PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

1951. 234M

 

81003

 

 

AUG 2 4 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJClRC/DaloDuopGS-p. 1 5

 

 

EMPLOYER/TEACHER RELATIONS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND TEACHERS AT BOTH
THE INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
By

Catherine J. Ash

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2002

ABSTRACT
EMPLOYER/TEACHER RELATIONS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND TEACHERS AT BOTH
THE INDIVIDUAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
By

Catherine J. Ash

Over the past 90 years, there have been many inﬂuences on the evolving
relationship between teachers and their employer. This study focused on bringing the
historical account of the employer/teacher relationship in public schools forward to the
present by addressing the question, "What does the relationship between teachers and
their employers look like in the year 2002?" Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
explore and describe employer/teacher relations in today's public school setting. The
relationship was analyzed at the building or individual level, as well as at the district or
organizational level.

An adapted theoretical framework generated primarily by researchers in the labor
and industrial relations ﬁeld focused the process of data collection. As a qualitative
study, this research incorporated the use of semi-structured interviews as the primary
source of data collection. At the district level, separate interviews were conducted with
the union president and the central ofﬁce administrator with the primary responsibility for
employee relations. At the building level, interviews were conducted with focus groups
of teachers, as well as the building-level administrator. Other sources of data included
the Master Agreements that establish the rules that govern behavior and interactions

between the parties, and historical data reﬂecting grievances and letters of agreement.

The sample for this research included three public school districts, each of which was
presented as a separate case study.

This research showed that the current employer/teacher relationship in three
public school districts could be described as moving toward cooperative and contentious
extremes. Further, this research demonstrated that the original model or framework
adapted ﬁom the ﬁeld of labor and industrial relations offered a useful lens through
which to explore and describe the employer/teacher relationship in today's public schools.
It assisted with analyzing the interaction system that deﬁnes or prescribes the behaviors
of the parties as they engage in the ongoing relationship. The theoretical framework also
promoted a more diversiﬁed analysis of the relationship beyond the bargaining table.
However, after implementing the adapted theoretical framework, further adaptations to
the model were suggested, making it even more applicable and relevant to the unique

setting of public schools.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the members of my guidance committee: Dr. Philip
Cusick, chairperson; Dr. Maenette Benham; Dr. Harvey Clarizio; Dr. Marylee Davis; and
Dr. Gary Sykes. Their insights and wisdom helped to guide my research, as well as
challenge and stretch my thinking. In addition, the support, guidance, and intellectual
stimulus provided by my committee chairperson, Dr. Philip Cusick, truly helped to
maintain my focus and commitment to the ﬁnal outcome of a completed dissertation.

Dr. Nancy Colﬂesh, Dr. Lee Gerard, and Dr. Dan Wertz played an important role
in helping me to "stay the course." As individuals who had successfully navigated the
Ph.D. path, they willingly shared their experiences and perspectives, listened to my
frustrations and successes, offered words of encouragement, and consistently, yet gently,
helped me to maintain my focus in the research and writing processes.

The support of my family and friends in this challenging endeavor often provided
the impetus that enabled me to persevere. I have many close friends who demonstrated
continual support and communicated a consistent belief in my ability to succeed. Three
important individuals must be acknowledged more speciﬁcally. My parents, Pat and
Duane Ash, have always been a source of inspiration and support. They have never
wavered from their belief in my ability to achieve to the highest level. My dear friend,
Kris Chapman, was most supportive, understanding, and patient through the stressful and
anxious moments that frequently emerged as I engaged in this challenging process.
Without the unconditional support and encouragement of my family and close friends,

my goal of completing a doctoral dissertation would not have been realized.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................................... I
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1
Signiﬁcance .................................................................................................................... 2
Historical Overview ....................................................................................................... 3
Labor Industrial Relations: Its Early Inﬂuence in Education ................................. 4
Early Development of Teachers’ Unions: General Trends ................................... 10
The Evolution of the Teachers’ Unions in Michigan ............................................. 13
Inﬂuence of Legislative Initiatives on Union Activity .......................................... 15
The Evolution of Teacher Labor Relations: A Move Toward COOperation? ....... 19
Employer/Employee Relations: Other Trends in Industry .................................... 22
Industrial Labor Relations and Employer/Teacher Relations in Public Schools...36
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 37
Deﬁnition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 48
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 48
Research Design ........................................................................................................... 50
Qualitative Research .............................................................................................. 50
Case Study ............................................................................................................. 53
Sample .................................................................................................................... 55
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 59
Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 65
Analyzing and Reporting ...... 65
Validity ........................................................................................................................ 67
Limitations of Study .................................................................................................... 68
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 3
PRESENTATION OF DATA ............................................................................................ 71
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 1
District 1 ....................................................................................................................... 72
District/Organizational-Level Employer/Teacher Relations ................................. 72
Building or Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relations .................................. 89
Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationship .................................... 103
Summary of District 1 Case Study ....................................................................... 104

District 2 ..................................................................................................................... 106

District/Organizational-Level Employer/Teacher Relations ............................... 106
Building or Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relations ................................ 124
Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationship .................................... 139
Summary of District 2 Case Study ....................................................................... 142
District 3 ..................................................................................................................... 144
District/Organizational-Level Employer/Teacher Relations ............................... 144
Building or Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relations ................................ 165
Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationship .................................... 185
Summary of District 3 Case Study ....................................................................... 189
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 191
Overview .................................................................................................................... 191
Addressing the Exploratory Questions ...................................................................... 194
District 1 ............................................................................................................... 196
District 2 ............................................................................................................... 199
District 3 ............................................................................................................... 201
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 204
Current Trends in Employer/Teacher Relations .................................................. 204
Applicability of the Framework for Analysis in the Public School Setting ........ 207
Further Revisions in the Framework of Analysis ................................................ 210
Suggestions for Further Research .............................................................................. 215
Implications ................................................................................................................ 215
Summary .................................................................................................................... 217
APPENDICES
A. Letter of Invitation to Participate ......................................................................... 222
B. Informed Consent ................................................................................................. 224
C. Interview Questions .............................................................................................. 225
D. Additional Data .................................................................................................... 229
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 241

vi

1.1

1.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

D]

D2

D3

D4

D.5

D.6

LIST OF TABLES

Sample of Public Schools (2000) ............................................................................ 57
Interviews ................................................................................................................ 58
Longevity in District 1 .......................................................................................... 104
Longevity in District 2 .......................................................................................... 142
Longevity in District 3 .......................................................................................... 188
District 1 Grievance History (September 1996 to December 2001) .................... 229
District 1 Letters-of-Agreement History (September 1996 to December

2001) .................................................................................................................... 230
District 2 Grievance History (September 1996 to December 2001) .................... 231
District 2 Letters-of-Agreement History (September 1996 to December

2001) .................................................................................................................... 235
District 3 Grievance History (September 1996 to December 2001) .................... 236

District 3 Letters-of-Agreement History (September 1996 to December
2001) .................................................................................................................... 240

vii

1.1

1.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

LIST OF FIGURES

Social Contract: Individual and Institutional Levels ............................................. 39
Framework for Analyzing Employer/Employee Relations ..................................... 42
Continuum of the Existing Teacher/Employer Relationships in the Identiﬁed

Public Schools ...................................................................................................... 206
Framework for Analyzing Employer/Employee Relations ................................... 208
Revised Framework for Analyzing Employer/Employee Relations ..................... 214

viii

CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations
in today’s public schools. This relationship was analyzed at the building or individual
level between the principal and the teachers, as well as at the district or organizational
level between the board of education, represented by central ofﬁce administration, and
the teachers’ union. Over the past 90 years, there have been many inﬂuences on the
evolving relationship between teachers and their employer. The question to be addressed
in this study is: What does the relationship look like in the year 2002?

As a point of comparison, I ﬁrst give a historical perspective of employee/
employer relations in the realm of industry, as well as a description of the current
employer/employee industrial relationship. This allowed me to ask whether the
evolution of the employer/employee relationship in industry is being duplicated in the
public schools. In other words, has the employer/teacher relationship in education

evolved into the same type of employer/employee relationship that exists in industry?

Purpose

Much has been written on the topic of employer/employee relations in the
industrial world. However, little has been written on where employer/employee relations
stand within the realm of public education. Risley (1967) offered signiﬁcance to this
issue when he stated, “The problem of the employee relationships in public schools is
one that has implications, not only for the administrative structure of the schools and

school operation, but also for the educational process itself” (p. 3). Therefore, the

1

purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations in today’s
public schools. The analysis of this employer/teacher relationship was carried out at two
levels: (a) the building or individual level, between principals and teachers, and (b) the
district or organizational level, between the board of education, represented by central
ofﬁce administration, and the teachers’ union.

In this study I used a theoretical framework generated primarily by researchers in
the labor and industrial relations ﬁeld. This framework was then applied to the public
school setting, as it relates to the relationship between district- and building-level
administrators (representing the employer) and teachers and teachers’ union leadership
(representing the employee). Public employer/employee relationships can be, of course,
equated in many aspects to private employer/employee relations, but they also have some
unique concerns and aspects (Risley, 1967). This study will contribute to the existing
knowledge of employer/employee relations by concentrating on aspects of employer/

employee relations in the relatively unexplored area of public education.

Signiﬁcance

Employer/teacher relations in the public school setting have implications not only
for the operations of schools, but also for the community’s perception of its school and
for the educational process itself. It seems reasonable that the learning environment
would quite naturally be inﬂuenced by the overall school environment created within the
realm of employer/teacher relations. After all, it is exactly this environment in which the
educational process is delivered. Obviously, employer/teacher relations within today’s

PUblic school setting have an effect that reaches beyond the issue of employer/teacher

interactions. However, the ﬁrst step is understanding the existing employer/teacher

’61 ationship.

This study is unique because it will address the substantive gap between existing
research on employer/teacher relations in public schools and how this relationship looks
in the year 2002. .From here, additional research could target the effect of today’s
employer/teacher relationship on various aspects of education. However, if the
relationship has not been deﬁned, it cannot be taken to the next level.

This study will also allow the researcher to check whether an industrial theory
applies reasonably well to public schools. The study will challenge the model put forth
by industry by looking at variations among districts, as well as variations within districts.
In fact, this study will offer a model that has been tailored to the uniqueness of public
schools, analyzing and deﬁning the relationship, as well as categorizing existing
relationships within the public school setting. As a result, the study may suggest an
improvement in research methodology, allowing practitioners a better lens through which
to deﬁne their existing employer/teacher relationship.

The components of such a lens may offer practitioners a guide to alter their
existing relationship if it is problematic, or to sustain the existing relationship if it meets
the parties’ needs and expectations. This study will help leaders deﬁne the existing
relationship between employer and teachers and identify target areas within the
interaction system, allowing both parties to make conscious decisions with respect to

maintaining or developing the existing relationship between the teachers and the

employer.

Historical Overview
In an attempt to understand today’s employer/employee relationship within the
realm of public schools, it is important to gain a historical perspective. In the past, one

inﬂuence on the employer/employee relationship within public schools has been the

3

system of management utilized in industrial labor relations. In other words, the
evolution of the relationship between administration and the teachers within public
schools has some parallels to the employer/employee relationship within the industrial
setting. Another relevant factor inﬂuencing the administrator/teacher relationship is the
evolution of the teachers’ union. Gaining insights into the history of these two
inﬂuences, industrial employer/employee relations and the evolution of the teachers’
union, will serve as a contextual backdrop for this study. This study will explore and
describe employer/employee relations within today’s public school setting, focusing on

the speciﬁc employer/employee relationship between the administration and the teachers.

Labor Industrial Relations: Its Egg Inﬂuence in Education

The material achievements of industrial capitalism in the late 19th century were
responsible for two developments that were to have a great effect on American society
and education after 1900. One of these was the rise of business and industry to a position
of prestige and inﬂuence. Subsequently, America became saturated with business-
industrial values and practices. The other development in the early part of the 20th
century was the industrial world’s emphasis and focus on “efﬁciency.” Callahan (1962)
stated, “The business ideology was spread continuously into the blood-stream of
American life. It was strengthened, not weakened, by the muckrakers as they extolled
‘modern business methods’ and ‘efﬁciency’ and connected these in the public mind with
progress and reform” (p. 5). It was therefore natural for Americans, when they thought
of reforming the schools, to apply business methods to achieve their goals.

America was preoccupied with the idea of efﬁciency and the elimination of
waste. At the forefront of this efﬁciency movement, and propelled by industry’s position

of prestige, Frederick W. Taylor, a mechanical engineer for a steel company in

4

Pennsylvania, generated speciﬁc principles to guide management in its pursuit of
efﬁciency. America was enchanted by Taylor’s new idea, a system of industrial
management known as “scientiﬁc management,” which promised to deliver an efﬁcient

and productive workplace.

Scientiﬁc management was essentially a system for getting greater productivity
from human labor. Taylor (1911) claimed that production was far below what it could
have been and should have been. The reasons for this wasteful situation were faulty
management and soldiering on the part of the workers. Therefore, Taylor sought to
create a revolution among both the employees and management by deﬁning clear

guidelines for improving production efﬁciency. Robbins (1998) summarized Taylor’s

four principles of management:

1. Develop a science for each element of an individual’s work. (Previously,
workers used the “rule-of-thumb” method.)
2. Scientiﬁcally select and then train, teach and develop the worker.

(Previously, workers chose their own work and trained themselves as best
they could.)

3. Heartily cooperate with the workers so as to ensure that all work is done in
accordance with the principles of the science that has been developed.
(Previously, management and workers were in continual conﬂict.)

4. Divide work and responsibility almost equally between management and
workers. Management takes over all work for which it is better suited than
the workers. (Previously, almost all the work and the greater part of the
responsibility were thrown upon the workers.) (pp. A3-4)

Taylor argued that following these principles would result in the prosperity of both
management and workers. Workers would earn more pay, and management would earn
more proﬁts.

Taylor emphasized that the best management was based on a true science resting
upon clearly deﬁned laws, rules, and principles as a foundation. He stated,
“Management assumes the burden of gathering together all the traditional knowledge

which in the past has been possessed by the workmen and then of classifying, tabulating,

5

and reducing this knowledge to rules, laws, and formulae which are immensely helpful to
the workmen in doing their daily work” (pp. 36-37). The essence of the approach was for
management to assume an active role of analyzing, planning, and controlling the whole
process in detail. In this system, the judgment of the individual worker was replaced by
the laws, rules, and principles of the science of the job that were developed by the
management.

One of Taylor’s principles of scientiﬁc management is to “heartily cooperate with
workers so as to ensure that all work is done in accordance with the principles of the
science that has been developed.” To Taylor, the cooperative role of management was
the gathering of the traditional know-how of the workers and organizing it into the “one-
best-way.” He then insisted that workers could be instructed and trained to work in
accordance with the one best way of pursuing any industrial activity. For the workers,
cooperation meant “to do what they were told to do promptly and without asking
questions or making suggestions” (N adworny, 1955). Nadwomy stated, “The
cooperative role of the management was therefore an active one, while that of the worker
was of a passive kind. The worker merely had to obey the Iaws” (p. 9). Both the
management and the workers had to obey these expectations or rules. The roles were not
ﬂexible for either the worker or management.

In Taylor’s Principles of Scientiﬁc Management (1911), he claimed, “These same
principles can be applied with equal force to all social activities: to the management of
our homes; the management of our farms; the management of the business of our
tradesmen, large and small; of our churches, our philanthropic institutions, our
universities and our governmental departments” (p. 9). Taylor also stated, “When these

principles are correctly applied, results must follow which are truly astounding” (p. 7).

Because Taylor and his associates claimed that his principles could be applied to all
institutions, the principles of scientiﬁc management were applied to many aspects of
American life, including the educational system.

By 1910, the scale of operations in both business and education had produced
large organizations. Therefore, it was reasonable and even “legitimate to expect the
borrowing of ideas and techniques from one set of institutions to another” (Callahan,
1962). Callahan stated, “The sudden propulsion of scientiﬁc management into
prominence and the subsequent saturation of American society with the idea of efﬁciency
together with the attacks on education made it certain that public education would be
inﬂuenced greatly” (p. 52). The publicity given to scientiﬁc management and the great
claims made on its behalf intensiﬁed the public’s feeling that great waste existed
everywhere, and at the same time offered a means of eliminating it. A new wave of
criticism was directed against many institutions, especially those large enough to be
suspected of managerial inefﬁciency and those supported by public taxation. The
schools met both of these criteria.

The interpretation of scientiﬁc management and its effect on efﬁciency certainly
provided a practical means for reducing education to ﬁnancial terms. The scientiﬁc
determination of educational value turned out to be a determination of dollar value. The
administrator made decisions and these decisions were based on ﬁnancial grounds, with
the ultimate goal of reducing expenditures. The conclusion was a conscious effort to
reduce costs by such means as (a) increasing the number of classes per teacher,

(b) increasing class size, (0) reducing teachers’ salaries, and (d) reducing the number of

total classes taught, thereby reducing the required number of teachers.

Scientiﬁc management greatly inﬂuenced the managerial styles of educational
administrators. In 1910, the profession of school administration was in its formative
stages. Callahan commented, “The situation was one of a ‘profession’ of school
administration, vulnerable to the pressures of the community, and with no tradition
behind it to counteract these strong pressures” (p. 245). With the combination of societal
pressures for efﬁciency and the absence of a solid foundation for educational
administrative practices, it is not surprising that school administrators sought to emulate
the efﬁciency of business and use whatever methods had been used to attain it. Scientiﬁc
management was in the forefront of these methods.

A major effort to apply scientiﬁc management to education centered on
management of the worker or teacher in education. Franklin Bobbitt (1913) interpreted
“management of the worker” in terms of public education. He claimed that if the
organization is to be effective and efﬁcient, the managerial tasks are always directive and
supervisory. Therefore, management must clearly deﬁne the goals toward which the
organization strives. The management must then coordinate the efforts of all employees
in an attempt to attain those goals.

Furthermore, scientiﬁc management requires the administrator to ﬁnd the
methods or procedures that are most efﬁcient for the task of teaching under actual
conditions, and secure their use on the part of the teachers. It was also the
administrators’ responsibility to keep teachers supplied with detailed instructions as to
the materials and tools needed to perform the task of teaching. In other words, the
judgment of the individual teacher was replaced by the laws, rules, and principles of the

science of the job that was developed by the administration.

By 1930, there was a forceful opposition of educators, plus the partial
disenchantment with business leadership that accompanied the Great Depression, which
helped to reduce the extreme overemphasis on business and industrial management in
educational administration. Colleges and universities began to emphasize educational
administration as social policy, instead of business-related policies. However, as
Callahan (1962) described it, “The damage had been done” (p. 249). Many individuals
occupying administrative positions within the schools had been educated and inﬂuenced
by the concept of scientiﬁc management. Therefore, the inﬂuence of this management
style persisted.

Between 1915 and 1929, thousands of men had received professional training in
the area of scientiﬁc management and had entered important educational positions all
over the country. “In addition to the direct inﬂuence these men had upon their students
and upon the school systems in which they worked, some of them wrote books through
which the business managerial conception of administration was conveyed to a new
generation of administrators” (Callahan, 1962, p. 250). AS a result, there was a “great
diffusion” of the practices promoted by the managerial style associated with scientiﬁc
management, and the diffusion would have a long-lasting effect.

The developments in educational administration, which occurred in the age of
efﬁciency, were still prominent in American education in the 19603. Callahan (1962)
stated, “The persistence of the patterns in education administration in the 60’s is partly a
result of the diffusion of ideas and practices from the leaders in administration in the age
of efﬁciency” (p. 255). In an interview, J. Borma (2000), a Uniserv director within the
Michigan Education Association (MEA), illustrated this when he referred to the

managerial style of administrators during the 19603 as a “benevolent dictatorship.”

Borma commented, “Administrators of that generation were used to making all the
decisions and then delegating speciﬁc and detailed responsibilities to teachers.” In fact,
he described one scenario in which the administrator was assigning building
responsibilities, including who would be the union representative!

Even into the 19603, the concept of scientiﬁc management had a signiﬁcant
inﬂuence in deﬁning and explaining the relationship between administration and
teachers. However, it was also in the 19603 when teachers’ organizations asked to be
acknowledged as unions with the right to represent the teachers in the process of
collective bargaining. The evolution of the teachers’ union would serve to redeﬁne the

relationship between teachers and administration.

MLDevelopment of ”ﬁchers’ Unions: General Trends

For the ﬁrst hundred years of public education, collective bargaining for teachers
was nonexistent. Shanker (as cited in Cooper, 1992) stated, “This prohibition had its
roots in the widespread belief that public employees were public servants, that teaching
was a selﬂess, educated profession, and that the government was sovereign” (p. 277).
Instead, public school teachers acquired employment protection through the various state
civil service laws. During this time, the National Education Association (NBA) and the
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) were professional organizations of teachers,
rather than trade unions. However, it should be no surprise that, after years of low
salaries, large class sizes, and no academic rights or control over the work environment,
teachers began to look toward their organizations to represent them in the arena of
collective bargaining.

Transforming teacher unionism in the United States was the New York City

teachers’ collective bargaining election of 1961. The United Federation of Teachers

10

(UFT) was committed to gaining union recognition and collective bargaining rights for
the city’s teachers. Eventually, it was successful in establishing a union-representation
election, and ultimately the right to represent the teachers in New York City. Also in
1961, the NEA ﬁrst began to talk of “professional organizations,” the “right . . . to
participate in policies of common concern” and “professional sanctions” (Allen, as cited
in Doherty, 1967). The NEA’S stance evolved to the point where it advocated the
concept of exclusive recognition and written agreements between teacher organizations
and school boards.

In his 1964 Phi Delta Kappan editorial, Elan addressed the new role of union
leadership and its effect on the profession. He stated that “the reduction in the number of
schools brought forth a better kind of administrator” (p. 269). Elan claimed that, to
counter this new type of administrator, the organization of teachers into power blocs was
inevitable. He predicted that the power bloc would be headed by a new breed of teacher
skilled in dealing with the new administrator. It was only through this organized strength
that teachers could make the profession more attractive to young men and women of
talent and energy.

Seldon (1964) stated, “Collective bargaining for teachers, born out of strife and
protest, has in two short years become a new and challenging way of responsible
professional life” (p. 286). In other words, teachers wanted to be deﬁned and treated as
professionals. Seldon claimed that part of the compensation of a professional is the
satisfaction derived from participating in the teaching profession. The class size an
individual teaches has a deﬁnitive effect on the amount of satisfaction he or she derives
from practicing the profession. Therefore, a new role of the union was to demand class-

size limitations, which was considered one step in promoting teaching as a profession.

ll

The ability to establish class-size limits also had an inﬂuence on another area
traditionally controlled by management. Because the budget is directly inﬂuenced by the
factor of class size, the union had now entered the arena of budget making. Seldon
(1964) commented, “In future negotiations and in their ﬁrnctioning and program, the
teachers through their union must give consideration to matters once exclusively the
concern of the Superintendent and Board of Education” (p. 287). Through the
negotiation process, unions were now actively inﬂuencing decisions formerly made
solely at the discretion of the board.

J. Borma (personal communication, 2000) described administration and board
reaction to this new union inﬂuence as that of “a parent dealing with a deﬁant child.” In
other words, the administrator once held all of the control without question or debate.
However, when the teachers began to exert their inﬂuence on matters once dictated by
the board or administration, it resulted in frustration, anger, and a general unwillingness
to share any power. The generation of administrators operating with wide discretion
within their schools or districts opposed teacher involvement and the restrictions on their
authority. The result was a more confrontational relationship.

Wildman (1964) discussed the evolving relationship between the union and the
board. He acknowledged that the steadily increasing number of NBA afﬁliates in local
communities resulted in “forrnalizing professional relationships of varying complexities
with school boards” (p. 153). He recognized that the underlying conﬂict conditions in
the teachers’ work situation could give rise to a desire for power and control. This power
and control could be in the form of demands for more material rewards, such as salaries
and beneﬁts; for more input on work rules; and for professional considerations in the

areas of curriculum and methodology. Wildman’s observations were accurate, and

12

changes in these areas have helped to deﬁne the relationship between the employer and

the teachers.

