The Culture of the University:
Governance and Education. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1968.

 

 

Fratkin, S. Collective Bargaining in Higher Education?
How Fast? How Far? National Association Of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Staff Paper,
February 14, 1972.

 

Haak, H. H. Collective Bargaining and University Governance:

 

The Case of the CaIifornia State COIIEges. San Diego:
Public Affairs Re5earch INst1tute,‘San Diego State
College, 1968.

 

195

Haehn, J. O. A Survey Of Faculty and Administrator Atti:
tudes in Collective Bargaining. A Report to the
Academic Senate, California State Colleges, May 1970.

 

 

Hodgkinson, H. L. 'Institutions in Transition: A Profile
of Change in Higher Education (Incorporating the 1970
Statistical Report). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

 

 

 

and Meeth, Richard L., eds. Power and Authority:
Transformation of Campus Governance. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1971.

 

 

An Impartial Review Of Collective Bargaining by University
Faculties. East Lansing: Faculty Affairs Committee,
Michigan State University, March 9, 1971.

 

 

Interim Report of the Faculty_Senate Committee to Study
Collective Bargaifiing. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan
University, April 9, 1970.

 

 

Ladd, E. C., Jr., and Lipset, S. M. Professors, Unions and
American Higher Education. Berkeley: The Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, 1973.

 

 

Joughin, L., ed. Academic Freedom and Tenure. Madison:
University Of Wisconsin Press, 1969.

 

Labor Relations in Higher Education. New York: Practicing
Law Institute, Course Handbook Series, No. 47,
November-December 1972.

 

Lee, E. C. and Bowen, F. M. The Multicampus University:
A Study of Academic Governance. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1971.

 

 

Mason, H. L. College and University Government. New
Orleans: Tulane University, 1972.

 

McConnell, T. R., and Mortimer, K. P. The Faculty in
Academic Governance. Berkeley, California: Center
for Research and Development in Higher Education,
University of California, 1971.

 

 

Mortimer, K. P., and Lozier, G.G. Collective Bargaining:
Implications for Governance. University Park: Center
for the Study of Higher Education, Pennsylvania State
University, June 1972.

 

Report Of the Ad Hoc Committee on Collective Bargaining.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
January 31, 1972.

196

Rourke, F. E. and Brooks, G. E. The Managerial Revolution
in Higher Education. Baltimore, Maryland: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.

 

 

Schuster, J. H. Emerging Issues in FacultygBargaining.
Address prepared for delivery at the l73rd meeting
of the American Political Science Association, 1973.

 

Smith, Bardwell, ed. The Tenure Debate. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1973.

 

Tice, T. N., ed. Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies.
Ann Arbor: The Institute of Continuing Legal
Education, 1973.

, ed. Faculty Power: Collective Bargaining on
Campus. Ann Arbor: The Institute of Continuing
Legal Education, 1972.

 

Wisconsin Law Review. The Law School of the University
Of Wisconin, Madison, Wisconsin. Vol. 1971, NO. 1,
1971.

 

II. Articles

Aussieker, B. and Garbarino, J. W. "Measuring Faculty
Unionism: Quantity and Quality," Industrial Relations,
12, NO. 2, (May 1973), pp. 117-124.

Boyd, w. "Collective Bargaining in Academe: Causes and
Consequences," Liberal Education, 57, NO. 3, (October
1971). PP. 306-318.

 

. "The Impact of Collective Bargaining on University
Governance , " Liberal Education, 58 , No. 3 , (May 1972) ,
pp. 265-271.

 

Brown, R. "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education,"
Michigan Law Review, 67, NO. 5, (March 1969), pp.
1067-1082.

 

Bucklew, N. 8. "Fiscal Judgment in Bargaining Can Uncover
Hidden Costs," College and University Business, 50
(March 1971): PP. 47-48.

. "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education:
Its Fiscal Implications," Liberal Education, 57,
NO. 2, (May 1971), pp. 255-260.

 

"212 College and University Faculties with Collective
Bargaining Agents," The Chronical of Higher Education,
November 26, 1973.

197

"The Council Position on Collective Bargaining," American
Association Of University PrOfessors Bulletin,
57, Winter 1971, pp. 511-512.

 

Davis, B. M. "Unions and Higher Education: Another View,"
Educational Record, 49, Spring 1968, pp. 139-144.

 

Duryea, E. D., and Fisk, R. 8. "Impact of Unionism on
Governance." In D. W. Vermilye, ed. The Expanded
Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972, pp. 105-115.

 

Emmet, T. A. and Howe, R. (Guest Editors). "How to Live
with Faculty Power: A Handbook on Collective Bar-
gaining," College and University Business, 53, NO. 6,
(December 1972), pp. 25-44.

Finkin, M. W. "Collective Bargaining and University
Government," American Association Of University
Professors Bulletin, 57, Summer 1971, pp. 149-162.

 

. "Collective Bargaining and University Government,"
Wisconsin Law Review, NO. 1, 1971, pp. 125-149.

 

Garbarino, J. W. "Faculty Unionism from Theory to Practice,"
Industrial Relations, 11, February 1972.