The Evolution of the Teachers’ Union in Michiﬁga_n

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988 approving
unionization for federal employees, which inspired many state governments to do the
same for state employees. Even though Michigan public employees had a right to
organize and bargain collectively as a result of the 1947 enactment of the Public
Employment Relations Act (PERA, P.A. 336), it was not until the issuance of Executive
Order 10988 that government employee unions began to grow in Michigan. In 1965, the
passage of RA. 379 eliminated the penalties for striking public employees, which
fundamentally revised PERA. Even though the new amendments to PERA did not
legalize strikes by government employees, they substantially weakened the ability of
public employers to withstand the pressure from union-initiated work stoppages.

The newly revised PERA of 1965 served as a focal point for teacher union
organizing. Michigan teachers soon became the ﬁrst major employee group in the state
to organize under the new statute, with the MEA as their bargaining representative. The
MEA abandoned the image of a professional educator organization in favor of the trade
union model already adopted by the AFT.

In 1966, the ﬁrst full year after Michigan teachers began establishing bargaining
units and taking steps to organize, nine school districts experienced their ﬁrst teacher
strikes. In June 1966, the teachers in Flint organized the most signiﬁcant strike brought
by a professional organization in Michigan. These organized teachers did not hesitate to
call what they were doing a strike. The strike took place in the highly unionized

community and put MEA on trial as to whether it would support a strike. It also proved

13

that teachers could exert power so that boards would take action to meet their demands
(Dashiell, 1967). Dashiell claimed, “This strike created the impetus for boards to
negotiate in good faith and reach reasonable agreements with local associations” (p. 25).
The Detroit Free Press called it “The year the teachers went to war.” Michigan was
responsible for the most massive and impressive breakthrough in teacher bargaining
anywhere in the country (Dashiell, 1967).

Lieberman (1964) claimed that the “outbreak of such strikes reﬂects the growing
crisis in employee relations” (p. 238). He predicted that such a crisis would continue
until “new approaches to school revenues and to the determination of condition” were
developed. The Michigan Association of School Boards responded to such strikes by
advising administrators and local boards to “direct their administrators not to recommend
for employment those teachers who are on strike or whose districts have been placed
under sanctions whether in Michigan or any other state” (Dashiell, 1967). In other
words, a “blacklist” was generated of teachers who thought they had been forced to use
their ultimate economic weapon. Teachers believed this practice was a form of
intimidation. The drive for negotiated agreements was in a state of turmoil.

A number of school boards did not understand the new law requiring public
employers to bargain with unions, or they Showed a deliberate unwillingness to respect
the law. In fact, several associations charged boards with unfair labor practices for their
unwillingness to bargain in good faith. Many superintendents seemed more zealous in
guarding their own prerogatives than in good-faith dealings with representatives from the

teachers’ organization. Other superintendents simply relayed board of education
POSitiOns to the union, with the unfortunate outcome of making themselves a target for

the teachers’ ill will. As a reaction to such stances, the teachers employed their own

14

negotiators “who would become just as belligerent and aggressive as the boards”
(Dashiell, 1967). The general relationship between district ofﬁcials and teachers was
“adversarial.”

As the adversarial negotiations between boards and teachers continued,
agreements were eventually obtained. By early 1967, 343 local teacher organization
afﬁliates with the MEA had Signed written, detailed agreements with their boards of
education. As a result of unionism, teachers obtained recognition of rights of privacy,
due process, equal protection, and just and honorable treatment. It was also through
unionism and collective bargaining that teachers experienced increased salaries and
signiﬁcant increases in beneﬁts. Between the 1960s and the 1990s, the MEA became
the most powerful union in Michigan, and the NEA became the largest union in the
country. The teacher unions continued to accumulate strength, utilizing their leverage in
a public manner. As a result, during the 1990s the predominantly Republican legislature
in Michigan countered with proposals to impose restrictions on union activity. This
would serve as yet another inﬂuence on the relationship between teachers and

administrators/boards.

Inﬂuence of Legislative Initiatives on Union Activity
During the 19905, two factors would inﬂuence the actions of the legislature in
Michigan. First, from 1965 to 1994, of the total number of strikes conducted by public
employees, those by school district personnel accounted for approximately 76%
(Michigan Negotiators Association, 1996). In fact, there had been a total of 686 strikes
bJ’PUblic school employees. Second, another relevant factor was the inadequate means
for ﬁlllcling Michigan schools. The amount of money allocated to districts on a per pupil

baSis Often depended on the wealth of the community. In other words, the existing
15
‘

process for funding schools was creating an environment of inequity. Furthermore, some
Michigan districts were ﬁnding themselves in a ﬁnancial dilemma, resulting in an
inability to maintain existing operations. The new legislation (P.A. 145 of 1993 and RA.
112 of 1994) addressing these two issues would have a deﬁnite effect on the power
wielded by the teachers’ union, and ultimately on teacher labor relations.

In June 1993, the Kalkaska School District ended its school year two months
early, aﬁer voters had repeatedly rejected property tax increases. Because
approximately 66% of public school funding was generated by local property taxes,
Kalkaska voters’ refusal to increase this local funding source resulted in the district’s
inability to fund its operations. This was only the second time in Michigan history that a
school district did not keep its schools open for the 180 days required by the state
(Vergari, 1994).

This event in Kalkaska raised two political issues: the existing method for
funding schools and the power of the MEA/NBA. Keith Geiger, president of the NEA,
came from Washington, DC, to attend the Kalkaska schools’ closing ceremony. Gieger
(Hacker, 1993) contended that the school board and the administrators were not the
problem, but rather the issue was “Michigan’s archaic and inadequate system of school
ﬁnance.” Vergari (1994) claimed “the crisis in Kalkaska had been engineered to serve as
‘a wake-up call’ to Lansing” (p. 254). Led by the MEA, Michigan educators portrayed
the closing of the Kalkaska schools as a signal that the state government needed to
increase its ﬁnancial support for public education (Boyd, Plank, & Sykes, 2000). It was a
focusing event that caught the attention of policy makers and the public. Although the

single early closing did not lead directly to a general policy response, Vergari stated, “the

16

event assisted change agents in ‘Softening up’ the environment for school ﬁnance
reform.”

According to Boyd et a1. (2000), Michigan’s Governor Engler and his allies
interpreted events differently. These politicians argued that Kalkaska illustrated the
selﬁsh and insatiable appetite of educators for additional funds. Furthermore, it was an
illustration of the teachers’ refusal to consider measures to restrain costs or to put the
interests of taxpayers or students ahead of their own. With respect to the power of the
MEA/NBA, Gieger offered the following message to voters: “Never mind the nonsense
about teaching as a public trust; pay up or we’ll shut you down” (Brimelow & Spencer,
1993). Al Short, chief lobbyist for the Michigan Education Association, claimed the
MEA “coordinated the whole shutdown, once the decision was made” (Brimelow &
Spencer, 1993). Based on such statements, Brimelow and Spencer concluded that the
Kalkaska shutdown was “little more than a union organized stunt” and argued further that
the MEA had taken a strong public and political stance, ﬂaunting the magnitude of its
power. At a time when the MEA was at full strength, the politicians would soon counter
with legislation to restrict union domination.

As a result of statistics on the public school employee strike, the dominance of the
MEA, the statewide inequity in student funding, and the inability of speciﬁc districts to
fund their operations, the Michigan legislature passed P.A. 145 of 1993 and RA. 112 of
1994. In September 1993, Governor Engler signed P.A. 145 of 1993 into law, abolishing
the local property tax as a source of funding for public schools. In time, Governor Engler
put forth a funding plan that included a 2% increase in the sales tax, along with other
funding provisions, to replace the $6.5 billion lost as a consequence of RA. 145. Under

the Michigan constitution, an increase in general sales tax cannot be enacted statutorily,

17

but rather must be approved by a vote of the people. Therefore, a funding proposal
(Proposal A) that would drastically change the ﬁrnding for public schools was taken to
the voters and passed on March 15, 1994.

PA. 145 of 1993 eliminated property tax as the primary source of school funding,
and Proposal A replaced the property tax with an increase in the sales tax. As a result,
individual districts could no longer go to their taxpayers and seek additional funding.
Instead, districts became dependent on the state to disburse monies at a state-established
funding level. Because teachers’ salaries and beneﬁts account for approximately 80+%
of a district’s operating budget, this legislation was to have a great effect at the
bargaining table. In other words, the ability of districts to generate additional funding
was now minimized or even eliminated, which would ultimately affect the district’s
ability to accommodate the union’s ﬁnancial demands. This outcome was yet another
factor that would indirectly inﬂuence the evolution of the existing labor relationship.

The legislature challenged the power of the teachers’ unions by passing P.A. 112
of 1994. PA. 112 was presented by the governor and his allies as a necessary measure to
“level the playing ﬁeld” in collective negotiations and to provide public school districts
with the power they needed to contain costs (Boyd et al., 2000). This legislation
readdressed the issue of strikes in the public sector. P.A. 112 of 1994 amended PERA,
reestablishing penalties for government-employee work stoppages. The public act also
removed certain items from the scope of mandatory bargaining and allowed the school
board to unilaterally impose its “last best offer” without agreement of the union, thereby
giving school boards greater control over collective bargaining. As a result of the

legislation, constraints were placed on the “magnitude of power” previously exhibited by

18

the MEA. This legislation’s effect on collective bargaining would also serve as an
inﬂuence on the employer/teacher relationship in public schools.

Historically, legislative initiatives have had a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the
formation of teacher unions, as well as collective bargaining. According to Murphy
(1990), collective bargaining served to change the fundamental relationship between
teachers and administrators. Cooper (1992) acknowledged that teacher organizations had
dramatically changed the way in which educational resources were allocated, and
ultimately, the way schools were run. The legislation that granted teachers the right to
organize ultimately resulted in a change from a time when administrators were in charge
of all aspects of the educational process to a time when teachers were demanding higher
salaries, smaller class sizes, improved beneﬁts, and active involvement in decisions
regarding various aspects of the learning environment. A counter to the union’s power in
these areas was a legislative initiative in Michigan that imposed constraints on a district’s
ability to acquire additional funding, as well as constraints on the collective bargaining
process. All of these factors have served to affect the evolving role of the teachers’ union
and ultimately to redeﬁne the employer/teacher relationship within public schools.

The Evolution of Teacher Labor Relations:
A Move TowagCoopegtion?

Unions are powerful inﬂuences on teachers’ work lives and school operations.
Unions affect both the written contract under which teachers and administrators interact

and the psychological contract through which they deﬁne themselves as workers.

Kerchner and Koppich (1993) claimed:

The institution of labor relations has changed little in the past decade.
Constructed from a mix of industrial-style scientiﬁc management and Progressive
Era government reforms, United States public schools have become a maze of
rules and hierarchies. Labor law and practice add to this rule-bound atmosphere.

l9

Unions take their form and function from the school districts where their
members work. At their worst. unions and school districts are two prisoners
manacled together slugging it out with their free hands. At their most productive,

they are self-interested partners in a joint civic venture. (p. 1)

Kerchner and Koppich described professional unionism as a unionism in which unions
discard beliefs about the inherent separateness of labor and management, teaching and
administration. They believed that unions and managements should question the
necessity of adversarial relationships, and come to the realization that educational
improvements depend on care, dedication, and commitment rather than the observance of
rules and the execution of preplanned routines.

The concept of professional unionism was reﬂected in a discussion with Chuck
Anderson (2000), Executive Director of the MEA. During a presentation to a group of
public school human resource directors, he explained the “new role or vision” of the
MEA. Through a survey, the MEA had determined that its membership was interested in
pursuing a more collaborative approach to collective bargaining, as well as establishing a
“partnership” with district administrators/boards. In fact, the MEA membership suggested
four general charges for the MEA:

l. The MEA should continue to establish and maintain competitive salaries and
beneﬁts, as well as continue to address working conditions. Special attention
should also be given to professional development needs.

2. The MEA’s political focus Should not center solely on the Democratic Party.
Instead, the MEA should endorse candidates who are “friends of public
education,” regardless of their party afﬁliation.

3. The MBA should assist in building strong bonds between teachers and
employers. The relationship should be a “partnership” since both parties were

pursuing the common cause of educating children.

4. The MBA should address the “contentiousness” at the bargaining table. The
membership wanted to investigate new ways to approach collective bargaining.

20

This new MEA direction, as depicted by Anderson, has great potential for inﬂuencing the
evolution of labor relationships in public schools.

J. Borma (personal communication, 2000) stated that the “evolution of the
relationship varies from place to place.” The existing relationship in any district is based
on the personal relationship and level of trust between district and union leadership.
Those districts that exhibit a “cooperative employer/teacher relationship” have
established “open channels of communication and pro-active joint problem solving.”
With respect to trust and partnerships, Anderson (2000) expressed similar views. He
stressed the need for unions and administration to “deal with each other on a regular
basis, not just the single event of collective bargaining.” Anderson commented, “By
engaging in ongoing, open and honest dialogue, a level of trust can be established and a
collaborative partnership formed.”

Some would argue that teachers are gaining more control over their professional
lives, and hostility between management and union is being defused, even replaced with
cooperation. Kerchner and Koppich (1993) stated, “Moving from a unionism built
around difference and antagonism to one built around cooperation requires mutual
respect” (p. 16). In general, Borma (personal communication, 2000) believed there has
been a change in the way boards and administrators approach teachers. Teachers have
become more involved in decisions about instructional strategy, materials, scheduling,
and other issues directly affecting teachers’ ability to teach. Previously, these decisions
had been made “almost uniformly and unilaterally by central ofﬁce administrators”

(J. Borma, personal communication, 2000). Borma continued, “The shiﬁ to involving
teachers in decision making, thereby relinquishing some of the ‘administrative’ power,

has resulted in more cooperative labor relations.” Obviously, this reﬂects a much

21

different role for administrators, as compared to the role promoted by Taylor’s
philosophies of scientiﬁc management.

As reﬂected in the historical overview, there has been a history of changing labor
relations in public schools. These changes have been inﬂuenced by a variety of sources,
including early trends in industrial labor relations and the evolution of teacher unionism.
After some 90 years of various inﬂuences and pressures, a closer examination of present
teacher/employer labor relations in public schools is warranted. To help place this
relationship in context, it is important to further detail historical trends of industrial

employer/employee relations.

Employer/Employee Relations: Other Trends in Indusm

It is apparent from the literature that employer/employee relations in the
educational setting have some parallels to the employer/employee relationship in the
industrial setting. AS previously discussed, Taylor’s process of scientiﬁc management
inﬂuenced the relationship between teachers and administrators in the educational
environment. As background for this study, it essential to possess further knowledge of
the trends in the employer/employee relationship in the realm of industry, beyond the
inﬂuences of Taylorism. Understanding trends in the area of industrial employer/
employee relations may offer insights into the current state of teacher/administrator
relations in public schools.

Industrial labor relat_igns: 1900s to 1920. AS discussed earlier, scientiﬁc
management emphasized replacing the judgment of the individual worker with the laws,
rules, and principles of the science of the job that were developed by management.
Taylor and those engineers who followed him did not believe that employees’

participation in decision making had much to do with productivity. In theory, workers

22

would gain their satisfaction through the increased pay they would receive for
performing the tasks speciﬁc to their jobs. The advocates of scientiﬁc management
believed that appropriate task design and wage systems would do away with conﬂict as
an inherent part of the employment relationship. As a result of their belief that the
workers would be satisﬁed under the various incentive systems, scientiﬁc management
left no room for collective bargaining (N issen, 1990).

Despite the inﬂuence of scientiﬁc management in the early 19008, a few
industries attempted to institute a system of employee representation. Although the
origins of employee representation can be traced to the early years of the century, the
employee representation plan developed by John D. Rockefeller at the Colorado Fuel and
Iron company in 1915 was particularly inﬂuential in its further development (Nissen,
1990). In the Rockefeller model, a systematic and formalized means of communication
between owners and workers was established, promoting employee input into various
aspects of production.

The employee-representation movement accelerated during World War I when
the government, through the War Labor Board, ordered the establishment of shop
committees. The Board’s purpose was to reduce strikes and labor conﬂict during the war
by encouraging collective bargaining as a normal process in industry. According to

Nissen (1990),

Management found plant morale improved by employee representation. Workers
were more willing to be ﬂexible, offering suggestions and short cuts that saved
money for the company. Grievances could be heard and resolved peacefully. But
most important of all, employee representation served to weld management and
workers together into a single, cohesive unit, into the “family of the ﬁrm.”

(p. 150)

Industrial labor relﬂons: 19205. By 1920, a competing model of the social

 

engineering of workplace systems had emerged, one that stressed the social signiﬁcance

23

of work and work groups. Proponents of the human relations school believed that happy
workers would be productive workers. For advocates of the human relations school,
employee representation plans provided an ideal channel to give workers a sense of
participation and security. The scientiﬁc management and human relations schools
shared a common goal. Both were based on the belief that their approaches would
eliminate the adversarial relationship between managers and workers, thus making
unions unnecessary.

The grth of the human relations school led to the professionalization of the
personnel function in a relatively few, highly inﬂuential ﬁrms. Many of the functions
formerly controlled by the foremen--hiring, ﬁring, discipline, promotion, and
compensation policies-~were now carried out from standardized and centralized
personnel departments. Also controlled and managed by these new professionals were
the employee-representation plans and the anti-union open Shop movement, which
ﬂourished side by side during the 1920s. Thus, what we now know as “union avoidance”
was a fundamental part of the professionalized personnel function from the beginning
(Filippelli, 1990). However, neither employee representation nor the professionalization
of the personnel function spread much beyond a handful of large companies during the
19208. The “mailed ﬁst rather than the velvet glove remained the most effective strategy
for management to use to maintain its power in the employment relationship” (Filippelli,
1990, p. 151).

In 1926, Congress passed the Railway Labor Act in an attempt to deal with
railway labor crises. This act regulates collective bargaining in the railroad industry and,
since 1936, the airline industry as well (Oberer, Hanslowe, & Heinsz, 1994). This act

gave employees the right to organize and bargain collectively through a representative of

24

their own choosing. It also deﬁned speciﬁc duties for the employer, which included
(a) to refrain from interfering with the exercise of those rights by employees and (b) to
recognize and bargain with the chosen representative of the employees.

In addition to deﬁning the rights of employees and duties of management, the
Railway Labor Act established a means for dealing with disputes arising from the
collective bargaining process and placed limitations on strikes that would “substantially
interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of
essential transportation service” (Oberer et al., 1994, p. 97). Should such a strike be
imminent, the act dictates notiﬁcation of the President of the United States, who may
invoke emergency provisions of the act. These provisions include imposing a 60-day
moratorium on work stoppages or changes in terms and conditions of employment,
pending an investigation of the dispute. The purpose of this legislation was to help
stabilize labor-management relations in a speciﬁc industry.

Industrialhrbor relations: 19305. Before the 19305, in the absence of any
supportive legislation, nonunion practices prevailed for most workers. Unions could
manage to organize only a small fraction of the labor force, and union membership rose
and fell in direct response to rises and falls in the business cycle (Commons, 1911).
Following the stock market crash of 1929, the United States and much of the world’s
economy entered the Great Depression. To help relieve the effects of the depression on
the US. labor force, President Franklin Roosevelt supported the Wagner Act (National
Labor Relations Act, NLRA). In July 1935, the US. Congress enacted this piece of
landmark labor law. Rugh (1992) explained the impact of the passage of the NLRA,
stating:

The NLRA, part of the New Deal package of federal legislation to help the
nation extricate our economy from the pits of poverty and unemployment

25

which engulfed the country during and after the Great Depression of 1932,
became the stimulus, the catalyst, the “Spark” which resulted in an

unprecedented growth of trade unions, craﬁ and industrial, in the United
States of America. (p. 3)

In other words, the passage of this legislation helped the nation’s economy, legitimized
the role of trade unions, and became the stimulus for an unprecedented growth of trade
unions in the United States.

Provisions of the NLRA gave some basic rights to a large number of employees
not covered by the Railway Labor Act. It offered workers the right to engage in self-
organization, the right to engage in collective bargaining, and the right to engage in
concerted activities to support organizing and bargaining. In establishing these rights,
the NLRA also deﬁned behaviors on the part of management that would be considered
“unfair labor practices” and therefore, unlawful. The NLRA had two primary purposes:
(a) to resolve labor disputes that would adversely affect interstate commerce and (b) to
deal with the economic crisis of the Great Depression by enhancing the bargaining and
therefore purchasing power of workers.

Labor policies adopted in the 19305 as part of the New Deal were designed to
introduce greater stability and order and to lend a degree of permanency to union-
management relations. By passing the NLRA, the government achieved its goal of
fostering industrial peace by replacing violent conﬂicts with orderly elections and
certiﬁcation procedures and by giving certiﬁed unions a degree of permanence and
security. For the ﬁrst time in the history of labor relations, this new federal law reassured
labor leaders that the federal government had adopted a policy and a commitment to

support the principle in labor relations of employees’ rights to organize and to join

unions of their own choosing.

26

When, in 1935, the NLRA established collective bargaining as the preferred
method of setting wages, hours, and working conditions, it was assumed that unionism
would expand as workers embraced collective bargaining as the best way to advance
their interests. “For the next two decades, collective bargaining served as the most
signiﬁcant source of innovation in employee relations (Kochan, Katz, & McKersie,
1994). Unions had achieved a position of legitimacy in American society because
collective bargaining had been chosen as the preferred mechanism for workers’
participation and representation in industry.

According to Filippelli (1990), growth of the labor movement was not a result of
any sustained mass militancy on the part of industrial workers, but instead was a result of
government intervention. Filippelli stated, “It seems clear that the passage of the labor
provision of the NLRA or the Wagner Act came about, not because of the power of the
labor movement, but as a result of the presence in the Roosevelt coalition of many pro-
labor liberals and progressives and a new industrial working class” (p. 154). The act
presented a way to resolve labor and management disputes. Whereas it guaranteed
unions some security during the duration of the contract, management’s right to make
strategic business decisions was left untouched. There was no quarrel with this from the
labor side.

The principles of scientiﬁc management and industrial engineering were deeply
embedded. In fact, collective bargaining merely codiﬁed the existing work systems
within the contract, made them enforceable through the grievance procedure, and
strengthened the role of seniority as a means for allocating scarce job opportunities in
internal labor markets (Filippelli, 1990). Employees accepted existing job classiﬁcations

and pay grades--legacies of the scientiﬁc management era--and made them negotiable

27

 

items, subject to restrictive contract language and enforcement procedures. At the plant
level, the effect was constant tension and conﬂict between local unions and supervisors.
Supervisors were under pressure to meet production quotas and standards, and union
members were resolved to ﬁght work-intensiﬁcation efforts (Craypo, 1990). In other
words, labor checked the arbitrary power of management and gained a say in a
constricted, but important, sphere of the ﬁrm’s activity. Management avoided disaster
and achieved work stability and predictability.

It is important to understand that this legislation was passed with bitter opposition
from employers. It was not until the NLRA was ruled constitutional by the Supreme
Court that signiﬁcant numbers of employers reluctantly adjusted their managerial
practices to the reality of collective bargaining (Oberer et al., 1994). One such adjustment
was the rapid growth in the number of ﬁrms creating personnel departments. This trend
dates particularly from the years following the passage of the NLRA and the ﬁrst upsurge
of strike activity aﬁer 1933. This surge in personnel departments did not occur in only
those ﬁrms experiencing unionization. There was also the fear of unionization that
prompted the widespread employer exploration of new organizational approaches to
industrial relations.

Industrial labor relations: 19405. The second great government intervention that
solidiﬁed collective bargaining occurred during World War II. The salvation of
organized labor appeared in the guise of the War Labor Board. President Roosevelt
demanded that labor and management avoid both strikes and inﬂation. He created the
War Labor Board in 1942 to oversee industrial relations. From 1942 to 1945, the Board
helped to settle more than 20,000 labor-management disputes. In fashioning these

settlements, the Board was largely responsible for institutionalizing grievance

28

procedures, union security arrangements, and the dues check-off, as well as for
expanding the range of subjects covered by bargaining (N issen, 1990). This assistance
from government, coupled with the enormous growth in the labor force during the war,
brought the labor movement by 1945 to a level of power and prestige unknown in
American history.