 

. "Creeping Unionism and the Faculty Labor Market,"
Higher Education and the Labor Market. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1973.

. "Emergence of Collective Bargaining." In E. D.
Duryea and R. S. Fixk, eds. Faculty Unions and Collec-
tive Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

 

Hanley, D. L., S.J. "Issues and Models for Collective
Bargaining in Higher Education," Liberal Education,
57, NO. 3, (March 1971), pp. 5-14.

Howlett, R. G. "Perspectives in Public Sector Bargaining."
In T. N. Tice, ed. Faculty Power: Collective Bargain-
ing on Campus. Ann Arbor: Institute of Continuing
Legal Education, 1972, pp. 23-36.

 

Kadish,Sanford. "The Strike and the Professoriate,"
American Association of University Professors
Bulletin, 54, Summer 1968, pp. 160-168.

Kugler, I. "Collective Bargaining for the Faculty," Liberal
Education, 56, March 1970, pp. 78-85.

 

. "The Union Speaks for Itself," Educational Record,
49, Fall 1968, pp. 414-418.

198

Ladd, E. C. and Lipset, S. M. "Unionizing the Professoriate,
Change, 5, NO. 6, (Summer 1973), pp. 38-44.

Leslie, D. W. "NLRB Rulings on the Department Chairmanship,"
Educational Record, 53, Spring 1971.

 

Lieberman, M. "Professors, Unite!" Harper's Magazine,
243, NO. 1457, (October 1971). PP. 64-70.

 

Livingston, J. C. "Collective Bargaining and Professional-
ism," Educational Record, 48, NO. 1, (Winter 1967),
pp. 79-88.

 

and Christiansen, A. S. "State and Federal
Regulation of Collective Negotiations in Higher
Education," Wisconsin Law Review, 1971, NO. 1, pp.
91-111.

 

Marmion, H. A. "Unions and Higher Education," Educational
Record, 49, (Winter 1968), pp. 41-48.

 

Mayhew, Lewis B. "Faculty Demands and Faculty Militance,"
Journal of Higher Education, 40, NO. 5, (May 1969),
pp. 337-3502

 

McConnell, T. T. "Faculty Government." In H. L. Hodgkinson
and L. R. Meeth, eds.' Power and Authority. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971, pp. 98-125.

 

McHugh, W. F. "Collective Negotiations in Public Higher
Education," College and University Business, 47, No.
6, (December 1969), pp. 41-44.

Moskow, M. H. "The Scope Of Collective Bargaining in Higher
Education," Wisconsin Law Review, NO. 1, 1971,
pp. 33-54.

 

Oberer, W. "Faculty Participation and Decision Making."
in S. Elam and M. Moskow, eds. Employment Relations
in Higher Education. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi
Delta Kappa, Inc., 1969, pp. 132-180.

 

Polishook, Sheila S. "Collective Bargaining and the City
University Of New York," Journal of Higher Education,
41, NO. 5, (May 1970), PP. 377-386.

Ping, C. J. "Unionization and Institutional Planning,"
Educational Record, 54, NO. 2, (1973), pp. 100-106.

 

Sands, S. D. ”The Role Of Collective Bargaining in Higher
Education," Wisconsin Law Review, No. 1, 1971, pp.

150-176.

 

199

Semas, P. W. "Faculties at the Bargaining Table," The
Chronical Of Higher Education, November 26, 1973, p. 9.

 

"Statement on Goverment of Colleges and Universities,"
American Association of University Professor Bulletin,
52, Winter 1966, pp. 375-379.

 

Van Alstyne, W. W. "Tenure and Collective Bargaining,"
in G. K. Smith, ed. New Teaching, New Learning.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971, pp. 10-17.

 

Wollett, D. H. "The Status and Trends of Collective
Negotiations for Faculty in Higher Education,"
Wisconsin Law Review, 1971, NO. 1, pp. 2-32.

 

III. Bibliographies

 

Allen, J. C. "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education,"
1971-1973, National Center for the Study Of Collec-
tive Bargaining in Higher Education, Baruch College,
City University Of New York, New York, 1973.

Blumer, D. and Lusier, V. "Selected Bibliography." Academic
Collective Bargaining Information Service, Washington,
D.C., 1974.

Carr, R. K. and Van Eyck, D. K. Collective Bargaining
Comes to the Campus. Washington, D.C.: American
CounEil on EducatiOn, 1973.

 

Gillis, John W. "Academic Collective Bargaining: Comment
and an Annotated Bibliography," Liberal Education,
56, December 1970.

. "Continuing Development of Academic Collective
Bargaining," Liberal Education, 57, December 1971.

 

Hudson, B. "Collective Bargaining in Higher EducatiOn:
Selected Annotated Bibliography," ERIC 060 849, 1972.

Mortimer, K. P. and Lozier, G. G. Collective Bargaining:
Implications for Governance. University Park, Penn.:
Center for the Study Of Higher Education, The Pennsyl-
vania State University, June 1972.

Shulman, C. H. Collective Bargaining on the Campus. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, AAHE, 1972.

    

   

       

HICHIGRN

")1er «I7

29

T

RTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
llWfllHl‘IWIFIHHIHIIUINIHIWI
3015158839