In certain industries, management thought it was losing control over the
workplace, at least to some degree. In other words, “management’s right to manage” had
been eroded during the war years. One indication was the number of strikes, virtually all
of them Wildcats or unauthorized strikes, that erupted near the end of the war. A number
of long strikes occurred in key industries such as automobile, steel, meatpacking, and
coal. Wildcat strikes tended to center on workplace issues, ranging all the way from
racist strikes to strikes over safety. In 1946, the percentage of total working time in the
economy that was idle due to strikes reached an unprecedented level (US. Department of
Labor, as cited in Kochan et al., 1994). The erosion of management’s control went
beyond the strikes. Shop-ﬂoor union ofﬁcials sometimes had a great deal of authority
over virtually all major shop-ﬂoor decisions (N issen, 1990).

However, labor’s brief parity of political inﬂuence had already begun to erode
during the war. Labor’s stock fell as a result of wildcat or unauthorized strikes and the
enormously controversial walkout of the miners in 1943. Public opinion began to shiﬁ
away from support for labor after the war. In response to the massive postwar strike
wave in 1945 and 1946, President Harry Truman seized a number of industries under his
war powers and proposed legislation to draﬁ strikers into the army. The culmination of

this counterattack by management came with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947.

29

This legislation constituted a major overhaul of national labor policy by positively
affecting management’s position or power in the labor-management relationship.

The Taﬁ Hartley Act of 1947 amended the NLRA of 1935, seeking to limit the
power of unions and to articulate a new set of principles concerning the rights of
individual workers in union-management relationships (Kochan et al., 1994). This act
established the right of employees to refrain from any or all union activities, and
identiﬁed behaviors that would be considered unfair labor practices by the union. As a
result of this legislation, the government’s position went from “promoter” of union
activity or prestige to a more “neutral” position (Oberer et al., 1994). Consequently, the
power of the labor movement was dramatically curbed. In addition to weakening union
security guarantees, it banned the tactics that labor had used successfully during its
organizing upsurge in the 19305.

Aﬁer the war, labor also faced choices regarding how far it was going to try to
intrude into managerial decisions. For example, in the automobile industry, in a long
strike against General Motors (GM), President of the United Auto Workers (UAW)
Walter Reuther demanded that GM “open the books” so as to allow consideration of
proﬁts and prices during evaluation of the appropriateness of the union’s wage demands.

Many leaders of other major unions, however, argued that these demands went too far.
As head of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), Philip Murray put pressure on
Reuther to abandon his more far-reaching demands and conform to the wage settlement
negotiated by the steel industry. There were also battles under way inside the unions,
pitching left and right groups against one another for leadership positions and in the
debate regarding labor’s agenda. The outcomes of these internal union debates and

political conﬂicts served to reinforce the basic or traditional features of collective

30

_ "TL

bargaining. Reuther failed to extend his union’s inﬂuence into management prerogatives
concerning pricing, employment, or investments (Kochan et al., 1994).

With respect to the post-World War II decades, organized labor and management
in the major core industries of the United States implicitly developed a trade-off in their
dealings with each other. In this trade-off, the unions ceded to management its two major
goals at the time: (a) control over major decisions affecting the enterprise and (b)
stability or predictability in its labor relations. In return, management granted to the
unions their two major goals: (a) legitimacy or acceptance as permanent ﬁxtures in the
industrial scene and (b) relatively good wages and beneﬁts and job security. According
to Nissen (1990), “Gone were the days of strong union threat to management rights.
Equally gone were the days of overt union-busting” (p. 178). Walton, Cutcher-
Gershenfeld, and McKersie (1994) labeled this relationship “arm’s-length
accommodation.”

Industrial labor relations: Solidifving the role of the personnel department in the
%. Central to the evolution of the US. industrial relations system in the 19405 was
the transformation that began occurring in managerial staffs responsible for industrial
relations and personnel. World War II and the rise of industrial unionism brought a new
kind of environmental pressure to management. The increased demand for wartime
production was accompanied by labor shortages and a decline in immigration. The
pressure of labor-market shortages and rising production costs induced management to
create specialized employment departments to administer relations with the workforce.
These new employment departments, in turn, led to greater centralization in hiring and

disciplinary decisions (Kochan et al., 1994).

31

With collective bargaining came the need for management specialists to
administer and interpret technical aspects of labor agreements and the growing number of
rules concerning work. As their experience with unions and worker unrest increased,
management came to realize that strong unions and union leaders could control their
membership and bring stability to industrial relations--albeit for a price. The more
management came to see unions as inevitable, the more it saw the advantages of
cooperation with union leaders and a stabilization of bargaining relationships. By taking
this position, industrial relations specialists were also working to secure their own
position within the management hierarchy. By stabilizing union functions and the
position of union leaders, labor relations managers ensured the need for their own expert
help and role. Thus, a symbiotic relationship developed between union leaders and
human relations managers (Kochan et al., 1994).

In practice, this new relationship brought the creation of new institutions for
handling conﬂict and new rules governing employment situations, such as grievance and
arbitration procedures. The introduction of dues check-off procedures, other forms of
union security, and the central role played by seniority arrangements also served to
increase the inﬂuence that union organizations and leaders had over workers, and in this
way further stabilized labor relations. The relationship developed between union leaders
and human relations managers reﬂects the continued search for stability and the
regularization of relationships.

Indusg'aﬂabor relations: 19505 and 19605. In 1959, Congress dealt with internal
union problems by passing the Landrum-Grifﬁn Act. As a consequence of a long
investigation by a subcommittee of the Senate, Shocking conditions in some American

unions were uncovered. The central concern of resulting legislation was the regulation of

32

internal union government so as to purge it of abuses highlighted in three years of
hearings. The subcommittee uncovered outright corruption in a small number of unions,
including the Teamsters with J immy Hoffa as president, as well as undemocratic
practices in a larger number of unions. Therefore, the Landrum-Griffen Act deals in
various ways with these internal problems. These publicized hearings only intensiﬁed
society’s less than positive view of labor unions.

The civil rights movement, urban riots, the war in Vietnam, and campus protests
created an environment of social turmoil and unrest in the 19605. This environment
combined with the strong economic growth that followed President Kennedy’s tax cuts
and the Vietnam build-up to produce tighter labor markets, increased worker power, and
militancy on the shop ﬂoor (Kochan et al., 1994). The rate of contract rejections in union
ratiﬁcation processes reached a record high of 14% in 1967 (compared to a range of 8%
to 12% in subsequent years). The incidence of contractual and wildcat work stoppages
also rose dramatically. In some industries, unrest on the shop ﬂoor was revealed by a
rise in grievance rates and the emergence of local issues that prolonged contract
negotiation processes.

By the 19605, the principles of scientiﬁc management and adversarial collective
bargaining had produced a relatively stable set of social contracts. The social contract
between employees and employers was based on mutual compliance. The parties
acknowledged the conﬂicting interests of employees and employers, with an emphasis
placed on achieving equity in that context. This social contract involved an implicit
promise of labor peace in exchange for continually rising standards of living. The power

and responsibility for managing the business was concentrated in management, which

33

accepted the union checks and balances on the management’s actions. In other words,
quid pro quos continued to evolve, which satisﬁed the priorities of each party.

Industrial labor relations: 19705 and 19805. Bargaining power after 1979
depended on continued US. economic expansion and supremacy in world markets,
prevailing technologies and production systems, and secure markets in the basic
industries. U.S. union power declined dramatically in the 19805. Unionized ﬁrms were
hard pressed to respond to heightened competition and an economic environment that put
a premium on cost control, ﬂexibility, and adaptability (Kochan et al., 1994). The
patterns, structures, and processes of collective bargaining that evolved out of the New
Deal industrial relations system were no longer compatible with prevailing economic
realities.

Contributing further to the decline of union power was yet another shift in social
attitudes toward unionization. Earlier in the postwar period, Americans had been
determined to avoid another Great Depression like that of the 19305. Unions, therefore,
were seen as beneﬁcial economic institutions responsible for the high wages and earnings
that promoted strong purchasing power. But in the 19705 and 19805, public concern
shifted from economic depression to inﬂation, foreign trade deﬁcits, and industrial
decline. Living standards gave way to higher productivity as the chief policy objective
and unions received much of the blame for rising production costs and America’s
inability to compete globally. Social attitudes reﬂected their belief that unions had
become part of the problem, rather than the solution.

In the midst of economic recession in the early 19805, traditionally strong unions
started to make signiﬁcant contract concessions. Managers started coming to the

bargaining table saying they were under increased competitive pressures and needed

34

labor cost reductions to survive. Unions were in no position to resist. By the end of the
decade, unions had not recouped their losses despite several years of economic recovery.
Union membership dropped from a postwar high of 23 million in 1974 to 17 million by
1985 (Nissen, 1990).

In a few cases, in an effort to respond to economic pressures, labor and
management have introduced the rudiments of what eventually might amount to a new
industrial relations system. This new system appears to link more localized and
contingent compensation, more ﬂexible and team-oriented work organizations, enhanced
job security, and broader worker and union involvement in production and strategic
decisions making. The workplace changes being introduced jointly have two basic
objectives: (a) to increase the participation and involvement of individuals and informal
work groups so as to overcome adversarial relations and increase employee motivation,
commitment, and problem-solving potential and (b) to alter the organization of work so
as to simplify work rules, lower costs, and increase ﬂexibility in the management of
human resources (Kochan et al., 1994). The success of this system depends on the ability
of the organization to reinforce and sustain high levels of trust over time.

Industrial labor relations: Most recent trerﬁ. In general, “American labor
history has been marked by conﬂict--not primarily over contract issues but over the labor
movement’s right to exist” (F ilippelli, 1990, p. 138). In considering current trends in
industrial labor relations, Walton et al. (1994) considered the historical trends involving
changes in substantive contracts, as well as revisions in the social contracts that tie labor
and management together. The social contracts include Shared, or at least acknowledged,
understanding about the broad quid pro quos and “rules of the game.” In other words,

social contacts between employer and employee help deﬁne the existing labor

35

relationship. Walton et al. were particularly interested in the social contracts between
union and management and between workers and employers.

Since 1986, evidence has indicated that the compliance/arm’s-length
accommodation relationship, with its tightly written work rules and clear separation of
the authority of management and the rights of employees, no longer meets America’s
economic needs (Kochan et al., 1994). During the 19805 and early 19905, the trend in
labor relations in the United States was to polarize around “cooperative and contentious”
extremes. At the “cooperative” end of the labor relations continuum, the parties are
placing joint emphasis on mutual goals and a sharing of power and responsibility for
improving the business function. The “contentious” extreme involves a concern by each
party regarding its own institutional survival, with neither party accepting the other’s
deﬁnition of its legitimate role. The power and responsibility for the business are
concentrated in management, with management discounting and undermining
employees’ power to positively or negatively affect operations. Walton et a1. (1994)
identiﬁed both the cooperative and contentious employer/employee relationships as

prominent approaches to employer/employee relations in today’s industrial setting.

Industrial Labor Relations and Employer/
Teacher Relations in Public Schools

Understanding trends in the area of industrial employer/employee relations may
offer insights into the current state of employer/teacher relations in today’s public school
setting. Based on the historical background presented, employer/employee relations in
industry have evolved into something quite different from the relationship promoted by
Taylor’s method of scientiﬁc management. The same is true with respect to employer/

teacher relations in public schools. The current trends deﬁning employer/employee

36

relations within the industrial setting will serve as a point of comparison for deﬁning the
current employer/teacher relationship in public schools. This study will apply the most
recent thinking regarding industrial employer/employee relationships to the public
schools.

Are the labor relationships present in today’s public schools approaching the style
of interaction described by Kerchner and Koppich’s (1993) deﬁnition of “professional
unionism”? This would parallel the “cooperative” relationship found in industry and
described by Walton et al. (1994). Both deﬁnitions represent a departure from the classic
industrial-style unionism (arm’s-length accommodation) that characterized American
labor relations for nearly three decades. Or does today’s relationship between teachers
and their employer more closely resemble the “contentious” extreme described by
Walton et al.? Or has the relationship become something unique to the educational
environment? This study will explore these possibilities.

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations
in today’s public schools. The speciﬁc public school employer/employee relationship
targeted in this study is the relationship between the employer and the teachers. This
employer/employee relationship will be analyzed at two levels: (a) the building or
individual level, consisting of teachers and principals, and (b) the district or

organizational level, consisting of union leadership and the board of education.

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that was used to explore and describe employer/
teacher relations in public schools was derived from a theoretical framework used by
Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, and McKersie, who are prominent researchers in the ﬁeld

of labor and industrial relations. The trends in labor and industrial relations, or the move

37

from arm’s-length accommodation to cooperative and contentious extremes, captured by
Walton et al. (1994) were analyzed through the lens of a speciﬁc and substantiated
conceptual framework. It is a modiﬁed version of this conceptual framework that will be
described in detail and applied to the public school setting, allowing for an analysis of the
current relationship between the employer and teachers.

Walton et al. (1994) introduce a lens through which to view the employer/
employee relationship at both the individual and organizational levels. This study will
focus on the employer/employee relationship occurring at the individual level, consisting
of teachers and principals, as well as the district or organizational level, consisting of the
union leadership and the board of education, represented by central ofﬁce administration.
Walton et a1. identiﬁed and deﬁned key concepts within their framework that promote a
more diversiﬁed analysis of this relationship within the roles of employers and teachers.
They referred to the “individual and organization relationship” as a “social contract.”
These social contracts represent quid pro quos between labor and management, as well as
shared understandings about the “rules of the game.”

There are two levels of a social contract, (a) the individual level, between the
supervisors and the employees, and (b) the organizational level, between the union and
the employer. Traditionally, the dominant social contract between supervisors and
employees (individual level) was premised on compliance, whereas the social contract
between employers and unions (organizational level) was premised on arm’s-length
accommodation. However, in recent years there has been a trend at the individual level
for the relationship to be described as “compliance” or “employee commitment.” At the
organizational level, the trend for this relationship has moved to a description of “union-

management cooperation” or “containment/avoidance of the union.”

38

Walton et al. claimed the existing social contract within a particular setting will
be some combination of these relationships. In reality, it is most likely that one would
ﬁnd a combination of organizational cooperation and individual commitment or a
combination of institutional or organizational containment/avoidance of the union and
individual compliance. Employee compliance and union containment/avoidance reﬂect
management’s willingness to take whatever steps are required to mobilize power and
defeat the union. Employee commitment and union/management cooperation are
reﬂected in cooperative partnerships, as well as joint structures and processes for sharing
power and responsibility. Figure 1.1 illustrates the most likely combinations of

institutional and individual relationships, deﬁning the existing social contract within a

 

 

 

setting.
Institutional Level
Individual Level Cooperation Containment/Avoidance
Compliance X
Commitment X

 

 

 

 

 

Figare 1.1: Social contract: Individual and institutional levels.

In an attempt to further explain and clarify the combinations of social contracts
that will most likely exist within a setting, the following examples illustrate the two types
of employer/employee relationships that represent a departure from the classic
compliance/arm’s-length accommodation relationship illustrated throughout history:

1. Compliance/Containment or Avoidance
Cohn (2001) analyzed and reported on the current employer/employee

relationship at Amazon.com. In this article, Cohn described a “recent trend toward

39

corporate hierarchy, rigid work rules and outsourcing” (p. 24). Management had
assumed the power and responsibility for managing the organization, with no input from
employees. Cohn described management’s decision to outsource its Seattle operations to
two cheaper labor markets. As a result of this managerial decision, 400 employees were
laid off from their positions with Amazon.com. One employee stated, “This gradually
made us feel more like employees, than owners” (p. 26).

As a result of such managerial decisions, the employees decided to take the
necessary steps to unionize. They saw this as their only recourse for survival. When
management heard of these efforts, they began to discourage employee unionization,
minimizing the union’s potential role. Management made statements to employees such
as, “A union will make a more regimented workplace. It might order you to strike
against your will. A union would limit our ability to change with time” (p. 26). It is
apparent that both management and employees were “doing what they need to do to
survive” (p. 27). Based on Cohn’s description of the current employer/employee
relationship at Amazon.com, the social contract would be classiﬁed as employee or
individual compliance and union containment/avoidance.

2. Commitment/Cooperation

Walton et al. (1994) analyzed and reported on the employer/employee
relationship at Packard Electric Division of General Motors, an auto-supply company.
The company and union entered into contract language that initiated a variety of joint
committees focusing on issues of common concern or mutual goals. The purpose of
these committees was to enter into a cooperative problem-solving and decision-making

process that would positively affect the positions of both parties. Such committees

40

resulted in the sharing of power, allowing the union to contribute value to the functioning
of the organization.

The union and management recognized each other’s prospective roles. Both
parties acknowledged and accepted the mixture of partnership and adversarial roles. For
instance, within the negotiation process, the union understood management’s need to cut
costs. In return, the management understood the union’s role of protecting bargaining-
unit members’ positions or job security within the organization. Based on these
adversarial roles, they engaged in a brainstorming and problem-solving process to
accommodate the demands of both parties. Based on Walton et al.’s (1994) description
of the employer/employee relationship at Packard Electric, the social contract would be
classiﬁed as employee or individual commitment and organizational cooperation.

To further reduce, Walton et al. presented a lens designed to analyze and identify
or categorize the existing social contract between employers and employees by
understanding the “interaction system.” The interaction system becomes the unit of
analysis and is made up of three components: (a) processes, (b) strategies, and
(c) structures. These components are inﬂuenced by the strength of the interests of the
parties, the magnitude of their power sources, and how the parties interact to inﬂuence
each other.

The essence of labor-management interactions consists of critical processes that
include bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution. Actions directly related to
any one particular process could affect the other processes as well. In other words, these
processes are highly interrelated. A party’s actions in each of these processes are guided
by an explicit or implicit strategy. Walton et al. proposed two general negotiating

strategies (forcing and fostering) and a strategy of avoidance (escape). Finally, structural

41

features such as frequency of interactions and types of communication channels can
inﬂuence the three processes (bargaining, problems solving, and conﬂict resolution).
These structural features exercise their inﬂuence on the social contract by either
complicating or enabling the management of the bargaining task or the management of

internal differences. The interaction system is summarized in Figure1.2.

 

Interaction System

Processes
- Bargaining
- Managing internal differences
I workplace problem

solving
I conﬂict management/due
process
Strategies
- Forcing
- Fostering
- Escape
Structures

- Frequency of interaction
- Communication channels

 

 

 

Figare 1.2: Framework for analyzing employer/employee relations.

Kochan et al. (1994) admitted that the history of the employer/employee
relationship in a particular industrial setting plays an extremely important role in Shaping
the range of feasible strategic adaptations in employer/employee relations. However, the
strongest factor impinging on the choice of strategy is the management’s perspective on
the role of teachers and their union. In other words, does management view the teachers
and/or their union as an entity interfering with managerial decision making and

established policies, as an entity to be avoided, or as an entity that could contribute to the

42

successful functioning of the workplace? The strategies selected and used by
management to interact with the teachers and their union will depend on management’s
perspective of the teachers’ and/or union’s role in the workplace environment.

In sum, schools are like other organizations, and the processes that go on between
teachers and administrators--bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution--are
likely to replicate the processes that go on in industry. Hence, I am going to apply to
public schools a conceptual model developed by researchers who study industrial
relations. My argument is that understanding these organizational processes is essential
to knowing how school organizations behave. Therefore, the intention in this study is to
describe or characterize these interactive human processes.

The speciﬁc purpose of the study was to explore and describe employer/teacher
relations in today’s public schools. The study will examine (a) the relationships between
teachers and administrators at the individual level in selected schools and (b) the
relationships between the teachers union and the school boards at the organizational level
in those school districts. The central ofﬁce administrator with the primary responsibility
for the human resource function will represent the board of education. The study can be
ﬁrrther explained with a series of exploratory questions:

1. Walton et al. (1994) identiﬁed three important strategies that go on between
administrators and teachers. Those strategies have been described as forcing, which
means a reliance on coercion; fostering, which is the reliance on cooperation; and
escaping, which means the reliance on avoidance. Therefore, the question is, to what
extent do administrators and teachers engage in the strategies of forcing, fostering, and

escaping as a means for interacting with each other?

43

 

 

2. The types of interactions that occur between individuals also go on at the
district or organizational level, between the teachers’ union and the board of education.
The second question is, to what extent do the board and the teachers’ union engage in the
strategies of forcing, fostering, and escaping as a means for interacting with each other?

Forcing, fostering, and escaping are abstractions. In order to move from these
abstractions to behaviors from which we can get some measures, let us say that these
strategies-~forcing, fostering, and escaping-manifest themselves in the processes of
bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution. Therefore, more speciﬁc questions
will further explain the study:

a. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual
schools’ and district’s bargaining processes?

b. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual
schools’ and district’s problem-solving processes?

0. How does forcing, fostering or escaping Show up in the individual
schools’ and district’s conﬂict-resolution processes?

On a third level, and according to the conceptual model developed by Walton et
al. (1994), the answers to these questions should provide an overall way to describe the
employer/teacher relationship in an entire district. A generalization can be made about
the relationship between the administrator and the teachers at one level, and the teachers’
union and the board of education at a second level. I will categorize the existing
relationship into one of three categories identiﬁed by Walton et al.: (a) teacher
commitment and union cooperation, (b) teacher compliance and union containment/
avoidance, or (0) teacher compliance and union arm’s-length accommodation. Therefore,

the ﬁnal exploratory question to be answered in this research is:

44

3. Is the existing relationship between the teachers and the administrators, as well
as the union and the board of education, best categorized as commitment/cooperation,
compliance/containment or avoidance, or compliance/arm’s-length accommodation?

This three-part conceptual scheme will assist in describing the employer/teacher

relationship in public schools.

Deﬁnition of Terms

The conceptual framework introduces three speciﬁc types of social contracts, as
well as key terms related to the employer/employee interaction system. The following
terms are deﬁned as they are used within the parameters of this Study.

Arm’s-length accommodation/complijance. This refers to the social contract with
the following characteristics: (a) Parties acknowledge conﬂicting interests of employees
and employers; emphasis is on achieving equity in that context; (b) Power and
responsibility for managing the organization are concentrated in management, which
accepts union checks and balances on management action; (c) The power of labor that
derives from its ability to withdraw from the workplace is emphasized; (d) Adversarial,
but legitimate roles for unions and management are emphasized; (e) The parties rely
wholly on union representatives to express employees’ voices. (Walton et al., 1994).

Mining/negotiation; The terms bargaining and negotiation are used
interchangeably throughout this study. They represent “a formal, civilized process that
occurs when parties are trying to ﬁnd a mutually acceptable solution to a complex
conﬂict” (Lewicki, Litterer, Minton, & Saunders, 1994, p. vii). This process can be
either distributive or integrative. Distributive bargaining has the function of resolving
pure conﬂicts of interest. Distributive tactics center on developing the negotiator’s own

relative power, convincing the other party of the ﬁrst party’s power and resolution,

45

modifying the other party’s expectations, closely guarding information, and preventing
the other side from using the same tactics. Integrative bargaining has the function of
ﬁnding common, complementary interests and solving problems confronting both parties.
Tactics center on the exchange of accurate information, the exploration of underlying
interests, and the use of structured problem solving.

Communication channels. Communication channels refer to potential
opportunities for giving or sharing ideas or information in an organization. These
channels may be characterized as formal or informal.

Containment or avoidance/compliance. This refers to the social contract with the
following characteristics: (a) Each party is concerned about its own institutional
survival; (b) Power and responsibility for managing the organization are concentrated in
management; (c) Management attempts to diminish union’s role, and the union seeks to
maintain checks and balances on management action; ((1) Management discounts and
undermines labor’s power to punish or reward management; (e) Neither party accepts the
other’s deﬁnition of its legitimate role; (f) Labor and management struggle over both the
amount of employee voice and the vehicle for that voice; and (g) Management relies on
its power to implement decisions it judges to be in the interests of the organization. The
union contests whatever it can (Walton et al., 1994).

Cognition/commitment. This refers to the social contract with the following
characteristics: (a) The parties place joint emphasis on mutual goals and integrative
potential, as well as increasing the size of the economic pie; (b) There is signiﬁcant
sharing of power and responsibility for improving organizational functioning, as well as
sharing of economic ups and downs and of information and status; (c) The power of labor

that derives from its ability to contribute value is acknowledged; (d) A mixture of

46

partnership and adversarial roles for unions and management is acknowledged; (e) Both
direct worker participation and representative democracy are considered important; and
(f) The parties rely on shared goals and agreed-on principles for prescribing behavior

(Walton et al., 1994).

Escape strategy. An escape strategy involves the avoidance of an interaction
between parties.

Forcing strategL A forcing strategy emphasizes distributive bargaining.
Managers and unions mobilize. coercive and persuasive powers to achieve their goals.

Fostering strategy. A fostering strategy involves a more cooperative approach to
achieving speciﬁc goals.

Frequency of interaction. This term refers to the number of intentional
interactions pursued between employer and administrator, or union and management.
This interaction could be periodic or continuous, formal or informal.

Individual and organizaticMevel. Relationships between parties occur at both
the teacher/administrator (individual) level and the union/district (organizational) level.
The structure of the interactions at both levels helps to deﬁne the overall teacher labor

relationship.

Managing internal differences. Managing internal differences is the part of the
interaction system that deals with workplace problem solving and conﬂict management
or the issue of due process. It refers to the manner in which the parties seek to reach
consensus on solutions to issues or on the resolution of conﬂicts in the work
environment. The approach could take one of two forms: (a) surfacing of internal

diversity about proposals so as to achieve the highest quality solution or (b) building

internal consensus around a speciﬁc solution.

47

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Durkheim (1938) suggested that research should be used as a supplement to
historical data. He emphasized the importance of a historical perspective, stating, “One
cannot explain a social fact of any complexity except by following its complete
development” (p. 136). Homans (1950) stated that, in addition to inﬂuencing its present
character, “the past affects the very way in which the future comes into being” (pp. 91-
92). History informed this research. The literature reviewed for this study focused on
the historical perspective of employer/teacher relations, as well as employer/labor
relations in the realm of industry. To gain insight into the complex social phenomena of
employer/teacher relations in today’s public school setting, the literature was used as a
contextual backdrop. In the review of literature, the ﬁrst part of the discussion
highlighted the parallels of this speciﬁc employer/employee relationship with the
evolving relationship in the industrial setting. The second part of the discussion
described the evolution of the teachers’ union and its effect on the employer/teacher
relationship.

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations
in today’s public schools. In this study I examined (a) the relationships between teachers
and administrators at the individual or building level in selected schools and (b) the
relationships between the teachers union and the school boards at the organizational or

district level. The following exploratory questions helped reduce this abstraction to data.

More speciﬁcally, I wanted to know:

48

1. To what extent do administrators and teachers engage in the strategies of
forcing, fostering, and escaping as a means for interacting with each other? More
speciﬁcally:

a. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping Show up in the individual
schools’ bargaining processes?

b. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual
schools’ problem-solving processes?

c. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping Show up in the individual
schools’ conﬂict-resolution processes?

2. To what extent do the board and the teachers’ union engage in the strategies of
forcing, fostering, and escaping as a means for interacting with each other? More
speciﬁcally:

(I. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the district’s
bargaining process?

e. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in district’s problem-
solving process?

f. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping Show up in the district’s conﬂict-
resolution process?

On a third level, the answers to these questions should provide us with an overall
way to describe or categorize the employer/teacher relationship in an entire district. A
generalization can be made about the relationship between the administrator and the
teacher at one level, and the teachers’ union and the board of education at a second level.

Therefore the ﬁnal exploratory question to be answered in this research is:

49

3. Is the existing relationship between the teachers and the administrators, as well
as the union and the board of education, best categorized as (a) teacher commitment and
union cooperation, (b) teacher compliance and union containment/avoidance, or (c)

teacher compliance and union arm’s-length accommodation?

Research Design

“Selecting the method most appropriate for a particular disciplined inquiry is one
of the most important and difﬁcult responsibilities of the researcher. The choice requires
an act of judgement, grounded in both knowledge of methodology and the substantive
area of the investigation” (Shulman, 1988). The method planned for data collection
should be related to the type of information sought in the study. Likewise, its adequacy
depends on the purpose of the research and the questions being asked (Locke, Spirduso,
& Silverrnan, 1993). The information sought through this study is descriptive in nature

and dependent on perceptions and experiences, promoting a qualitative approach.

Qualitative Research

“The key philosophical assumption upon which all types of qualitative research
are based is the view that reality is constructed by individuals interacting with their social
worlds” (Merriam, 1998, p. 6). Miles and Hubennan (as cited in Merriam, 1998)
described natural qualitative research as that which is designed to “capture data on the
perceptions of actors . . . isolate common themes and expressions . . . [and whose] main
task is to explicate the ways people in particular settings come to understand, account for,
take action and otherwise manage their day-to-day situations.” Qualitative researchers
are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, or how they make

sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. Sherman and Webb (as

50

cited in Merriam, 1998) stated that it “implies a direct concern with experience as it is
‘lived’ or ‘felt’ or ‘undergone."‘ Exploring and describing the existing relationship in a
public school district requires gaining insight about the relationship from the perspective
of those directly engaged in the relationship.

The key concern is understanding the phenomenon of interest from the
participants’ perspectives, not the researcher’s. It is assumed that meaning is embedded
in people’s experiences and that this meaning is mediated through the investigator’s own
perceptions. Patton (1985) explained:

Qualitative research is an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as

part of a particular context and the interactions there. This understanding is an

end in itself, so that it is not attempting to predict what may happen in the future
necessarily, but to understand the nature of that setting--what it means for
participants to be in that setting, what their lives are like, what’s going on for
them, what their meanings are, what the world looks like in that particular
setting--and in the analysis to be able to communicate that faithﬁrlly to others who
are interested in that setting. . . . The analysis strives for depth of understanding.

(P- 1)

By interviewing teachers and administrators at the building level, as well as
administrators and union leadership at the district level, I was able to gain an in-depth
understanding of what it meant for participants to be in that setting. Merriam (1998)
stated, “Qualitative research can reveal how all the parts work together to form a whole”
(p. 6). As the participants communicated their perspective and attach their meaning to
the existing employer/teacher relationship, insight into the type of relationship that
existed in each district emerged.

The structures and processes that affect the employer/teacher relationship, and
ultimately the perception of the relationship described by those engaged in it, are the

phenomena that were studied. In other words, in this study I explore what Durkheim

(1938) referred to as “social facts or things.” He deﬁned social facts as “category facts

51

 

 

with distinctive characteristics,” which consist of ways of acting, thinking, and feeling
external to the individual. They are actualized only through people, as products of human
activity. Because social facts are manifested as behaviors and practices, they become
observable. These facts are to be treated as “things” or “objects of knowledge which
must be construed from observations and experiences” (Durkheim, 193 8, p. xiii). In this
study I explore and describe the ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that exhibit
themselves through the established structures and processes that deﬁne the interactions
between administrators and teachers, as well as district union leadership and central
ofﬁce administration. These “objects of knowledge” will offer insights into the existing
employer/teacher relationship in the public school setting.

It is the collective aspects of the beliefs, tendencies, and practices of a group that
characterize truly social phenomena. In this study, the employer/teacher relationship is
the social phenomenon, actualized through the beliefs, perceptions, and practices of the
teachers and administrators engaged in the relationship. Individuals apply their
perceptions in “diverse circumstances,” as suggested by Durkheim (193 8). Simmel
(1997) discussed symbolic interaction, explaining:

Every relationship between individuals gives rise to a picture of each in the other,

and this picture, obviously, interacts with the actual relation. This relation

constitutes the condition under which the conception, that each has of the other,
takes this or that shape and has its truth legitimated. On the other hand, the real
interaction between the individuals is based upon the pictures they acquire of one
another. . . . The relationships individuals have with one another are based on

“reciprocal knowledge” based on actual relations, and both are “inextricably

interwoven.” (p. 309)

In other words, “reality is understood by human beings only as it is perceived” (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1992, pp. 31-32). Further, Blumer (1962) believed that behavior is the result

of individuals’ reﬂective interpretations of socially derived meanings. In fact, an

individual’s interactions with others are not simply reactions, but are based on the

52

interpretation of the others’ actions. Therefore, to understand the phenomenon of
employer/teacher relations from the subjects’ own point of view, one must gain insight

into the perceptions and interpretations of administrators and teachers as they engage in

the relationship.

Case Study

There are numerous variations on qualitative research. Such variations may be
called orientations (Tesch, as cited in Merriam, 1998), theoretical traditions (Patton,
1990), strategies of inquiry (Denzin & Lincoln, as cited in Merriam, 1998), genres
(Wolcott, as cited in Merriam, 1998) or major traditions (Jacob, as cited in Merriam,
1998). In my efforts to explore and describe employer/teacher relations in public
schools, I employed a case study design to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation
and the meaning for those involved.

Case studies are differentiated from other types of qualitative research in that they
are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or a bounded system (Smith,
1978). The boundedness and the behavior patterns of the system are key factors in
understanding the case (Stake, 1995). The bounded system, or case, might be selected
because it is an instance of some phenomenon. It would be, in Adelman, Jenkins, and
Kemmis’s (as cited in Merriam, 1998) words, “an instance drawn from a class.”
MacDonald and Walker (as cited in Merriam, 1998) deﬁned a case study as “the
examination of an instance in action.” In this research, the bounded system or unit of
study was the three individual public school districts where the research was conducted.

Sociological case studies are interested in demographics, social interactions, and
roles people play within the setting. As a sociological approach, “the case study strives

to highlight the features or attributes of social life. This is true whether the latter is
53

perceived as a set of interactions, as common behavior patterns or as structures”(Hamel,
1993, p. 2). This case study drew on sociology as it explored the topic of employer/
teacher relations by focusing on the interactions between the two groups.

Olson (as cited in Hoaglin & others, 1982, pp. 138-139) addressed the descriptive
nature of case studies. He explained that a case study can (3) illustrate the complexities
of a situation--the fact that not one but many factors contributed to it, (b) show the
inﬂuence of personalities on the issue, (c) Show the inﬂuence of the passage of time on
the issue, ((1) obtain information from a wide variety of sources, (e) spell out differences
of opinions on the issue, and (f) present information in a wide variety of ways . . . and
from the viewpoints of different groups. A descriptive case study is one that presents a
detailed account of the phenomenon under study. It is useful in presenting basic
information about areas in which little research has been conducted. In fact, Merriam
(1998) stated that “such studies often form a database for future cOmparison and theory
building” (p. 38). Because little has been written on the topic of employer/teacher
relations in public schools, presenting a detailed account through a descriptive case study
seems appropriate.

Stake (1995) described a case as being

instrumental in nature if it is examined mainly to provide insight into an issue or

to redraw a generalization. The case is of secondary interest since it plays a

supportive role, and serves to facilitate our understanding of something else. The

case is looked at in depth, its contexts scrutinized, its ordinary activities detailed,
but all because this helps the researcher to pursue the external interest. The case
may be seen as typical of other cases or not. Here the choice is made to advance

understanding of that other interest. (p. 43 7)

In this study, each school district represents a case of employer/teacher relations, but

serves to assist in understanding the broader issue of employer/teacher relations in public

schools.

54

A researcher may jointly study a number of cases in order to investigate a
phenomenon, population, or general condition. Multiple-case studies involve collecting
and analyzing data from several cases. Stake (1995) called this “collective case study.”
The more cases that are included in a study, and the greater the variation across cases, the
more compelling an interpretation is likely to be. Miles and Huberman (as cited in
Merriam, 1998) stated, “By looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can
understand a single-case ﬁnding, grounding it by specifying how and where and, if
possible, why it carries on as it does. We can strengthen the precision, the validity, and
the stability of the ﬁndings.” We want to generalize about employer/teacher relations,
yet realize that each of these cases, each sample of one, weakly represents the larger
group of interest (Stake, 1995). However, Merriam (1998) stated, “The inclusion of
multiple cases is, in fact, a common strategy for enhancing the external validity or
generalizability of the ﬁndings” (p. 40).

According to Stake (1995),

Individual cases in the collection may or may not be known in advance to

manifest some common characteristic. They may be similar or dissimilar,

redundancy and variety each important. They are chosen because it is believed
that understanding them will lead to better understanding, perhaps better

theorizing about a still larger collection of cases. (p. 437)

Instrumental and collective casework regularly requires researchers to choose their cases.
Understanding the critical phenomenon depends on choosing the case well (Patton, 1990;

Yin, 1994). In this research, three public schools were selected to represent

employer/teacher relations in public schools.

Sample
Sample selection in qualitative research is usually nonrandom, purposeful, and

small (Merriam, 1998). Honigmann (as cited in Merriam, 1998) discussed nonprobability
55

sampling methods and said they are “logical as long as the ﬁeld worker expects mainly to
use the data not to answer questions like ‘how much’ and ‘how oﬂen’, but to solve
qualitative problems, such as discovering what occurs, the implications of what occurs
and the relationships linking occurrences.” One form of nonprobability sampling is
called purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990). Purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and
therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned. Patton argued that
“the logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for
study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal
about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research.” In other words, the
researcher has to ﬁnd an “instance of the case.” In this research, the two criteria for
determining “instances of the case” were (a) a public school with (b) employer/teacher
relations. Each of the districts selected for this research met the identiﬁed or established
criteria.

For this research, I selected three public school districts within a 30-mile radius of
Michigan State University. Several ﬁnancial and demographic aspects of the three public
school systems are illustrated and compared in Table 2.1. Standard & Poors School
Evaluation Service generated the information contained in the table. The State of
Michigan contracted with Standard & Poors to provide an independent analysis and
supporting data for Michigan schools. The School Evaluation Service analyzes
academic, ﬁnancial, and demographic indicators and trends, providing valuable

comparative benchmarks.

56

Table 2.1

Sample of Public Schools (2000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District 1 District 2 District 3
Geographic type Urban fringe, Urban ﬁinge, Mid-size, central
mid-size city mid-size city city
District population 14,230 10,453 59,893
Average household income $54,538 $68,935 $54,606
Taxable property value per $1 14,181 $98,702 $195,706
student
Student enrollment 2,81 2,12 3,03
Student ethnicity (%)
Asian 2.2 1.0 11.1
Black 3.1 1.1 13.8
Hispanic 2.1 1.7 4.8
Native American 0.3 0.6 0.6
White 92.3 95.6 69.7
Per pupil foundation $6,058 $5,700 $7,208
allowance
Total expenditure per $8,957 $10,347 $9,746
student
Free and reduced lunch (%) 10.0 5.5 18.1
Average teacher/student ratio 21.1:1 238:] 21 :1
for basic K-12 instruction
Average teacher salary $51,354 $53,194 $51,658
District operating revenue $21,777,846 $16,714,908 $31,327,465

 

 

 

 

 

Two levels of sampling are usually necessary in qualitative case studies. First, I
selected the “case” or the speciﬁc school districts to be included in the research. The next
major step in planning the research project was to select the individuals in the identiﬁed
settings who would be helpful in the process of collecting relevant data. Gorden (1987)
described two types of respondents: (a) special respondents, who occupy unique

positions in the research situation and are thus able to provide the researcher with speciﬁc
57

information related to the objectives of the study; and (b) representative respondents, who
belong to a certain population or category. Both types of respondents added to the body
of information sought about the topic of employer/teacher relations.

To develop a wide-ranging “panel of knowledgeable informants,” Weiss (1994)
stressed the need to interview people who are especially knowledgeable or experienced.
He stated, “To enrich or extend our understanding, we might also want to include as
respondents people who view the topic from different perspectives or know different
aspects of it. . . . Each member of the panel is selected because he or she can signiﬁcantly
instruct us” (p. 17). The idea of assembling a panel of informants is to include as
respondents the people who together can provide the information the study requires.

For this research, my second level of sampling required that I identify individuals
who possessed different perspectives or knowledge of different aspects of the
employer/teacher relationship in each speciﬁc case or district. My panel of informants
included the central ofﬁce administrator with the primary responsibility for employee
relations, a district-level union leader, a principal at each of the three levels (elementary,
middle school, and high school), and a focus group of teachers (four to six individuals) at
each of the levels. (See Table 2.2.)

Table 2.2

Interviews

 

District/Organizational Level Building/Individual Level
2 interviews) (6 interviews)
1. Central ofﬁce administrator High school administrator
2. District-level union leader Focus group: high school teachers
Middle school administrator
Focus group: middle school teachers
Elementary school administrator
F ocus group: elementary school teachers

 

 

 

99:59.”?

 

 

58

The teachers at the building level were selected randomly, allowing me to
generalize the results of the study from the sample to the population from which it was
drawn. In other words, by randomly selecting the members of the focus groups, I hoped
to gain information or insights from individuals representing the views of the teachers as
a whole. These people together could provide the information required for exploring and

describing employer/teacher relations in public schools.

Data Collection

Merriam (1998) stated that a “key philosophical assumption upon which all types
of qualitative research are based is the view that reality is constructed by individuals
interacting with their social world” (p. 6). She continued by stating, “The second
characteristic of all forms of qualitative research is that the researcher is the primary
instrument for data collection and analysis “ (p. 7). Certain characteristics differentiate
the human researcher from other forms of data-collection instruments: The researcher is
responsive to the context and can adapt techniques to the circumstances; the total context
can be considered; what is known about the situation can be expanded through sensitivity
to nonverbal aspects; the researcher can process data immediately, can clarify and
summarize as the study evolves, and can explore anomalous responses (Guba & Lincoln,
1981). In other words, the researcher can respond to the situation, thereby maximizing
opportunities for collecting and producing meaningful information.

As a qualitative study, this research incorporated the use of in-depth interviewing
as the primary source or method of data collection. Kahn and Cannell (as cited in
Seidman, 1991) described interviewing as “a conversation with a purpose” (p. 149).
Using interviews as the primary source of data has the advantages of obtaining large

amounts of data quickly and providing opportunities for immediate follow-up and

59

 

clariﬁcation, as needed. The working assumption is that people make sense out of their
experiences and, in doing so, create their own reality. In this study, the employer/teacher
relationship offered the potential for subjective views. There are varying perspectives,
depending on the experiences individuals have within the relationship, as well as their
position or role within the relationship. As a result, I chose in-depth interviewing as the
major research method (Marshall & Rossman, 1989).

Patton (1990) said the role of the researcher in an interview setting is to “ﬁnd out
what is in and on someone else’s mind” (p. 278). Seidman (1991) stressed that “at the
root of in-depth interviewing is the interest in understanding the experience of other
people and the meaning they make of that experience” (p. 3). He continued:

The most important personal characteristic interviewers must have is a genuine

interest in other people. They must be deeply aware that other people’s stories

are of worth in and of themselves and because they offer something to the

interviewer’s experience. With a temperament that ﬁnds interest in others, a

person has the foundation upon which to learn the techniques of interviewing and
to practice its skills. (p. 71)

In using interviewing as a source of data collection, the interviewer must demonstrate a
sensitivity that involves knowing when to allow for silence, when to probe more deeply,
and when to change the direction of the interview. The qualitative research investigator
must also be a good communicator. Merriam (1998) deﬁned a good communicator as
one who empathizes with respondents, establishes rapport, asks good questions, and
listens intently. It is only by listening “to many individuals and to many points of view
that value-resonant social contexts can be fully, equitably, and honorably represented”
(Guba & Lincoln, 1981, p. 142).

Weiss (1994) stressed that the success of the interviewer is “dependent on a
certain amount of social grace, including being sensitive, considerate, and tactful; self

conﬁdent; exhibiting an awareness of the politics of the institution; and persistence”

60

(p. 19). A study of an organization, in this case a public school system, requires that the
investigator succeed in obtaining informants without being perceived as an intrusive
foreign presence (Weiss, 1994). It is exactly these characteristics of the interviewer, as
described by Seidman, Merriam, Guba and Lincoln, and Weiss, that enable the researcher
to have a conversation with purpose in an atmosphere of trust. My approach to
interviewing was guided by these principles.

Merriam (1998) described a continuum of interview structure from highly
structured or standardized to unstructured or informal. In a highly structured interview,
the exact wording and order of the questions are predetermined, allowing for no
ﬂexibility within the interview. The purpose of this type of interview is to elicit
standardized information from respondents (Gorden, 1987). On the other end of the
continuum, the unstructured interview resembles more of a conversation, consisting of
open-ended, ﬂexible, and exploratory questioning techniques. This type of interview is
entirely exploratory in nature (Gorden, 1987). Merriam (1998) identiﬁed the half-way
between the ends of the continuum as the semi-structured interview. In this type of
interview, either all of the questions are more ﬂexibly worded, or the interview is a mix
of more and less structured questions. The largest part of the interview is guided by a list
of questions to be explored, and neither the exact wording nor the order of the questions
is determined ahead of time. This format allows the researcher to respond to the situation
at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic.

For this research, I engaged in a semi-structured interview format. An interview
guide was developed, consisting of a list of questions that would assist in eliciting
relevant information from the respondents. Although the same open-ended questions

were used, the exact wording or the order of the questions may have been altered,

61

allowing me to respond to each interview situation individually, attending to the
“emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (Gorden, 1987, p.
74). I also used what Gorden (1987) described as “neutral probes.” These probes are
techniques such as the use of silence in making sure the respondent has no more ‘
information to offer about a topic, phrases of encouragement related to the response, and
questions about speciﬁcs of the topic (p. 46). The probes were always related to the
initial question, in an effort to maximize the ﬂow of pertinent information.

Gorden (1987) emphasized that interviewing is a process of discovery, with the
purpose of gaining “a new consciousness of certain qualitative aspects of a problem.”
Gorden believed it is important to interview more than one person, allowing the
researcher to access more details, gain different perspectives, and cross-check the
accuracy of what respondents are saying about the situation under investigation.
Therefore, the interview guide (Appendix C) for this research included two semi-
structured interviews. One interview was designed to elicit responses from individual
teachers and the union leadership regarding their perspectives on the employer/teacher
relationship. The other interview, with parallel questions, was designed to elicit the
insights of building-level administrators and the central ofﬁce administrator with
responsibility for human resources.

The interview guide established the purpose and the focus of the interview. The
speciﬁc open-ended queStions asked of respondents were directly related to the
exploratory questions outlined in Chapter I. The interview questions focused on the
processes of bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution, as well as the
structures and strategies used by the parties while engaging in these processes.

Participants were asked to offer examples to illustrate these processes, structures, and

62

strategies. It is from these examples that I could determine the speciﬁc strategies
(forcing, fostering, or escaping) used by the parties throughout their ongoing relationship.

Each interview was taped and transcribed. This practice ensured that everything
that was said would be preserved for analysis. Seidman (1991) stated, “To work most
reliably with the words of participants, the researcher has to transform those spoken
words into a written text to study” (p. 97). Each word a participant speaks reﬂects his or
her consciousness (Vygotsky, as cited in Seidman, 1991). Further, the researcher’s
paraphrasing or summarizing what participants say is to substitute the researcher’s
consciousness for that of the participant. By preserving the words of the participants, I
had the original data. If something was not clear in the transcript, I was able to return to
the tape representing the source and check for accuracy. This gave me conﬁdence that
the words of the respondents were treated responsibly.

Documents that are pertinent to the research topic are also a good source of data.
Often such documents meet Dexter’s (as cited in Merriam, 1998) criteria for selecting a
particular data-collection strategy; that is, documents should be used when it appears they
will yield “better or more data . . . than other tactics” (p. 11). Such data can fumish
descriptive information, as well as ground the investigation in the context of the problem
being investigated. “Analysis of this data source lends contextual richness and helps to
ground an inquiry in the milieu of the writer. This grounding in real-world issues and
day-to-day concerns is ultimately what the naturalistic inquiry is working towar ” (Guba
& Lincoln, 1981, p. 234).

Therefore, to gather more data on the topic of employer/teacher relations in public
schools, and ultimately to gain a richer understanding of the relationship, I reviewed

pertinent documents. “In judging the value of documents as a data source, a researcher

63

can ask whether it contains information or insights relevant to the research question and
whether it can be acquired in a reasonably practical, yet systematic manner. If these two
questions can be answered afﬁrmatively, there is no reason not to use a particular source
of data” (Merriam, 1998, p. 124). Using these questions as a guide to determine the
value of speciﬁc documents as a data source, I determined that a review of the ﬁve-year
history of grievances and letters of agreement between the union and administration
could prove beneﬁcial to the research. I also acquired a copy of the Master Agreement
between the union and the board.

According to Webb (as cited in Merriam, 1998), such documentary data are
objective or “unobtrusive” sources of information. In other words, they are unaffected by
the presence of the researcher’s self. Furthermore, these documents served as an
additional source of information to substantiate perceptions of the employer/teacher
relationship gathered through interviews. For these reasons, reviewing such documents
proved beneﬁcial to addressing the research questions.

To summarize, in an effort to answer the exploratory questions outlined in
Chapter I, I incorporated two speciﬁc means of collecting data about employer/teacher
relations in public schools. These methods were (a) semi-structured interviews, focusing
the discussion on personal experiences and perceptions, and (b) collection of historical
data or documents. The data generated from these sources offered greater insights into
the employer/teacher relationship in public schools. By using both methods of data
collection, I gained a “richer” understanding of the interaction system between

administrators and the teachers at both the individual and organizational levels.

64

Ethical Considerations

Most authors who discuss qualitative research design address the importance of
ethical considerations. First and foremost, the researcher has the obligation to respect the
rights, needs, values, and desires of the informants. The following safeguards were
employed to protect the informants’ rights: (a) the research objectives were articulated
verbally and in writing (Appendix A) so that they were clearly understood by the
informant; (b) an informed consent form (Appendix B) was signed by each participant;
(c) Michigan State University requirements for Research Involving Human Subjects were
strictly followed, including the assurance of privacy to the maximum extent allowable by

law; and ((1) written interpretations and reports will be made available to informants upon

request.

Analyzing and Reporting

Data analysis is the process of making sense out of the data. Tesch (as cited in
Merriam, 1998) described the process of data analysis as eclectic; there is no “right way.”
In qualitative analysis, several simultaneous activities engage the attention of the
researcher: collecting information from the ﬁeld, sorting the information into categories,
formatting the information into a story or picture, and actually writing the qualitative text
(Creswell, 1994). Although experienced researchers proceed through these activities
simultaneously, beginning researchers may want to treat them separately (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992). In this research, I approached these activities separately.

The process of “making meaning” requires making sense out of the data by
consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said and what the researcher
has seen and read (Merriam, 1998). In-depth interviewing generates an enormous

amount of text. The vast array of words, sentences, paragraphs, and pages have to be

65

reduced to what is of most importance and interest (Wolcott, as cited in Merriam, 1998).
Merriam described two levels of analysis. The ﬁrst level is basic description, requiring
the researcher to think through what will be included from the data collected for the
study. Beyond the level of basic description is the next level of analysis, constructing
categories or themes. The challenge at this level is to construct categories or themes that
capture some recurring pattern that cuts across “the preponderance” (Taylor & Bogdan,
as cited in Merriam, 1998). “Devising categories must be systematic and informed by the
study’s purpose and the meanings made explicit by the participants themselves”
(Merriam, 1998, p. 179). The conceptual framework and research questions served as a
guideline for categorizing the data in this study.

Wolcott (as cited in Merriam, 1998) warned that the real value of qualitative
research is in the process of using data, rather than in the process of gathering data.
Bringing order, structure, and meaning to the mass of data collected from the interviews
and documents was a challenge. I organized and interpreted the data; generated
categories, themes, and patterns; and tested my emerging hunches against the data. This
was done with each of the three individual case studies. After the analysis of the single
cases or the individual school districts was completed, I then engaged in a cross-case
analysis leading to generalizations about the state of employer/teacher relations in public
schools. I attempted to “build a general explanation that ﬁts each of the individual cases,
even though the cases will vary in their details” (Yin, 1994, p. 112).

Loﬂand (as cited in Merriam, 1998) suggested that although data-collection and
data-analysis strategies are similar across qualitative methods, the way the ﬁndings are
reported is diverse. Miles and Huberman (as cited in Merriam, 1998) addressed the

importance of creating a data display and suggested that narrative text has been the most

66

frequent form of display for qualitative data. Because qualitative research focuses on
process, meaning, and understanding, the product of a qualitative study is richly
descriptive (Merriam, 1998). The results of this study are presented in descriptive,
narrative form. Respondents’ experiences and the meanings they have attached to them,
as well as speciﬁc stories or examples elicited from respondents, are woven into the text.
Because the goal was to communicate a holistic picture of employer/teacher relations, in
addition to using data in the form of participants’ own words, data generated from

Speciﬁc documents are also included in Chapter III.

V_alid_itx

Gorden (1987) deﬁned validity as the “extent to which data conform to fact.”
Internal validity deals with the question of how research ﬁndings match reality. Merriam
(1998) suggested that assessing the internal validity of qualitative research requires one to
ask the question, “Would the participant agree with the researcher’s rendering of his
perspective?” (p. 166). Eisner (1981) would say that validity is determined by the
reader’s view of the study’s credibility: Does it conform to the reader’s experience?
Two speciﬁc strategies were incorporated into this research to promote internal validity.

One strategy identiﬁed by Merriam (1998) for ensuring internal validity is peer
examination, which calls for colleagues to comment on ﬁndings as they emerge. The
primary investigator named in the Michigan State UCRIHS application also reviewed the
data. By incorporating a step for interrater reliability, a second party examined the same
information and categorized the employer/teacher relationship. If we had similar
responses, the reliability of the resulting category was substantiated. If not, this
encouraged dialogue and reﬂection on the data, creating an opportunity to analyze the

data more completely and generate agreement.

67

Another basic strategy identiﬁed by Merriam (1998) for ensuring internal validity
is “triangulation.” This strategy includes using multiple investigators, multiple sources of
data, or multiple methods to conﬁrm the emerging ﬁndings (Merriam, 1998, p. 204). To
ensure internal validity in this study, I employed multiple sources of data and multiple
methods of data collection. For example, I interviewed three building principals and
three focus groups of teachers, each representing a source of data for understanding the
employer/teacher relationship at the individual level. Further, I collected data through the
review of historical documents in an effort to substantiate the perceptions and
experiences of those interviewed. This, too, was a way to ensure that the research

ﬁndings reﬂected reality.

L_in_ri_tations of Study

Several limitations were involved in this study. First, I used nonprobability or
purposeful sampling as the means to select speciﬁc school districts to be incorporated
into this research. A convenience sample may not be a good basis for generalization
(Weiss, 1994). The small number of cases actually studied, as well as the relatively small
geographic area from which the districts were selected, may also have limited my ability
to generalize. However, it must be noted that the strategy of incorporating several cases
to study the same phenomenon did strengthen the external validity (Merriam, 1998).

It must be acknowledged that interviewing has the potential to pose some
limitations and weaknesses. Cooperation is essential, as is the participants’ ability to
reconstruct events and experiences. Likewise, it is possible that I may have
miscomprehended participants’ responses, and they may have chosen to be less than

truthful and/or selective in their memory (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Therefore, every

68

effort was made to establish a trusting relationship with the participants, encouraging open
and frank discussion.

Yet another limitation arises from the decision to use focus groups when eliciting
information from teachers at the building level. In the focus group setting, not only did
the participants need to develop trust for me as the unfamiliar, but also there needed to be
a level of trust between peers. In order for open and honest dialogue to take place, this
trust needed to exist. Even though I ensured their privacy and anonymity, participants
had to believe they had the same assurances from the other participants in the focus
group. This complicated issue of group dynamics could have potentially stiﬂed the
conversation.

Finally, using interviewing as the primary source of data collection, the researcher
must be aware of personal biases and how they may inﬂuence the investigation. As
LeCompte and Preissle (as cited in Merriam, 1998) observed, qualitative research “is
distinguished partly by its admission of the subjective perception and biases of both
participants and researcher into the research frame” (p. 92). Because the primary
instrument in qualitative research is human, all observations and analyses are ﬁltered
through the human being’s worldview, values, and perspective. It might be recalled that
“one of the philosophical assumptions underlying this type of research is that reality is
not an objective entity; rather, there are multiple interpretations of reality” (Merriam,
1998, pp. 22-23). The researcher brings a construction of reality to the research situation,
which interacts with other people’s constructions or interpretations of the phenomenon
being studied. The ﬁnal product of this type of study is yet another interpretation by the
researcher of others’ views ﬁltered through his or her own. By acknowledging the

potential of such bias, I am conscious of its existence and can be cautious of its effects.

69

Samara

Every effort was made to establish a sound research design and methodology for
this study. To answer the exploratory questions, I incorporated two speciﬁc means of
collecting data: (a) semi-structured interviews, focusing the discussion on personal
experiences and perceptions, and (b) a collection of historical data or documents. The

data generated from these sources provided valuable insights into employer/teacher

relations in public schools.

70

CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION OF DATA

Introduction

In my efforts to explore and describe employer/teacher relations in public schools,
I employed a case study design to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and the
meaning for those involved. Case studies are differentiated from other types of
qualitative research in that they are intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or
a bounded system (Smith, 1978). The boundedness and the behavior patterns of the
system are key factors in understanding the case (Stake, 1995). A researcher may jointly
study a number of cases in order to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general
condition. Multiple-case studies involve collecting and analyzing data from several
cases. Stake (1995) called this “collective case study.”

In this chapter, I will present and analyze the data from three separate case
studies. Each of the three school districts represents a case of employer/teacher relations,
but serves to assist us in understanding the broader issue of employer/teacher relations in
public schools. To gain insights into employer/teacher relations at the district or
organizational level, I interviewed the central ofﬁce administrator with the primary
function of personnel, as well as the union president. To explore the relationship at the
building or individual level, I interviewed a building administrator at the high school, the
middle school, and one of the elementary schools, as well as a focus group of teachers at
each of these buildings. The following data and analysis are the result of an in-depth

interview process, a review of the Master Agreement between the union and the board of

71

education, and a review of grievances and letters of agreement between the parties in
each of the three school districts.

Analyzing employer/teacher relations necessitates exploring the interaction
system between the two parties. Interaction between the employer and the teachers
includes the processes for contract bargaining, managing internal differences (conﬂict
resolution and problem solving) and decision making; the strategies for engaging in those
processes (forcing, fostering, and/or escaping); and the structures to support the existing
processes (communication channels and frequency of communication). As I explored the
existing relationship in each of the three case studies, the data collection focused on all of
these components.

M13.

District 1 is an urban fringe, mid-size city. The total district population is
approximately 14,230 people, with a total K-12 school enrollment of 2,881 students.
Within the district there are three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high

school.

District/Organizational-Level Employer/'1‘ eacher Relations

In District 1, there is a joint emphasis on mutual goals. Furthermore, the
employer and the union openly acknowledge the shared philosophy that a cooperative
and collaborative working relationship helps to ensure the realization of their mutual goal
of establishing and maintaining quality programs for children. The recognition of the
mutual effort is referenced in language setting forth the purpose of the bargained Master
Agreement between the board and the association. The agreement states:

Whereas, the Board and the Association recognize the mutual effort in education
programs can lead to improvement in the District 1 Public Schools and tends to

72

 

 

improve the morale of the teaching staff; . . . it is hereby agreed as follows: (p.
2).

The statement also references that the parties acknowledge that viewing each other as
partners engaged in a “mutual effort in education programs” not only leads to quality
schools, but also positively affects the morale of the teachers.

Guiding the interactions between the two parties is their shared commitment to
the educational programs in the district. The board, represented by the administration,
and the teachers’ union, represented by the union president, communicate a recognition
that, to achieve their mutual goal, it is important to establish a collaborative, trusting
relationship. The Master Agreement between the parties offers further evidence of their
commitment to establish a partnership as they pursue the mutual goal of establishing
quality educational opportunities for children. The Master Agreement states:

Both the administration and the faculty agree to maintain effective two-way

communication in an effort to work on the solution of problems in an atmosphere

of good faith and mutual trust. They recognize they are partners in the ﬁeld of
education and that their primary concern must be directed toward the students

they teach. (p. 6)

Not only does the language in the agreement recognize the idea of “partners” and the
mutual goal of educating children, it also reﬂects the belief that two-way communication
is a component of a collaborative partnership. The concept of communication will be
addressed in more detail later in this case study.

The intention of a Master Agreement is to establish rules to govern behavior or
the interactions between administrators and teachers while maintaining the rights of each
party. As the Master Agreement prescribes behavior, it reﬂects the priorities of the
parties. Of course, references in the Master Agreement to a “partnership” and “mutual

goals” are just that, references. The question becomes “Does this written philosophy

truly exist in the observable behaviors and the articulated belief systems of the parties?”

73

When asked about the role of the union and administration in the district, the assistant
superintendent stated that the focus was not on the separateness of the union and

administration. Instead, she stated:

We focus on a bunch of people who come to work every day and try to do the best
we can for kids and parents. Now, we don’t want to have our rights violated, but

we somehow, at least in my opinion, have worked out ways to do that pretty
successfully.

The statement made by the assistant superintendent communicates recognition of
partners pursuing a shared goal apart from the written words. In District 1, the behavior
of the union and administration is prescribed by their shared philosophy of achieving
mutual goals through a collaborative partnership.

Bargaining the Master Aggeement. District 1 engages in “expedited” bargaining.
Both sides may bring up to three issues to the bargaining table, to be discussed and
resolved over a limited period of time. The parties discuss the issues from their own
perspective and together they generate potential solutions. This represents an integrative
approach to bargaining. By deﬁnition, integrative bargaining requires parties to share
power and responsibility for decisions at the bargaining table. As parties engage in open,
honest dialogue about their individual positions and share accurate information, it allows
for an equalization of power between the parties. It must be noted, there has to be an
existing trust level between the parties, for the integrative approach to bargaining to be
successful. The union and the administration have to believe that what the other is saying
truly reﬂects the reality of the situation.

The assistant superintendent described the tone of bargaining, stating:

The tone of bargaining is usually one of compromise. We, the superintendent,

with his leadership, are very much interested in cooperative agreements. And

though the board and the administration don’t want to give up the ship, we try to
reach a position where we can both save face, and you know, and do what’s best

74

for the teachers. We have really been pretty open and honest in the last two
contracts, sharing ﬁnancial information with our teacher negotiators.

The assistant superintendent acknowledged the administration’s efforts to openly share
relevant data with the union, to assist with the bargaining process. It was her belief that
the administration’s effort to establish or maintain trust had been recognized by the
union, as reﬂected in her comment: We also have a very trusting relationship with our
ﬁnancial person, and the bargaining unit. They believe that what he is telling them is the
truth. And so that trusting relationship takes us a long way.”

The union president also acknowledged the relationship at the bargaining table,
stating:

We try really hard usually to get along with the administration. We realize that

there is a give and take. And we do our homework really well, ﬁguring out how

much actual money there is in the pie. And what we think would be the amount
of money we should be dividing up. . . . On the whole, we’ve gotten along well,
and been able to accomplish the goals that we want.
The parties willingly engaged in an integrative approach to bargaining, recognizing the
beneﬁts of such an approach. The union president stated: “I think our superintendent
that we have now, and the one we had before, I think their goal [has been] to get a
contract in place, so that we can run the school smoothly. And I think that our
association is that way too.”

However, both parties indicated that a cooperative settlement would not be at the
expense of their individual bargaining goals. In other words, the administration and
union communicated an understanding of their responsibility to represent their parties in
getting a fair settlement. In order to do this, both parties spoke of engaging in open,

honest dialogue, and explaining each issue from their individual perspective. In the end,

the parties acknowledged that an agreement was reached that reﬂected common ground.

75

The assistant superintendent told a story about bargaining that reﬂects the sharing
of power, through open and honest dialogue. The administration told the union how
much money was available to their employee group, based on the given budget
constraints. She explained the interaction with the union:

About 11:00 pm, the head negotiator for the teachers came in and said, “Are you

going to insist on Tri-Med (health insurance plan), because if you are insisting on

Tri-Med, we’re going home.” And the superintendent said, “The pot is yours,

we’d love to have you take Tri-Med, because we think it makes sense. But if you

can’t do that, then you understand that you’re going to take less raises.” The

union indicated that “Yes, we understand; ﬁne, we’ll settle the contract with you.”
She continued: “It doesn’t matter to us how you spend it. Do you want to put it in
raises? Do you want to put it in insurance? Do you want to put it in extra-duty
contracts? Do you want to put it in what half the peers wanted to put it into, elementary
planning time?” She summarized:

So, they came in with their priorities. Elementary planning time was number one;

keeping their insurance was number two; and wages were number three. And

they had the pot and they negotiated. . . . So a big chunk of the pot went to
guarantee elementary planning time, to help with equity with secondary teachers.

That was a high priority for them. We costed that out together. They knew how

much it would cost and we knew how much it would cost, over a three-year

period. And as a result, a settlement took place.
Each party knew their individual bottom line, shared the information with each other, and
reached a solution meeting the needs of both the union and the board. The board stayed
within their budget constraints and the union was able to maintain their existing health
insurance and gain additional planning time for elementary teachers. Based on the
example, the board communicated only the amount of the existing funds and did not
dictate how the funds would be allocated.

For this type of bargaining to be effective, it is important for all individuals at the

table to value the integrative approach. In District 1, the previous two contracts had each

been negotiated over a two-day time period and involved only district personnel. In other

76

 

words, the union did not engage the services of the MEA Uniserv director, a trained
negotiator employed by the MBA, and the board did not employ a lawyer to lead their
negotiating team. Instead, administrators and teachers discussed the “shared philosophy
and understanding of the district” and commented on their “successful bargaining
experiences without the services of ‘outsiders.’“ The union president stated:

The couple of times that I negotiated personally on a bargaining team, I think we

had more problems with negotiations brought on by outsiders. The Uniserv

director versus the MASB person. I think we had more trouble that way than we

did when we sat down as colleagues and people and said, “This is what we need,

this is what has to happen.” And, we’ve always had pretty good relations that

way and we’ve had pretty good contracts.
Again, the parties verbalized a belief that this approach solidiﬁed the collaborative
relationship and shared philosophical approach to labor relations that prescribed their
interactions.

Letters of agreement are a means to reach understanding between the parties,
apart from the traditional bargaining table. In the past ﬁve years, District 1 had entered
into six letters of agreement, addressing a mutual understanding of speciﬁc issues. These
issues included deﬁnitions of the “instructional day,” contact time for middle school
teachers, pay rates for extra-duty positions, a retirement incentive, and insurance beneﬁts.
The timing and content of the letters of agreement are evidence of the willingness of both
parties to discuss and resolve issues on a continual basis. The letters are physical
evidence of both parties’ verbalized commitment to reaching collaborative
understandings, on an as-needed basis, rather than waiting for the bargaining event
dictated by the expiration of the Master Agreement.

Managing intemaﬁfferences (conﬂict resolution and problem solvingL As the

parties managed differences, a “fostering” strategy was primarily utilized, involving a

more cooperative approach to achieve a speciﬁc goal or resolution. The parties engaged

77

in frequent or continuous, two-way communication that was initiated through both formal
and informal channels. In District 1, there were opportunities for employees’ voices and
participation in managing differences. The union and the administration communicated a
shared belief that both sides had something valuable to contribute to the processes
involved in managing differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving). The power
of the teachers’ union was derived from their ability to contribute value to these
processes.

As the union and administration engaged in the processes of resolving conﬂict
and problem solving, they initiated frequent, two-way communication. Both parties
communicated their commitment to hearing the perspective of the other party, listening to
the other’s viewpoint, and generating potential remedies to alleviate the conﬂict. The
approach to problem solving also tended to involve dialogue between the parties in an
attempt to generate diverse solutions. The expectation of or commitment to this type of
communication is addressed in the Master Agreement:

Representatives of the Board and Association bargaining committees will meet at

the request of either party for the purpose of reviewing the administration of the

contract, and to resolve problems that may arise or other matters not speciﬁcally

covered by this Agreement. (p. 8)

The assistant superintendent communicated her belief about the importance of involving
others in managing differences, as reﬂected in her statement: “The most effective way to
solve a problem is to get the players together at the table.”

The Master Agreement addresses the issue of involving those who are directly

related to the problem or conﬂict at hand and sets up formal communication channels:

The Board’s designate shall meet with the Association’s designate at agreed upon
times to discuss mutual concerns. (p. 4)

78

The Superintendent and/or his/her designate shall meet with the ofﬁcers and

representatives of the Association at least once a year to air mutual concerns and
problems. . . .(p. 4)

The assistant superintendent acknowledged the formal communication channel
established by the Master Agreement, stating,

A couple of times a year, last year once actually, the Union invited the
Superintendent and [me] to come to one of their meetings, and at that meeting
they told us about issues. But usually, it’s kind of as you need, as you go basis. If
there’s a problem, they can just call. Got something going on here. We want to
meet with you. We’re pretty accessible to them.

The union president referred to similar formal communication, commenting,

Well, we have a time when the superintendent and assistant superintendent come
over and sit down and answer questions from the union board. And it’s usually to
bring up issues and let them know what our concerns are, and why we feel the
way we feel. And he listens. He doesn’t necessarily always do what we want him
to do, but we got to say it. You see what I mean? And we sat down and we
talked about it as a whole board and as a group.

Both parties described the established two-way communication positively and considered
the dialogue to be meaningful. The union president said she believed there was a
“genuine” interest in listening to their perspective.

Even though formal channels of communication had been established,
communication was generally initiated through informal channels. The parties described
the communication as intentional and continuous, with both parties initiating dialogue
when an issue began to surface. The assistant superintendent commented,

I would say we never, never is a pretty strong word, we almost never

communicate formally with the union, without ﬁrst informally having a

conversation. For example, when we wanted to work on Tri-Med in the district,

the superintendent went over and talked to the union people about Tri-Med. What
do you think? He got some input, before he ever put a letter out about Tri-Med.

So, our communications with the union are pretty informal. Hence, we probably

don’t have a lot of grievances, because we resolve issues in a very informal way.

We talk to them. They talk to us. We let them know what’s going on. We try not
to have surprises.

79

When asked, “How often do you have contact with central ofﬁce administration?” the
union president replied,

As often as I want. I walk across the street if I have something, I pick up the

phone and I call and I can ask for the superintendent or assistant superintendent

any time I want. One thing, the superintendent is very open to listening to staff
members. It doesn’t have to funnel through me. If some teacher has a concern,
they can go over there. He’ll listen. It doesn’t mean he’s going to do what they
want him to do, but he’ll listen. And, if it’s something that he can ﬁx, or work
with us on, he’ll do it. I don’t feel like I have limited access at all. I feel he has
access to me any time he wants to, and I have access to him. But I don’t think
that we ought to interrupt each other too much unless it’s an absolute emergency.
The union and administration used both formal and informal channels of communication
to manage differences. They described the communication as frequent and purposeful. If
the administration or the union initiated conversation, the parties “trust that the issue is of
importance.”

Administration made an effort to gain the insights of the teachers when attempting .
to manage differences. Furthermore, both parties acknowledged a shared philosophy that
involving the teachers would enhance the outcome. The union president stated:

I’ve never experienced a big dictatorial type of thing in the whole 30 years I’ve

been here. That’s not how it works here. . . . I think they really try not to be

dictatorial. They try really hard to say to us, “How can we work this out?” I

think that helps us as a district. I think it makes teachers work better, and I think

it gets the teachers on board with most of the projects that they [administration]
want to put through.
Instead of using one-way communication and dictating outcomes, the administration
engaged in a “fostering” strategy as they engaged the union in managing differences.

The administration in District 1 said it had found it beneﬁcial to engage the union

in problem-solving efforts. The parties discussed the situation and explained the

“problem” from their individual perspectives. It was through this discussion that a

solution was generated that served the needs of both parties, allowing each a level of

80

success but not at the expense of the other. The union president offered an example of a

successful joint problem-solving effort:

The contract was settled, and the administration approached us about a buy-out
and teachers retiring. Well, the problem was there was a teacher the
superintendent did not feel was effective in the classroom. In order for the
teacher to retire, he needed to be able to buy a couple of years of service. This
teacher had been in the district for 20-some years. The superintendent called me
and explained the situation and asked, “What can we do?” I did not feel it was
appropriate for the district to target a buy-out for one person. This would send the
message to the community that the teacher was “ﬂawed.” Plus, we would be
negotiating a contract for one person. So, we sat down and we talked about it,
and we were able to set it up so that it was open to six positions and there were 25
to 30 teachers eligible to take advantage of the agreement and retire. That was a
case where the administration didn’t come down with a dictatorial position and
make a decision. They came to us and said, “Can we work this out?” In the end
it helped our unit, but it also helped them.

In this scenario, the union and administration generated a solution by communicating
their individual perspectives of the problem. Keeping in mind the goals of both parties,
they were able to develop a solution, which both claimed met their needs and was
mutually beneﬁcial.
The union president offered another example of administration engaging the
union in joint problem-solving efforts. She explained,
As president, the very ﬁrst thing that happened to me was that we were having big
construction at the school, and I mean major. Well, the construction people
couldn’t meet the deadline to start school. The administration called me in and
asked, “Can we modify the contact here to start school later?” Well, we all took a
tour through the place and yeah, it wasn’t safe for students and it wasn’t safe for
staff, and so we sat down and we modiﬁed the schedules, to make it work.
Again, the administration sought the union’s assistance with addressing an issue or
problem that was going to affect their mutual goal of educating students. As a result of a

collaborative approach to problem solving, the union and administration were able to

agree on a viable solution that both believed would positively affect teaching and

81

 

 

learning. This agreement was reached through dialogue and the Sharing of power and the
sharing of responsibility for delivering the program.

The union and administration spoke of mutual trust and respect, and
communicated their belief that this had affected the success of a collaborative approach
to problem solving and conﬂict resolution. The assistant superintendent stated:

I think that primarily people feel that the system works. They trust the central
ofﬁce people. Their association representatives are successﬁrl. You know at the
building level resolving whatever the differences are. If in the rare instances that
a teacher might come over here to talk to the superintendent or me, we’re able to
resolve that with a discussion. And it doesn’t have to go to a formal level with the
union. I think it has a lot to do with trust. People trust each other.

In resolving conﬂict, again, the parties engaged in two-way dialogue, attempting to reach
a resolution that would address the needs of the union and administration. The assistant
superintendent offered the following example:

We had a teacher two years ago who did come into central ofﬁce. There was a
new principal, and she felt like she was being treated unfairly. She was a
probationary teacher. We were working on really improving her in the classroom.
She really did need to have some help. She was not able to take constructive
criticism very well, was frustrated, came over here, and bared her soul and said
“I’m not being treated fairly.” In that case, she was very ﬁ'ustrated with the
evaluation, but we were really able to meet as a group. It was a large group that
time. Again with the group stuff. Group therapy or something, I don’t know. It
was a large group. It involved the principal, the superintendent, myself, the union
association representative, and the Uniserv person at that time. It wasn’t a
grievance. It was a conversation about evaluation. I think when we left that
meeting, everybody had an understanding of where we were going, that we had a
right to evaluate a teacher, that we had a right to try to improve instruction. The
teacher had issues, she needed to maybe be more open minded. But a year later,
as a result I think of that meeting and kind of talking it out, the teacher actually
went up to the principal and thanked him for hanging in there and trying to make
her a better teacher. In that meeting, I think the Uniserv person was kind of
adversarial. But I felt like the association representative saw both sides and was
very helpful in counseling the teacher to . . . that was the person who worked with
her. Very helpful in bridging . . . listen, these aren’t the bad guys. You know,
let’s give them a chance. The union was very helpful.

She continued,

82

We in the past have had a very, very good trusting relationship with the union.

And I think that has taken us a heck of a long way. Because they don’t feel like

we’re out to get anybody. They feel like if we really do look at dismissing a

teacher or if we really are reprimanding, that we probably have good reason. So

the union, the local union people were very helpful in helping us resolve that
situation.

The grievance process is one method of resolving conﬂicts. In general, a
grievance process is considered to be “adversarial” in nature. It is initiated when a
bargaining unit member or the union believes the terms of the Master Agreement have
been violated, infringing on their employment rights. In general, the grievance process
forces the administration to hear the concerns of the union, and it ensures due process.

The formal grievance process, as outlined in the Master Agreement, encourages
dialogue to resolve the issue, before reducing it to writing. It states:

Level One - A bargaining unit member or the Association believing that an

alleged violation of the express terms of this Agreement has occurred, shall within

ten (10) days of its alleged occurrence orally discuss the grievance with the

building principal in an attempt to resolve the same. (p. 11)

Initiating a written grievance as the sole means to resolve issues would contradict the
philosophies and behaviors exhibited by the union and administration.

In District 1, one way the administration minimized the number of grievances was
to seek the expertise of the union leadership. In an attempt to “clarify or validate”
administration’s understanding of contract language, the administration would dialogue
with the union about their interpretation of the speciﬁc language in question. The
assistant superintendent stated:

I think we bring the union in when we have . . . when there’s a question about

interpretation of contract lines. I would without hesitation call the union president

and say, “Okay, we have a situation, this is how I’m interpreting it, what’s your
recollection?”

Verifying the meaning of contract language might validate the administration’s action, or

a discrepancy in the interpretation might surface. If this was the case, the union and

83

administration would discuss the differing interpretations, come to a common
understanding, and avoid a grievance for a misapplication of the language.

In District 1, the union had ﬁled no formal grievances over the past ﬁve years.
However, this does not mean that conﬂicts did not exist. Instead, the parties described
their efforts to resolve the conﬂict through open, two-way communication. The parties
communicated their commitment to “hearing and addressing the concerns of the other,”
rather than forcing the issue into the adversarial process of the grievance procedure. The
union president stated, “[This is] not to say that we haven’t had some problems and
things that we disagree with, but most of the time, we’ll go over and sit down and work it
out. And we’ve been able to do that without having to go to that extreme.” She
continued,

There’s not a lot of juicy stuff. I’m sorry, but we haven’t had a grievance in ﬁve

years. And that is not to say that I haven’t gone over there and talked with the

assistant superintendent and said, “Look, this teacher has been on staff for almost

30 years. There was a slip-up here, and she didn’t do what you wanted her to do,

it was not intentional, you put a letter in her ﬁle, can we get this letter out, if she

does this, this and this.” The administration’s intent was not to crucify her, either.

And we were able to work that out and get the letter out of the ﬁle. The teacher

felt better about it; the administrator involved that had to give it to her was happy

too. But, we’ve been able to do those kinds of things. I hope that continues.

That’s kind of what we want to do.

Administration and the union identiﬁed a “a conscious and intentional” effort to
engage in two-way, continuous communication to manage differences (conﬂict resolution
and problem solving). They said managing differences through open and honest
communication allowed varying perspectives to surface and promoted a resolution that
was viewed as fair and satisfactory to both parties. In this structure, the parties primarily

engaged in a fostering strategy, and both said they had experienced success with this

approach.

84

Decision maki_ng. The approach to decision making in District 1 was dependent
on the type of decision. There were some decisions that had to be made at the
administrative level, due to the nature of the decision. However, if the decision would
have an impact on teachers, the district involved them in the process. It was the belief of
the administration that seeking insights from teachers would only serve to better inform
the administration as decisions were made. The teachers might be used as resources or
sources of information to guide the decision-making process. Resulting decisions often
had the support of the teachers because they were part of the process.

The assistant superintendent reﬂected on the types of decisions addressed by
administration. She deﬁned the roles of administration and teachers in the decision-
making process, stating:

There are really three types of decisions. Here’s this issue and I want you to solve

it. It’s your decision, ﬁne. Or, here’s this issue and we’re going to work on it

together and decide it together, or the third kind where I would say, here’s this
problem, I would like some input from you, but I’m going to make the decision.

Not everything is a group decision. I do think you have to clearly think about

who’s going to make that decision when you get all done. I think you get into

danger sometimes with staff and personnel when we share problems with them
and talk about the problems with them and lead them to believe that they’re going
to be able to make the decision, when we don’t . . . in the end, we are only
gathering input.
Depending on the type of decision, teachers might or might not be brought into the
decision-making process. At times, insights from teachers were used to inform
administrative decisions. At other times, teachers were active in making the ﬁnal
decision. In any case, administration expressed the importance of communicating with
teachers from the beginning and deﬁning their actual role in the speciﬁc decision at hand.

The district had found beneﬁt in using the union’s insights and perspectives

before making ﬁnal decisions. The administration communicated their belief that if the

85

union was actively engaged in the ﬁnal decision-making process, it promoted
commitment to and support for the outcome. The superintendent commented:

We sometimes bring the union in when we want to start, let’s say an initiative.

For example, let’s say we think it’s a good idea to contribute money or donate to

some huge cause; we would bring the union in to get their support. So that

together we launch a project of some kind. We would do that, seek their
cooperation. Another example, you want to come in and interview people. We,
we have to talk to the union about that. Asking them, “How do you feel about
that?” You know, we just ask.
The union president stated, “Administration is pretty good about running decisions by
me, as the president, or bringing in myself and maybe asking me to bring along a couple
of people from the union, that I think might be helpful to the situation. We’ll sit down
and we’ll talk about it.” The union felt a part of the decision-making process. They
acknowledged that they contributed value to the ﬁnal outcome, again reinforcing the
sharing of power and responsibility in District 1.

The Master Agreement acknowledges the district’s commitment to seeking input
from teachers in the decision-making process. As decisions are made at the board level,
regarding policies and regulations, the union is offered an opportunity to communicate
their perspective on the issue. As an example, the Master Agreement states,

The Association will be notiﬁed in advance of any pending policy adoption and

shall have the opportunity to inform the Board of its position on proposed policy.

The Association Shall have the opportunity to recommend areas in which policies

might be adopted or changed. (p. 5)

Another reference in the Master Agreement to the union’s opportunity to communicate

their perspective reads:

The Association shall have the opportunity to inform the Administration of its
position on proposed rules and regulations. The Association shall have the
opportunity to recommend areas in which administrative rules and regulations
might be adopted or changed. (p. 5)

86

The Master Agreement reﬂects the board’s and union’s beliefs that teachers offer a
valuable perspective when making administrative hiring decisions. The Master
Agreement reads:

The Board recognizes the contribution that bargaining unit members can make in

the selection of building level administrators. It is hereby agreed that the Board

shall involve bargaining unit members in the selection of a new administrator

according to the following procedure. . . .(p. 31)

Even though the board makes the ﬁnal decision in the selection of a new administrator, it
has been clearly communicated that teacher input is an important and valued part of the
selection process. The role of teachers in the ﬁnal decision has been clearly deﬁned, and
their contributions to the process will inform the board’s ﬁnal decision.

The commitment to involving teachers in decision making and problem solving is
also evidenced in the use of joint committees. A Class Size Relief Committee composed
of two bargaining unit members and two representatives of the board, as well as a
timeline for addressing a class-size overload, is established by the Master Agreement.
The purpose of this committee is to review the circumstances surrounding a class-size
overload and formulate a recommendation to the superintendent. Other joint committees
exist around interviewing panels, developing guidelines for the sick bank, making
curriculum decisions, and revising the teacher evaluation process. In all instances,
administration and teachers come together to share their expertise and offer insights, in an
effort to produce an enhanced outcome. The superintendent stated,

I think we’re very open on both sides to having joint committees to work together

if something arises. And we’ve don’t it around the evaluation tool. We don’t

think about it as, “Oh, I’ll get a union together to do this.” We think about it as,

“Let’s go get some people together to work on this.”

Often, there isn’t an “us” and “them”; it is a working relationship based on “we.”

Forming such partnerships relinquishes some of the employer’s “power,” enabling labor

87

to derive some power from its ability to contribute value. It also reinforces the concept
that the administrators and union are working together for the mutual goal of maintaining
an effective learning environment.

A philosophy and approach similar to that utilized for managing differences was
used for decision making. If the decision was going to affect the working environment
for teachers, an approach based on two-way communication, seeking input from others
and allowing varying perspectives to surface, was initiated. The insights generated by the
various parties, guided the decision-making process. District 1 acknowledged all types of
decisions and recognized that some decisions were best made as a partnership, some
decisions were best made after considering varying perspectives, and other decisions
were best made by the administration and the board.

Summary of district/organizational level relationship. At the district or
organizational level, District 1 had established and maintained a cooperative,
collaborative employer/teacher relationship, based on mutual trust and respect. It was the
belief of the union and administration that this type of relationship helped the parties
realize their mutual goal of maintaining a quality educational environment. Furthermore,
the mutual commitment to engaging in a partnership based on a cooperative approach to
their interactions dictated or prescribed the behaviors of both parties in the relationship.

The union and administration engaged in an integrative approach to bargaining
the Master Agreement, seeking mutually acceptable outcomes that addressed the needs of
both parties. In this relationship, there was a signiﬁcant sharing of power and
responsibility for the functioning of the organization. The prescribed behavior in the
district was primarily a “fostering” approach, where input from both the union and

administration was sought and valued. Resolutions or outcomes were not forced on

88

either party; rather, the parties used both formal and informal communication channels to
engage in what they characterized as “open and honest” two-way communication. Both
parties communicated a belief that gaining the other’s perspective promoted diverse
solutions and added value to the outcome.

In general, the union and administration had a history of shared successes,
resulting from a cooperative and collaborative approach to the relationship. Both parties
acknowledged and respected the mixture of partnership and representative roles they had
to assume as they engaged in the employer/teacher relationship at the district or
organizational level. The union president summarized her perspective on the
relationship, stating:

This is not a relationship based on animosity. We’ve been able to do a lot of give

and take. A lot of times the Uniserv directors are amazed at what we’re able to

accomplish. And they will back off and let us do this because we can work it out.

I think it’s a good place to work. And most of the teachers in this district think it

18 too.

Building or Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relaﬁons

The employer/teacher relationship also exists at the building or individual level.
The processes of managing internal differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving)
and decision making occur at the building level between principals and teachers. Three
building-level administrators were interviewed, which offered an opportunity for varying
leadership styles. However, in general, the employer/teacher relationship at the building
or individual level in District 1 tended to reﬂect the relationship at the district level. The
relationships were based on a cooperative and collaborative approach, resulting in a
commitment on behalf of the employees.

The joint emphasis on mutual goals exhibited at the district level also existed at

the individual level. The teachers and administrators acknowledged the shared

89

commitment to interact in a cooperative manner, with the ultimate goal or outcome of
establishing and maintaining quality programs for children. A building-level
administrator stated, “The bottom line is we all want to make kids successful. And so,
how can we do that? It’s through talking with each other; it’s through moving ahead and
not being stuck in our little boxes.”

A focus group of teachers addressed the shared commitment of administrators and
teachers to working together collaboratively, stating,

I think that this is at least one district where the administration and teachers seem

to have a common goal, or at least pretty much similar philosophies. And similar

ideas on ways to problem solve and the way to address issues in the school. So

when you have that, things tend to run fairly smoothly.

A focus group of teachers commented on the “positive relationship” between the
employer and teachers, stating,

I would have to think that part of it [positive relationship] has to do with the

success of the district. As far as kids are doing well, they’re going on to colleges

or work outside of their graduation. The community seems pretty happy with the

school district. When you eliminate those kinds of issues from the district, then

not many people are going to complain, no matter what the situation. I think both

sides see things as being successful, as it is.
The teachers commented further, “I think it’s because we have been so successful, and
the kids are so good. You know they’re not great kids, but you never have 100% great
kids, but I think just because of success there is a good relationship.” Teachers and
administrators at the building level said approaching the employer/ teacher relationship
with this shared philosophical base had contributed to the perceived success of the
parties, and ultimately the district.

The individuals perspective on baggaining the Master Agreement. District 1

engaged in “expedited” bargaining at the district or organizational level. The bargaining

process addressed a limited number of issues and occurred over a two-day period of time.

90

The parties utilized an integrative approach, discussing the issues from their own
perspective, and together they generated potential solutions. There was a sharing of
relevant information, and ultimately power, to assist the teachers and board in their
efforts to ﬁnd common solutions that would meet the needs of both parties.

The actual bargaining was done at the district or organizational level. However,
the outcome of the bargaining directly affected teachers and administrators at the
individual level. One administrator commented,

We’ve been fortunate; we have had a very good teacher/administrator

relationship. The superintendent has been able to articulate and also provide

documentation as to what this district can afford to do, and what they cannot
afford to do and has laid that out to the bargaining members from the teachers’
unit.

Another building-level administrator offered his perspective:

I think, over all, our process is a pretty positive one, in terms of we try to expedite

the process. . . . I think it’s real give and take. Of course, my point of view is that

there is never one side that does better than the other, or takes advantage or
anything like that. There’s generally a compromise kind of a position where
things end. Also, there’s some kind of untouchables. There are some things that
the union just absolutely will not ever negotiate about. And the administration
feels the same way about some things as well.
The administrator’s statement communicated his perception that cooperative settlements
reached during the negotiations process would not be at the expense of the individual
bargaining goals of the board or union. He communicated his understanding that the
parties balanced their roles as collaborators and as protectors of those they represented.

Individual teachers also reﬂected on the bargaining process in District 1.

When asked about how bargaining was done, one teacher focus group replied, “It seems
to get done pretty quickly compared to where I was. It wasn’t long and drawn out, but it

seems like there is a lot more communication between both administration and union here

than in the other district I was at.” Another individual teacher commented,

91

I think our pay increase was 2% across the board. And then in other districts, they
got more. And that made us [feel] up the creek a little bit. But for the most part, I
think it’s pretty open. I think our administration does a decent job of trying to be
honest with us. They’re not out to get us. And other districts I’ve been in,
everything was hostile. Here, obviously, I wish we got more, but I don’t think
they’re out to get us.

I would say that the relationship between administration and staff is fairly
positive, and I don’t know if that’s a good or bad part of negotiating. But it’s
good in the sense that it gets over with quick and there are not many disputes. But
I think, on the negative side, we might not get as much as we would if there was a
little bit more conﬂict there. Nobody really wants to offend the other side too
much.

Even though the teachers might not have been completely satisﬁed with the outcome of
negotiations, they communicated their belief that there was a sense of fairness about the
process. Further, they said they viewed negotiations as a “cooperative effort where
parties aren’t attempting to take advantage of each other.”
Individual teachers did communicate some concerns about expedited bargaining.
Some saw the short period of time the parties actually engaged in the process as a
“detriment” to the ﬁnal agreement. Even though the teachers ratiﬁed the agreement, one
focus group verbalized concerns about the time constraints and communication, stating:
When we were smaller, it was easier to understand the process and what the
issues were. But as we’ve gotten larger, it’s harder to feel like you know what is
going on. It seems the process takes place, but I’m not aware of the product until
it’s too late . . . it’s already been decided. . . . I felt like I didn’t know what was
going on.

Another teacher focus group shared the same concern:

They wanted it settled and they wanted it settled quickly, and we weren’t given a
lot of time to process it. . . .We didn’t have time to analyze how does it impact us?
Let’s think about beneﬁts and what exactly do they mean, and all of those pieces.
It was all decided very quickly and you know, when it was all said and done, the
general feeling was, Who voted for that? We didn’t vote for that. . . . There were
tradeoffs for the planning time at the elementary level; we didn’t realize that. We
all got the ﬁnal pieces. I don’t think there was enough communication.

One group commented on the expedited bargaining process and the limited

amount of information available at the time of bargaining:

92

I don’t like it [expedited bargaining] at all because I don’t think we’re aware of
what funds are going to be available to try to bargain for. I think that’s the
biggest problem for me in this contract. It was settled early, with very minimal
raise, and then come to ﬁnd out there’s quite a bit more money in the pool after
we settled than we knew was going to be there.

Despite the concerns vocalized about the bargaining process, the teachers
continued to express their “general” satisfaction with the employer/teacher relationship
that existed in District 1. They communicated their belief that administration valued
teacher input and respected them as professionals. Further, the teachers vocalized their
appreciation of the collaborative relationship between administration and teachers.

Managing internal differences: Conﬂict resolution and problem solvig= As the
parties managed differences, a “fostering” strategy was primarily used, involving a more
cooperative approach to achieve a Speciﬁc goal or resolution. The parties engaged in
frequent, two-way communication that was initiated through both formal and informal
channels. The teachers and administration communicated a shared belief that both sides
had something valuable to contribute to the processes involved in managing differences
(conﬂict resolution and problem solving).

As the teachers and administrators engaged in the processes of resolving conﬂict
and problem solving, they initiated frequent, two-way communication. Both parties
communicated their commitment to hearing the perspective of the other party, listening to
the other’s viewpoint, and generating potential remedies to alleviate the conﬂict. The
approach to problem solving also tended to involve dialogue between the parties in an
attempt to generate diverse solutions. The expectation or commitment to this type of

communication is addressed in the Master Agreement: :The principal and the

Association Representative shall meet at least once each month for the purpose of

93

reviewing the administration of the contract and to resolve problems which may arise,
unless they mutually agree that such meetings are not necessary” (p. 8).

Both parties said that the communication was intentional and frequent, with either
party initiating dialogue when an issue arose. Administrators communicated their desire
to maintain open communication channels with employees. They had established a
variety of formal, one-way communication channels to keep teachers informed of
relevant information, as well as formal and informal two-way communication channels
allowing for the exchange of perspectives. When asked about communication channels, a
building-level administrator explained,

First of all it’s personal. It’s one to one. We also have e-mail, periodic staff

meetings, a weekly memo, other memos. I think that by and large we do a pretty

good job of getting information out to staff, and keeping them informed of timely
issues. . . .The weekly memo gives them an outline as to what my schedule looks
like through the week, so that if they need to get in touch with me, they know
exactly when and where I’m going to be in the building, or if I’m going to be out
of the building. . . .We try to provide staff communication on a regular basis.
The other administrators listed similar communication channels. The teachers said they
recognized and appreciated the administrative efforts in this area and commented, “The
administrators are always out in the halls. . . .They are always available, accessible.”
Another teacher focus group stated, “There’s an open door policy. If we seek them out,
we can have informal conversations. They’re very approachable.” Both parties said
they recognized the value of communication in maintaining the existing employer/teacher
relationship.

Respondents declared that the power of the teachers was derived from their ability

to contribute value to the processes involved in managing differences (conﬂict resolution

and problem solving). Both parties communicated a shared philosophy that involving the

teachers would enhance the outcome. The building-level administration offered

94

examples of how they actively sought and valued teachers’ contributions and input.
When asked about problem solving at the building level, one principal commented,

Depending on the problem, we try to involve the people that are involved.

. . .Generally we try to work as a team. Approach the problem that more heads
are better than one kind of a thing. There are some problems that pretty much
administratively get solved by myself. I think that’s okay.

This same administrator acknowledged the importance of seeking teacher input, but
admitted that the ﬁnal solution might come out of his ofﬁce. The teachers in this

building commented,

I feel like when there is an issue and we aren’t all united as a faculty on what
should happen, I think our administrator calls it. You know, I think he listens to
us and what we have to say, but I feel like he makes his choice and we all live
with it. Some examples would be gum chewing, backpacks in classrooms, [and]
kids wearing bandanas and hats. As a teaching staff, we couldn’t reach
agreement, so administration made the decision.

In this particular building, input was sought by the teachers and taken into consideration
by the administration. However, the teachers communicated an acceptance of the

practice whereby the principal dictated the ﬁnal solution, once the varying perspectives
had been heard.

Often times, problems or issues were addressed in small groups, with
recommendations made to the larger faculty. A focus group of teachers commented,

We’ll start in a staff meeting and we’ll have lots of different opinions, and it just
doesn’t seem to go anywhere. And then the administration will say “Okay, if
you’re real concerned about this and you want some input, we’ll set up a
committee.” The committee will meet on the issue and offer input. Then a rough
draft will be in our mailboxes for any comments. There is ample opportunity to
give your input. I mean, there is tons--more than is needed sometimes. We
appreciate that. I mean, I do.

The teacher focus group continued,

If there’s a problem, they [administration] usually ask for our input. So, there’s
not a lot of “This is the way you’re going to handle this problem.” It’s more of a
small group and/or staff input. I think you see that, at most of the staff meetings
when problems do come up that need some work done on them, that both the

95

administration and the staff tend to go on the basis of “Let’s form a committee to
go solve this problem.”

The grading policy is an example. We were on a scale of 4.3, where there
were A+’s involved, and a committee was formed to discuss whether or not that
was a good option. . . .There were varying viewpoints on the faculty. . . . After
researching what some other districts were doing, we went back to the 4.0 system
with the freshman class.

A building-level administrator commented on problem solving:

I try to get staff to talk things through in small groups and try to develop some
type of consensus to solve that problem. But what I’m ﬁnding is that people just
want me to solve the problem for them. It’s not my style. So I’m trying to teach
people that we can problem solve together. . . . But we’re at the very beginnings
of trying to create that kind of an environment. I think that comes back to trying
to trust me, and what my role is in working with staff and working with kids.

For example, the literacy grant. I kept telling them, “It’s not for me this
program is being developed. It’s being developed for you in the classroom. What
are your needs? How do you think things should be done?” And trying to get
that kind of discussion going with people. . . . So we do it in small groups, and
then the small groups make recommendations to the whole group.

Both parties said there was a belief that teachers could make valuable
contributions to the process of problem solving. Building-level administration identiﬁed
“intentional efforts” that were made to promote opportunities for teachers to share their
expertise in ﬁnding acceptable and viable solutions.

Administrators and teachers said that resolving conﬂict at the building or
individual level was usually accomplished through “open and honest” communication.
When a building-level administrator was asked how conﬂicts were resolved in her
building, she explained,

For example, morning announcements. One of the things that I always thought

was a welcoming thing to do, was just to let staff know that today in a certain

teacher’s classroom there was a substitute. . . . People felt this was a major

infringement on their privacy. . . . I explained my rationale, but it was a battle I

didn’t want to ﬁght. The association representatives came and sat down and

talked with me. And we talked it through and it was ﬁne.

The building-level administrator shared her commitment to dialogue and to listening to

varying perspectives on an issue.

96

Administration communicated their respect of the contract and their value of the
collaborative relationship between teachers and administrators. They said their goal was
to resolve conﬂicts in a fair and open manner. When asked about resolving conﬂict at the
building level, one administrator stated,

In this district, I would say that if there is an issue with the union on a certain

issue, I think we have a responsibility to ﬁnd out the legitimacy of the issue. And

if we’re not in compliance or we’re not doing things the right way, then it’s our
responsibility to make sure that it’s done in the right way.
Another administrator reﬂected on his commitment to sharing perspectives and valuing
that process. He stated,
In dealing with conﬂict, I deal directly with the teacher. You know, I think a
good part of our staff feels comfortable coming in and talking with me, or now
that we have teams, the team certainly will. We just sit down with the team. You
know a lot of it is just sharing and venting, getting things off their chest and
letting them know how you feel. And then you try and come back and talk about
the global picture, the big picture, all the kinds of things you can do.
Both parties communicated that they had experienced success at resolving issues in this
manner.

Teachers at the building level communicated their belief that their thoughts and
feelings were heard by administration and that the outcome was just. A teacher focus
group commented on resolving conﬂict, stating,

But, I think things that would make me unhappy probably aren’t contractual

things. They’re more just things that you need to talk to them, talk to an

administrator in person and ﬁnd out their perspective on something. You know, if

it is a parent contact, and they decided, they set up something to do to help a

student without referring to the teacher ﬁrst, those kinds of issues . . . .

Teachers emphasized the initiation of two-way dialogue to resolve issues with
administration.

One focus group of teachers described an interaction with administration related

to the process of mapping the curriculum. The administration engaged the services of

97

outside consultants to assist with this task. The teachers started to offer feedback on how
“bad the people were doing.” The focus group continued, “The administration really
listened when we told them this is why we don’t want to do it. They said okay, got rid of
the people, and got our own people to do it.” The teachers said the conﬂict was “easily
resolved” and attributed this to open, honest, two-way communication between teachers
and administrators. Further, they communicated the feeling that administration valued
the input of the teachers and remedied the situation.

The grievance process is one method of resolving conﬂicts. In general, a
grievance process is considered to be adversarial in nature. The grievance process forces
the administration to hear the concerns of the teachers and ensures due process. In
District 1, the union had not ﬁled a formal grievance in the past ﬁve years. When
teachers at the building level were asked about this fact, they responded,

Because we both follow the rules. If you can read the contract and understand

what it is saying and you follow the contract, why do you need grievances? Or if

you can go to the administration and say, “Hey, you’re doing something that’s not
quite right.” And they go, “Oh yeah, we are and we shouldn’t be doing that.”

That’s kind of what happens, I think. I mean, they do something, they violate

something, I think they try to solve it ﬁrst before it gets to that grievance process.

I think that’s a good tribute to the leadership we have in the union and the

leadership we have in the administration. They understand.

An administrator explained the lack of grievances, stating:
I have a responsibility to follow the contract. . . . I have a responsibility to the
association representatives in terms of letting them know if there’s going to be
any kind of a suit in hand, if it’s a contractual issue, whether it’s one person or as
a whole. I make sure I am aware of that from their perspective.

Both parties communicated their belief that there was mutual respect for the terms and

conditions set forth in the Master Agreement. Furthermore, both the teachers and

administrators communicated their commitment to discuss issues in an attempt to reach a

98

common understanding. Both parties said there was a general sense that “no one is out
to get anybody.”

Administration and teachers at the building level identiﬁed a “a conscious and
intentional” effort to engage in two-way communication to manage differences (conﬂict
resolution and problem solving). They said that managing differences through open and
honest communication allowed varying perspectives to surface and promoted a resolution
that was viewed as fair and satisfactory to both parties. Within this structure, the parties
primarily engaged in a fostering strategy, and both said they had experienced success
with this approach.

Decision making. At the building level in District 1, decision making often
involved input from teachers. The building-level administration said that they believed
seeking insights from teachers would only serve to better inform the administration as
decisions were made. The teachers might be used as resources or sources of information
to guide the decision-making process. Both parties said they recognized that involving
the teachers in this process resulted in decisions that were better received and generally
had the support of the teachers.

The Master Agreement acknowledges the district’s commitment to seeking input
from teachers in the decision-making process. As decisions are made at the building
level, teachers are offered the opportunity to communicate their perspective on the issue.
As an example, the Master Agreement states:

New approaches in stafﬁng and scheduling may involve changes in the length and

number of class periods taught and the number of students in a given class;

however, such changes shall be implemented only upon mutual agreement
between the building administrator and the affected staff. (p. 19)

99

The administration’s approach to decision making at the building level was
dependent of the type of decision. There were some decisions that needed to be made by
the administrator, due to the nature of the decision. However, if the decision would affect
the teachers, the administrator would involve them in the process. One administrator
explained,

It depends on the circumstances. . . . There are times when I have to make
decisions that I feel are best for the building, that I do solely from an
administrative top-down. And then there’s also times where there’s a great deal
of staff involved and we come to a consensus. I guess a good example of that
would be last Spring there was somewhat of a controversy in the fact that we were
bringing a police ofﬁcer into this building.

This would be an example of inclusive decision making, trying to come to
some consensus on whether or not this would happen. And frankly, I’ll be honest
with you, I was in favor of bringing a police ofﬁcer into this building because for
me it was another set of eyes. It was an opportunity for kids to . . . you know, I
wasn’t looking for somebody to be walking through the hallways and be punitive
to kids. Or looking to make things a little bit tougher around here. But what I
was looking for was perhaps a connection between students and township police,
to foster some kind of connection between those two groups of people, and to
build relationships. And yet there was a certain segment of the staff that felt this
was going to be detrimental to our school, not present the district in a such a
positive manner. And so, after a lot of discussions, and the superintendent was
involved as well, because he was in favor of doing this, lots of discussions,
because of some of the dissatisfaction of the staff about bringing somebody in, as
well as some of the community members’ concerns about it, we decided against
bringing in the police ofﬁcer. . . . It was probably almost a two-month process of a
lot of discussions, ongoing discussions, before we made that decision.

The teacher focus group commented on the decision-making process regarding the same
issue:

The police ofﬁcer in the building, there was a lot of people that didn’t like it. And
basically what the administration did was form some informational committees
and decided, you know, instead of administrators coming down and saying we’re
going to have a police ofﬁcer in the building, they let us voice our opinion and
vote basically as buildings, I think. It came down to people in the building really
didn’t think we had a need for that. So we don’t have a police ofﬁcer in the
buildings. 1 think the superintendent was really for it.

100

The focus group continued, “Rarely do we have a directive: You have to do this, or this
is the way we’re gong to do it. The administration tends to be involved with the
committees. They’re just members of the committees and provide their input.”

In another building, teachers had a direct inﬂuence on initiating the decision-
making process, as well as the ﬁnal outcome. The building principal gave the following
example:

We had some teachers who went out and did some observations in another

district, and they saw a program called Monday Morning meeting, where the

whole school gets together and you start out the week together. Each classroom
takes on a program and does something that has to do with character values, or
maybe it’s historical or whatever. And so as a building we decided we wanted to
do that. . . . A small group of people volunteered to organize it.
Teachers said they thought the administration genuinely listened to their input.
Furthermore, they believed their input actually inﬂuenced the decision-making process,
resulting in a sense of responsibility for resulting decisions and a commitment to the
process.

At another building in the district, more of the decisions tended to be made by the
building administrator, but only after seeking input from staff. He commented,

They’re [decisions] primarily made through this ofﬁce. I guess you have to look

at the dynamics of the staff. Before me, I think there was a lot of voting on ‘

things. There would be a lot of meetings, you know, trying to ﬁgure things out
about doing stuff, with very little action, a lot of inaction. . . . So as a result,
basically our process, and I still continue it today, and sometimes to criticism, but
that’s the way I operate, is that we’ll make the decisions through the ofﬁce, but
we’ll have input. Whether it’s meetings, or discussions, we’ll have good input
and feedback and all that kind of stuff. But we don’t vote on anything. It’s not by
consensus. It’s not that kind of thing; the decision comes out of here.

The teachers’ account of the decision-making process was similar. They said they

accepted the role of the teacher and administrator, and believed the process efﬁciently

and effectively dealt with decisions.

101

Each of the three teacher focus groups articulated their feelings and were in

9’

agreement that “I’m happy to be here, “The employer/teacher relationship here is pretty
positive,” and “There is a positive atmosphere overall.” Furthermore, there was a sense
that teachers behaved and were treated like professionals. One teacher focus group
commented, “If you approach your job as a professional, they treat you as a professional
and they let you go about and do your job. I think that’s the key as to why our school
runs so well.” An administrator stated, “People are very professional here. Their ﬁrst
obligation is to the classroom and what is happening there.”

The teachers thought District 1 was a good place to pursue their teaching careers
and had exhibited their commitment to educating children, speciﬁcally to educating the
children in District 1. An administrator offered an example of this commitment:

I have to say, I have a great staff. And they are very, very supportive of the things

that I’ve asked, that the administration has asked. A good example of that is just

last two days; we’ve had a bond issue that just recently passed. And they [the
teachers] were very, very, in my opinion, instrumental in getting that bond passed.

They made sure that their colleagues voted, they made sure their spouses got out

and voted. We have a large number of teachers that live in this district and send

their students here. There are a large number of teachers that work elsewhere, in
other districts, that send their children to our district. I will tell you that our own
staff here was instrumental in making those contacts to those people and

encouraging them to vote, in a positive manner, toward this bond issue. I have a

very good feeling about this staff, and [I’m] very appreciative of the things they

do for us.

At the individual level, in the areas of conﬂict resolution, problem solving, and
decision making, the processes were similar to those at the district level. In general, the
teachers and administrators at the building level had established and maintained a
collaborative, COOperative, and trusting employer/teacher relationship. In this
relationship there was a signiﬁcant sharing of power and responsibility for the

functioning of the building. The prescribed behavior was based on a “fostering”

approach, where input from both administration and teachers was sought and valued.

102

 

Administration made an effort to approach conﬂicts, problems, and appropriate decisions
in a collaborative way. In the end, the teachers demonstrated a commitment to

participating in these processes, with a belief that they added value to the educational

environment.

Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationship

As I interviewed the various individuals within their roles, many communicated
their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for employer/
teacher relations in the district. The superintendent was viewed as promoting a
cooperative relationship based on compromise and collaboration. This was evidenced by
the response of a building-level administrator when asked about the relationship between
the teachers and the administrators over time:

I think it’s always been a good working relationship from my perspective. And I
think it has to do with the leadership from the top. Our superintendent and
assistant superintendent, I believe, have always been very, very fair and have been
able to . . . and when I say fair, fair with not only the administrators in the district,
but with all employees. Not just teaching staff, but support staff as well. And I
think that that is a, for lack of a better word, just kind of an atmosphere they have
created. And, I think I would hope the union would say the same, that there’s a
good feeling. I think there’s a trusting feeling between administrators and
teaching staff. Although I don’t think you can go anywhere without having a
feeling of distrust. Or [if] there is some distrust out there, I would say by and
large, there’s a pretty good feeling.

Also, it must be noted that there was little tumover in administration or of
individuals in leadership roles in District 1. The same can be said about the union
leadership at the district level, and the teachers at the building level. Table 3.1 represents

the longevity of speciﬁc district employees.

103

Table 3.1

Longevity in District 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employee Years in Current Total Years in
Position District 1
Superintendent 1 l l 1
Assistant superintendent 3 32
High school principal 3.5 11
Middle school princpml ll 11
Elementary school Lrincipal 3 3
Union president 4 30
Teachers 10* 10*

 

*Average years of experience of teachers participating in focus groups.

The assistant superintendent commented,

I think it’s [the employer/teacher relationship] been pretty stable because the
union leadership has been pretty stable. Administratively, we have been pretty
stable in the district. But when we look at the number of new administrators we
have, we realize that we have a lot of them. And yet they don’t feel, for whatever
reason, like they’re brand new. We’ve done a decent job of hiring people that ﬁt

well with us.

This shared commitment to a collaborative relationship and the intentional

behaviors that promote a cooperative environment had endured over time. As a result, the

parties had experienced a history of shared successes, the collaborative approach had

persisted, and a culture of cooperation and commitment had been established and

maintained.

Summary of District 1 Case Study

Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher
relationship at District 1 can be categorized as cooperation/commitment. There was a
cooperative relationship between the employer and the teachers’ union, and a high level

of commitment on behalf of the employees. According to the deﬁnition of a relationship

104

 

based on cooperation/commitment (see Chapter 1), District 1 exhibited the following

characteristics:

1. The parties placed joint emphasis on mutual goals.

2. There was a signiﬁcant sharing of power and responsibility for the functioning
of the organization.

3. The power of the labor union was derived from its ability to contribute value.

4. A mixture of partnership and adversarial roles for the parties was
acknowledged.

5. Direct worker participation and representative democracy were considered
important.

6. The parties relied on shared goals and agreed-on principles for prescribing
behavior.

7. The parties primarily utilized the strategy of fostering when engaging in their
interactive processes.

8. The parties engaged in an integrative approach to the bargaining process.

As illustrated in the presentation of data, these characteristics were evident in

their approach to bargaining a Master Agreement, managing differences (conﬂict

resolution and problem solving), and making decisions. There was also evidence that

communication channels were both formal and informal, resulting in open and honest

dialogue occurring on a frequent basis. As issues arose, the prescribed behavior was to

initiate communication in an effort to promote a reasonable resolution. Both parties

valued the existing relationship, acknowledging the history of its success in

accomplishing the mutual goals and sustaining the shared philosophies. Finally, the

respondents said that the employer/teacher relationship in District 1 was based on

105

cooperation and commitment that was sustained by the existence of mutual trust and

respect between the parties.

District 2
District 2 is an urban fringe, mid-Size city. The total district population is
approximately 10,453 people, with a total K-12 school enrollment of 2,612 students.
Within the district there are four elementary schools, one junior high, and one high

school.

District/Organizational-Level Employer/'1‘ eagher Relations

With respect to the data collected in District 2, there was little emphasis on
mutual goals. Neither the administration nor the union spoke of a shared philosophy that
ultimately guided their interactions with one another. One reference in the Master
Agreement states, “WHEREAS, the board and the Association recognize and declare that
providing a quality education for the children of District 2 is their mutual aim and that the
character of such education depends upon the quality of the teaching; and. . . .” (p. 1).
In general, the Master Agreement prescribes behavior and reﬂects the priorities of the
parties. Again, the question becomes: Does this written philosophy truly exist in the
observable behaviors and the articulated belief systems of the parties? In the case of
District 2, the “mutual aim” referenced in the Master Agreement did not have a dominant
presence in the dialogue with the superintendent or the union president.

The roles of the union and administration tended to be traditionally deﬁned in
District 2. When asked about the role of the union, the Superintendent stated,

The union doesn’t actually make school a safe, fair place, because that is the
administration’s role. But they hold the administration accountable for that.

106

. . . I think there is probably another role in relationship to helping leaders emerge
from the teaching rank, and to contribute to the good of the district by helping to
make employees more informed and more prepared to do their work.

He commented further on the role of administration:

We’re to be darn sure that we do implement the contract in a way that ensures that
it’s done fairly, and with a sense of respect for the fact that the contract is not a
weight or a burden, but it is a commitment. . . . It’s like any relationship; you
enter it with integrity, and we have a relationship so we should work to honor that
relationship. . . . We should try not to be in a situation where we start to attack
peOple.

The union’s responsibility was to monitor the administration’s actions and ensure that the
membership’s rights were not being violated. The administration assumed the
responsibility of managing the district while respecting the terms set forth in the Master
Agreement.

Bargaininﬂhe Master AgLeement. Before the current superintendent, there was a
traditional or distributive approach to bargaining. This type of bargaining had the
function of resolving pure conﬂicts of interest. In other words, both parties presented
their proposals or demands and engaged in a forcing strategy with the purpose of
convincing the other party that each had the power and resolution to accomplish their
bargaining goals. Instead of sharing power and seeking win-win outcomes, one party
gained power at the expense of the other. The superintendent described the former
process, stating,

The bargaining was done in kind of a traditional stance. . . . And it [agreement]

would get hammered out and from what I can tell, having not been here, it was a

painful process. That’s what I observed upon arriving. Board members were

proud that they have served. They’re almost proud like a martyr is proud. Like
you know, “They didn’t take every ounce of my blood. I’m still standing.” That
kind of message made me believe that that wasn’t satisfying. I mean, if it had
been successful, they might have kept going with the process. And then I also
had heard there was a certain amount of tension that seemed to play out before
and after bargaining, so it never went away in relationship to how the association

interacted with the authorities of the school. So that led me to make some
recommendations as to how we might do it [bargaining] differently.

107

The union president described the former approach to bargaining, stating,

We’ve followed the adversarial model where both sides prepare proposals in

advance. We share proposals. Sit down and argue about why we can’t accept the

other side’s proposal. And beat each other up until we get tired of doing that, and
then we get down to business.
He continued by describing bargaining with the previous superintendent:

We negotiated a contract, and we had the proposals from the board that I would

categorize as, “Which limb do you want to cut off?” You know, we were given a

choice of four very unacceptable proposals and we could choose which one to

save them money. . . . Like double the steps to get to the top, eliminate longevity,
eliminate terminal leave pay, or insurance co-pay. All of which were
unacceptable to us. . . It was a very, very ugly contract. We went well into

January or December. We had rallies. I had the state president of the MEA come

out. We packed two board meetings. It was awesome.

Both the union and administration indicated there was an attempt to exhibit their own
power, at the expense of the other party. They described the process as an “aggressive
and adversarial” approach to bargaining.

The union and administration communicated their dissatisfaction with the
distributive or traditional approach to bargaining and decided it was time to approach
bargaining from a different perspective. Instead of a distributive approach, the union and
administration decided to explore “expedited bargaining” with a more collaborative or
integrative approach. By deﬁnition, integrative bargaining requires parties to share
power and responsibility for decisions at the bargaining table. As parties engage in open,
honest dialogue about their individual positions and share accurate information, it allows
for an equalization of power between the parties. It must be noted, a certain level of trust
has to exist between the parties, for the integrative approach to be successful.

A more collaborative or integrative approach was used in the most recent

negotiations in District 2. The superintendent described the process:

108

I recommended that no board members come to the table at all, [and] that I would
go to the table for a two-week period. That would be considered expedited, if the
association was willing to do that, and beyond that I wouldn’t go to the table.

. . .You know, we would identify a problem and try to ﬁgure out how to solve it.
As opposed to the counter-stance, which leads to a lot of time--not much progress,
because you’re taking a stance on different sides of the problem, rather than
coming together on the same side. And we handled money that way, we handled

issues of class size that way, and program expansions that way, all from the same
side of the table.

The union president commented on the integrative bargaining process, stating,

At the moment, bargaining is very much a collaborative process. The
superintendent calls it “same side of the table” bargaining. This last time when
we sat down at the table, we brought issues that we wanted to discuss without any
preestablished language.

The superintendent acknowledged the role of trust in a collaborative bargaining

process as be reﬂected on the success of the most recent bargaining experience: “I think

the reason it worked in the room is because the president and I had already gotten down

to a level of building an honest relationship, so that was already a beginning.”

A more traditional approach to bargaining was the norm in District 2, but the

union leadership was willing to attempt a different approach. Therefore, the union

leadership had to promote the collaborative approach to the bargaining-unit members and

seek their support. The superintendent commented,

I believe that the association has mature leadership that has won or earned a
certain respect, and their membership was willing to look at Matt, so to speak, as
a trustworthy opinion leader. If Matt said, “We should try this,” that had to carry
weight with a lot of teachers. And then, the president, if the president could say
try this. . .We don’t have to succeed. It’s not about us being closed minded saying
it won’t work. That carried some weight. . . . I think that was enough momentum.
I think word of mouth, and the opinion leaders saying, “Let’s give it a shot.”

In the opinion of the superintendent, the fact that the union leadership was respected and

trusted at such a high level helped to gain the support of the membership for attempting a

more collaborative approach to bargaining.

109

The union president spoke of the importance of his speciﬁc role in the success of
one aspect of the bargaining process. The union president discussed the issue of salary,
commenting,

I wasn’t really sure where the board’s bottom line is, and so the thought just

popped into my mind. It was creative. I said, “Can we caucus?” I said, “Why

don’t we put together a formula?” It was my idea . . . . Surprising to us, the

district bought the concept.
When it came to an economic issue, there was some regression to the traditional style of
bargaining. The teachers’ team removed themselves from the “same side of the table” to
discuss the topic of salary in a private setting. A proposal was then placed on the table
for the board to consider. Furthermore, the union president was unclear about the
“board’s bottom line,” indicating that the board’s position on the issue of salary had not
been entirely discussed or presented at the table.

The superintendent described the negotiating of salary a little differently. He
commented,

So we came up with a 2.75% raise and then a percentage of whatever above that

amount of money was coming from the state would also go into a raise. . . . And it

turned out to be a good thing. But it was one of those things we had to work out
together, and ﬁgure out. . . . But we did it together. We caucused over that.

There were only like two times of the many hours we were together that there was

caucusing, and the money one took some caucusing.

It is unclear as to which account accurately reﬂects the negotiating strategy used to reach
agreement on teachers’ salary. In one account, the union president referred to “I,” and in
the other account, the superintendent referred to “we.” Regardless of the strategy, both
parties communicated their satisfaction with the outcome.

With an integrative approach, the parties discuss the issues from their own

perspective and together they generate potential solutions. This occurs through two-way

dialogue, as well as a signiﬁcant sharing of power and responsibility. The issue of student

110

contact time or “clock hours” had to be addressed. The superintendent described the

interaction:

In the beginning we were trying to ﬁgure out how to deal with the clock-hour
challenges for elementary and had looked at a proposal that could have teachers
on the playground. Therefore, able to have certain time count as clock-hour time.
But when we were talking about it, we kept the issue on clock time, even though
it could have easily become “the superintendent is pulling a fast one,” or
“somebody’s got another agenda.” And so we ultimately solved the clock-time
problem with a combination of solutions, which did include some work on the
playground, but also includes some specials that hadn’t been there, which was
more expensive, but also good for the kids.

On the topic of class size, the union president offered an example of collaborative
bargaining:
At least class size was a major victory for us. But I think it is a major victory for
everybody, because I think smaller classes make sense. . . . We opened up the
class size discussion. . . . Much to our surprise the district agreed with us. And so
we then sat down and said, okay, we reduce class size over two years in the
elementary so it wasn’t all a big hit for the district at once. And we’re there. ; . .
The other thing that we had in class size was the process of handling class-size
overages and the whole review of that was so long that we streamlined the
process. . . . It was conversation. It wasn’t here is my proposal and then you
counter it. We never did that. So that was really awesome.
In these two examples, each party larew their individual bottom lines, shared information
and perspectives with each other, and reached a solution that met the needs of both the
union and the board. The board was able to stay within their budget constraints while
addressing the issues of contact time and class size, and the union was able to accomplish
their speciﬁc goals on the two topics. As a result of the process, both parties said they
felt positive about the experience and the outcome.
There was some regression to the traditional style of bargaining. In the class-size
example, the union described the outcome as a “victory.” The term victory reﬂects a

win-lose tone to the bargaining process that is not reﬂective of an integrative approach.

Even though the parties made a conscious decision to engage in a collaborative

111

bargaining process, the belief system associated with traditional bargaining was not easily
replaced. The relationship between the employer and union was evolving, and the
prescribed behaviors were not easily identiﬁed or embedded in the interactive system.

For integrative bargaining to be effective, it is important for all individuals at the
table to value the integrative approach. In District 2, the most recent contract was
negotiated during a two-week period and involved only district personnel. In other
words, the union did not engage the services of the Uniserv director, a trained negotiator
employed by the MBA, and the board did not employ a lawyer to lead their negotiating
team. Instead, bargaining was conducted between the superintendent, along with speciﬁc
administrators, and a bargaining team of teachers.

Both parties communicated their belief that there was a shared commitment to
attempting a collaborative approach. The superintendent described the union’s effort to
maintain a collaborative approach at the table:

The teachers had a larger team than there were places at the table. So a couple of

them rotated in and out of that one chair. One of the teachers that rotated in was

real combative on an issue with me, mostly because I was doing the talking on
that. And he at the table was given that kind of message--that you don’t need to
do that. We’ll ﬁgure this out together kind of thing. And it wasn’t me that gave
him the message--the peers were saying, “We’re not doing that.” And so the tone

was permeated. .

Both parties communicated a commitment to engage in a collaborative process, even
though at times behaviors associated with the traditional bargaining approach would
surface.

Letters of agreement are a means to reach understanding between the parties,
apart from the bargaining table. In the past ﬁve years, District 2 had entered into two

letters of agreement, addressing the issues of pay for mentor teachers and purchasing

service credit for retirement. Letters of agreement infrequently are used as a means to

112

resolve issues between bargaining events. In District 2, reaching an understanding on an
issue was often pursued through a more adversarial, grievance process. Use of the
grievance process is described further in the discussion of conﬂict resolution and problem
solving.

Managing internal differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving). As the
parties managed differences, a mixture of fostering and forcing strategies was used. A
forcing strategy involves using power to dictate outcomes. A fostering strategy involves
a more cooperative approach to achieving speciﬁc goals or resolutions. Based on the
data collected, the beliefs or philosophies communicated by the superintendent and union
president were not consistent with the behaviors referenced in speciﬁc examples. The
parties discussed the existence of two-way, frequent communication. However, their
examples often reﬂected one-way communication that was initiated through both formal
and informal channels. The union and administration communicated a shared belief that
both sides had something valuable to contribute to the processes involved in managing
differences. The power of the teachers’ union was derived from their ability to force
resolutions to problems and conﬂicts.

As the union and administration engaged in the processes of resolving conﬂict
and problem solving, formal channels of communication were established. As an
example, the superintendent met with building-level union representatives and union
committee chairs once a month. He clariﬁed:

We set it up for an hour . . . so I basically provide information about what I think

would be appropriate for us to talk about. Ask for what is on their minds, and

often they don’t have a list, but sometimes they do have a long list. So we just

talk about that. . . . Basically, it’s me and them when we have an issue.

He continued:

113

I mean, I don’t give the message that you can guarantee that an issue will be
resolved at the meeting. But I do guarantee that within 30 days, when we get
back together again, it will--as close as we can, we’ll be dealing with it if it’s not
resolved. . . . But other issues are black and white. It’s like, well we can do better
with that, and this is how it will be done.
The examples indicate a sharing of speciﬁc concerns or information. Once the concerns
were vocalized or brought to the attention of the superintendent, he took the information
and remedied the Situation. The meetings were not used to elicit the union’s perspective
in an effort to generate diverse solutions.

Even though formal channels of communication had been established,
communication was also initiated through informal channels. The parties described the
communication as intentional and continuous, with both parties initiating dialogue when
appropriate. The superintendent commented,

Intentionally? . . . Informally, I’m intentional about at the board meeting going up

to the union president and making sure that we talk. . . . And because we have a

copy system in this building, I’m intentional with school leaders, which often are

union leaders. I’m intentional about being polite with everybody, but I go out of

my way to go over and shake their hand and say, “How you doing?” with people
that I know are leaders. . . .

He continued, “There is a lot of communication. . . . You know, something is going to
happen at a board meeting, or something that I’m working on with an interest group or
some issue that is bubbling, but not very visible, but they Should know about.” The
superintendent communicated his commitment to keeping the union informed about
issues.

The union president discussed the informal communication channels,
commenting:

We e-mail each other frequently. For example, I share a lot of what I get from

MBA with the administration. For instance, Capital Comments, which is what is

happening in the capital and that is obviously going to have the MEA bend to the
events in the capital, and what we are doing--lobbying the state.

114

The purpose of the communication channels established in District 2 was to share
information or to make personal connections. The examples offered by both parties
represent one-way communication, with no references to using communication channels
to collaborate on issues or engage in mutual efforts.

In solving problems, the administration often addressed the issue and then
informed the union of the outcome. The superintendent shared the following story when

asked about problem solving at the district level:

A parent calls with a complaint about a teacher at a porno web site at school. I
activate our computer person to get the printout on what came off the computer in
connection to the Internet over an eight-hour period. And I write a letter to the
teacher saying, “I’m investigating you as a result of a complaint by a parent, that
resulted from a child saying that they thought you were at an inappropriate web
site. I hope the investigation goes quickly. As soon as it is complete, if I ﬁnd
nothing, there will be no record in your ﬁle.” So, that got to the teacher on
Wednesday or Thursday. By Thursday afternoon, I got 61 pages of printouts. . . .
By the next morning, I had another memo saying the case is closed. There is no
evidence of any problem. The memo got sent to the teacher. And then I offer to
meet with the teacher if the teacher would like to talk.

He continued,

But the process, I checked out with the union president because we have monthly
meetings. And we had a monthly meeting today. He and I just sit down and chat,
and whatever we want to talk about, we bring up. So both of us had this on our
agenda today. We wanted to talk about it and conceptually there may be
something that I could do better, or was wrong about, but the intent of how I
handled that isn’t something that the union president has a problem with. . . . I’ll
have my time tomorrow with the key players and hopefully help to acknowledge
the pain that this whole thing caused; it’s not pleasant to be investigated. And
hopefully do that with enough dignity so that it is understood that I do feel
compassion about this, but I also don’t plan to say that I would do it a lot
differently.

The union president shared his version of the events, commenting, “We had a
teacher that was accused by a child through a parent of some inappropriate activity. It
was investigated by the superintendent but perhaps a little too aggressively or without

having that conversation with that teacher ﬁrst.” The communication with the union

115

president occurred after the problem had been addressed. The superintendent addressed
the problem with a speciﬁc teacher through a formal, one-way communication channel.
After evaluating the outcome, both the union and administration said that they believed a
“different” process for resolving the issue could have been used.

The union president and superintendent expressed their commitment to discuss
problems on a continual basis. The union president described a monthly meeting between
himself and the superintendent:

The superintendent and I try to meet once a month so we can discuss problems. I

don’t have any problem getting on the phone and calling the superintendent if I’ve

got a problem. Or the administration calls me. In fact, there are a couple of
problems I am wrestling with at the moment with administration in terms of
reassignment of special ed. teachers. We have a light load some places and
overload in another place. Well, what do we do? How do we do it? Let’s sit
down together and decide what the contract says and what is the appropriate
method.

The union president and superintendent communicated their willingness to discuss

problems. The format for such discussion was generally informational, with some

attempts to generate potential solutions.

In resolving conﬂict, the parties often engaged in one-way dialogue, informing
each other of individual positions. In general, the administration took a speciﬁc action
and explained the reason for the action to the employees. In response, the union or
employees communicated their position on the action and either forced dialogue through
the grievance process or accepted the district’s position. The superintendent discussed a
conﬂict that was generated from the decision to realign administrative staff. He
explained,

When there was a decision that the [human resources] director wouldn’t have a

position next year, nor would the kindergarten principal/community education

director . . . we made that announcement and then I scheduled meetings in every
building. And I went and explained it and took questions until the last question

116

was answered. . . . Staff had many concerns. And it wasn’t going to be
appropriate to not hear them, and do the best to respond to them.

Both individuals occupying those positions were veteran administrators in the district.
The superintendent and the union president said the decision to realign staff created
emotional turmoil among the employees. As a result, the superintendent addressed the
conﬂict. The approach was to share relevant information with staff members, listen to
their concerns, and continue to explain the rationale for the original decision.

The superintendent shared another example of a conﬂict that involved the hiring

of the high school principal. He explained,

The teachers got agitated because we appeared to be on a path that was going to
be done let’s say on a Thursday, and it wasn’t. So, the next day after school I
made an announcement that I would be available in the media center, or
wherever, to talk to everybody . . . about where we were in the process. . . .
They’re very strong-willed people, teachers. They don’t necessarily look at a
meeting like that as a place to just kind of share their ideas. They want their ideas
heard, and understood. So you know, you go into it understanding that, and work
through it. And so a few days later, we had an announcement that we had offered
a job to a particular person. . . . It looked like we were on a path that was going to
lead to a different ending. Well, we didn’t get there . . . so my approach is just get
direct, and be available, and don’t stiﬂe questions that will anger.

In this situation, the teachers vocalized their concerns about the outcome of the hiring

process for the principal. The superintendent communicated his willingness and

commitment to make himself available to hear the concerns of the teachers and address

their anger and questions.

Both examples of conﬂict resolution incorporated one-way communication
channels. Even though the teachers were able to express their anger and ask questions,
their insights did not help to resolve the conﬂict. Instead, the conﬂict was considered
“resolved” by administration through answering questions after the fact in an attempt to

gain support for or understanding of the ﬁnal outcome.

117

The grievance process is one method of resolving conﬂicts. In general, a
grievance process is considered to be “adversarial” in nature. It is initiated when a
bargaining-unit member or the union believes the terms of the Master Agreement have
been violated, infringing on their employment rights. In general, the grievance process
forces the administration to hear the concerns of the union, and it ensures due process.

In District 2, the grievance process frequently was used to resolve conﬂicts.
When the union president was asked how conﬂicts were resolved, he replied,

Well, grievances. Most of the time, grievances. . . . I like the superintendent’s

attitude about grievances a great deal. A grievance is a problem-solving process.

And if we accept grievances in that manner, it’s not a personal issue, but a

problem-solving issue. . . . And if a member has an issue, well we’ll just grieve it.

You know, we’ll just let the chips fall where they may.

Initiating a written grievance as a means to resolve issues was an agreed-upon approach
between the union and administration. It was through this formal process that
discussions were forced and resolutions obtained.

In District 2, the union had ﬁled a total of 22 written grievances over the past ﬁve
years. Of these grievances, 3 grievances were settled at Level I with the building
principal, 12 grievances were settled at Level II with the superintendent or designee, 6
grievances were settled at Level III with a board hearing, and 1 grievance was taken to
arbitration. With respect to the outcomes of the grievances, 14 of the resolutions
reﬂected the union’s position, 4 of the resolutions reﬂected the administration’s position,
and 3 resolutions were a compromise between the union’s and administration’s positions.
The speciﬁc details of the grievances can be found in Appendix D.

In District 2, there was a dependence on the formal grievance process to resolve

conﬂicts. The union president communicated his belief that this was a proven and

successful strategy. Both the administration and union accepted this as an agreed-upon

118

procedure for addressing issues. The grievance process forced dialogue and resolution
through a formal communication channel. The parties exerted their individual presence
and power, creating a “separateness” in the relationship.

Administration and the union identiﬁed an “intentional” effort to engage in
frequent communication to manage differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving).
Often this communication was one way and informative in nature. The formal grievance
process forced the parties to dialogue about issues and was viewed as a valid and
successﬁrl approach to solving conﬂicts. Both parties communicated their belief that the
relationship between the union and administration was positive and allowed each to
accomplish their individual goals.

Decision making. The approach to decision making in District 2 allowed for
teacher input. The teachers were used as sources of input to better inform the board as
decisions were made. The Master Agreement acknowledges the district’s commitment to
seeking input from teachers in the decision-making process. As decisions were made at
the board level, regarding policies and regulations, the union membership was offered an
opportunity to communicate their perspective on the issue. As an example, the Master
Agreement states, “The Board will consult with representatives of the Union on major
revisions of educational policy and a representative of the Union shall be given the
Opportunity to advise the Board with respect to matters prior to their adoption” (p. 3).

Another reference in the Master Agreement refers to the union members’
expertise and qualiﬁcations that will add value to the board’s decision-making process. It
reads, “WHEREAS, the members of the teaching profession should be qualiﬁed to assist
the Board and school administration in formulating policies and programs designed to

improve educational standards. . . .” (p. 1). Even though the board was responsible for

119

the ﬁnal decisions on policies and programming, it had been communicated that teacher
input was an important and valued part of the decision-making process.

This process was used in reviewing the policy on student travel. The
superintendent established a committee of teachers, parents, and board members to
discuss the topic and offer the board various perspectives to consider when making the

ﬁnal policy decision. The superintendent explained,

We’re looking at trips. . . . We have all of these teacher-supported trips. Two
trips to New York that are separate; one to Washington and that is a stand-alone;
one to Japan; one to England or Europe in general, and one to Chicago and one to
Detroit, and then the typical amusement parks. So the board has to decide if they
want to do anything with the cost. It’s an issue of “We have a policy; do we want
to do anything with it?” To try and gather information, I invited all the teachers
that planned these trips; each of the teachers would also invite two parents from
their group. We sat around the table, all facing each other, so we’re all equal. . . .
I presented that the board committee will be deciding if they want to revisit this
policy. It’s not your role tonight to advise them so they do what you say. It’s
your role tonight to have a conversation. And there are two board members here,
plus we will take notes, and your information, your thinking, will help provide
background for the board to think through this. The teachers were very important
to that discussion, very important. . . . There was no voted outcome from that
meeting, but the notes went on to the board committee meeting, and the board
decided. The board committee decided not to recommend any changes, other than
administrator-speciﬁc things that I would function to fulﬁll. . . . Heavier planning
is what the board asked for.

The union president offered his perspective on the decision-making process with respect

to this issue, commenting,

Teachers were involved, and administration and school board members, to discuss
travel. They discussed policy and should we change it? Not just bounce ideas
around. . . . Not to make a decision, but provide input for support. It was very
positive. It was the kind of thing that you know our ideas and what we said, I
believe, was truly listened to. And I think that was very helpful. I think we’re
going in the right direction. I’m pleased with it. . . . We really do look for middle

ground.
Even though the board made the ﬁnal decision on the travel policy, it was communicated

that teacher input was an important part of this decision. The role of the teachers in the

ﬁnal decision was deﬁned, and their contributions to the process served to inform the

120

board. Both parties stated their belief that the teachers had something valuable to
contribute to the outcome of this decision-making process.

However, in other decisions, the union perspective was not sought by
administration. The union president offered another example of the decision-making

process, commenting, -

There have been some issues, where at least from our perspective, rules and
policies have changed, work rules. And work rules are negotiable. And so I’ve
had to either send myself or have our Uniserv director demand to bargain to
change work rules. . . . For example, the building principal sent out a memo to all
the teachers that were to be evaluated this year, and several documents were
attached to this memo. . . . There was an effective teacher--from the effective
school study document attached as well as the evaluation documents. I sent an e-
mail back to the principal saying, “15 this the same process we’ve been using in
the past?” And he said, “Well, I don’t know what you’ve been doing in the past,
but this is in line with state law.” There’s a practice and the contract. . . . We
either need to use the agreed-upon process or we need to negotiate a new one. I
didn’t hear anything for over a week. So I sent over a demand to bargain to the
central ofﬁce administration. It bothers me that I have to do that to get
somebody’s attention. . . . So we had to hammer it out with the assistant
superintendent under the demand of bargaining.

In this example, the union forced administration to dialogue about a decision to alter the
teacher-evaluation process. Originally, an administrative decision had been made and
implemented without union input. The Union did not endorse the process used to make
this decision, and the outcome was not supported. Further, the union said they felt
obligated to correct the administration’s oversight and exerted their power by making a
demand to bargain the issue.

District 2 involved teachers in decision making and problem solving through the
use of joint committees. Joint committees existed around developing curriculum,
developing an induction process for new teachers, investigating options for a school-of-
choice policy, discussing the student trip policy, and implementing a new-teacher

evaluation process. The administration communicated their belief that teachers add

121

valuable insights to this process. The superintendent commented, “We have joint
committees with curriculum work. Those teachers are ﬁnding out it works and that they
are valued. And it’s a sense of . . . we need their voice and their energy to make a
collective change and to grow as a district.” In this instance, the superintendent
acknowledged the importance of teachers’ sharing their expertise and offering their
insights in an effort to produce an enhanced outcome. Approaching decisions and
problems in this manner enabled the union to derive some power from its ability to
contribute value.

The approach to the decision-making process in District 2 was inconsistent. At
times, an approach based on two-way communication, seeking input from others and
allowing varying perspectives to surface, was initiated. The insights generated by the
various parties guided the decision-making process. At other times, decisions were
dictated by the administration, and the union reacted in an attempt to protect the rights of
their membership. With respect to the decision-making process, both fostering and
forcing approaches were used.

Summary of districtgganizational-level relationsﬂr. At the district or
organizational level, District 2 had established an employer/teacher relationship based on
a mixture of arm’s-length accommodation and containment. Throughout the data-
collection process, the union and administration communicated their belief that the
relationship was cooperative and collaborative. However, the data were not consistent
with this view.

The union and administration placed little emphasis on mutual goals or a shared
phiIOSOphy that ultimately guided their interactions with one another. Instead, the

union’s responsibility was to monitor the administration’s actions and ensure that the

122

membership’s rights were not being violated. The administration assumed the
responsibility of managing the district while respecting the terms set forth in the Master
Agreement.

In the most recent negotiations, the union and administration engaged in a
collaborative or integrative approach to bargaining. Using this type of process, the
parties sought mutually acceptable outcomes. However, at times during the negotiation
process there was some regression to the traditional or distributive type of bargaining.
The relationship between the employer and union was evolving, and the strategies used in
the interactive system varied.

The prescribed behavior in the district was a mixture of fostering and forcing
strategies. The parties discussed the existence of two-way, frequent communication, but
their examples reﬂected each party engaging in one-way dialogue with the purpose of
disseminating information or communicating a position. The frequent interactions that
occurred between the union and administration did not always result in the surfacing of
individual perspectives and mutual problem-solving efforts, but instead were often an
attempt to build internal consensus around a speciﬁc solution. The power of the union
was derived from their ability to force resolutions to problems and conﬂict.

In general, the administration and union were satisﬁed with the existing
interactions system at the organizational level. They communicated their belief that it
had been a successful approach that had beneﬁted the parties. The administration and
union acknowledged the existence of conﬂicting interests and emphasized equity in this

context.

123

Building or Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relations
The employer/teacher relationship also exists at the building or individual level.
The processes of managing internal differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving)
and decision making occur at the. building level between principals and teachers. Three
building-level administrators were interviewed, which offers an opportunity for varying
leadership styles. The relationships at the building level in District 2 did not always
reﬂect the relationship at the district level.
Two of the building-level administrators described their philosophical base for
guiding interactions with teachers. An administrator who was new to the district stated,
My focus this year is just to focus on the culture of this building and to have us
more focused on kids learning, and less confrontational with kids. That’s what
I’m really focused on. I’m doing that individually, with a group, with my e-mail
communications, and at my staff meetings. Hopeﬁrlly, we’ll make some gains.
He communicated that “kids learning” would be the guiding principle for decision
making and problem solving. He reﬂected on the employer/teacher relationship and
promoting a shared language, commenting,
I have found there to be a real cautious relationship. I spent a lot of time and
energy focused on something I call a trust cycle. I believe it is how you build
teamwork. And I share that with staff, and I say a big part of that is that we’ve
got to develop a shared language. I speak clearly and loudly and regularly about
what I believe. And I think that’s caused some anxiety on the part of some. But
I’m fostering the relationship individually because the strength of the team is
often within its peers. And regular communications with the staff, mostly through
e-mail, to try and build a relationship for them to ﬁnd me predictable.
The administrator identiﬁed his intentional and one-way communication to create a
shared philosophical approach to the relationship.
Another building-level administrator spoke of the philosophy that she promoted to

Prescribe behavior in her building. She commented, “We wanted to set a standard right

a Way that this was a student-focus, leaming-focus building. . . . In the third year, the

124

 

culture of the building started to turn according to the way that I envisioned it . . . student
focus, learning focus.” She said that it was this “focus” that guided her approach to
decision making and problem solving at the building level. Even though the building-
level administrators communicated their emphasis on a philosophy to prescribe behavior,
the building-level teachers did not reference the philosophy.

The individual’s perspective on bargaining the Master Aggeement. Before the
current superintendent, there was a traditional or distributive approach to bargaining in
District 2. In the most recent negotiations, the parties engaged in “expedited” bargaining
at the district or organizational level. The bargaining process addressed a number of
issues and occurred over a two-week period of time. The parties primarily engaged in an
integrative or collaborative approach to bargaining, with some regression to a traditional
or distributive approach at various times during the bargaining process.

The actual bargaining was done at the district or organizational level. However,
the outcome of the bargaining directly affected teachers and administrators at the
individual or building level. A focus group of teachers recognized the change from a
traditional approach to bargaining to a more collaborative approach. They described the
union meetings that occurred during the traditional negotiation process:

It was always an “us against them” situation when we were having meetings.

You know, union meetings. . . . These guys are not going to give us this, and this

is what they want to do. They want to take this, this, and this away, which they

were really trying to do on the previous contract.
The traditional or distributive approach to negotiating a contract was adversarial in
nature. They described the more collaborative or integrative approach to bargaining:

The bargaining process went from an ‘us versus them’ situation into a “Let’s sit

down and talk about what do we need in the district. What do you need? What

do we need? type of situation . . . and just toss out things and see how we can
work on them. . . . It was something along the lines that both sides can sit down

125

 

and talk about things rather than say something and you’re stuck with it. It
worked out to everybody’s advantage.

They continued: “It was a relief to know it was over so quickly. . . . It was all in all a
very good contract. It didn’t seem like there was a lot of agitation among the staff.”

The teachers expressed their satisfaction with the collaborative approach used to
negotiate the most recent contract, and with the outcome of the process. The teachers
communicated their perception that the cooperative settlement reached during the
negotiation process was not at the expense of the individual bargaining goals of the board
or the union, but beneﬁted both parties. Further, the teachers voiced their appreciation of
the cooperative approach.

Managing internal differences: Conﬂict resolution and problem solving, In
District 2, the approach to managing internal differences at the individual or building
level was dependent on the building. In other words, the approach to conﬂict resolution
and problem solving was not consistent throughout the district. As the teachers and
building-level administrators managed differences, a mixture of fostering and forcing
strategies was used to achieve a speciﬁc goal or resolution. The teachers and
administration communicated a shared belief that both sides had something valuable to
contribute to the processes involved in managing differences. However, depending on
the building, behaviors reﬂecting this belief may or may not have been consistently
exhibited.

In all the buildings where data were collected, the parties engaged in intentional
and frequent communication that was initiated through both formal and informal
channels. Both two-way and one-way communication channels existed at thislevel.
However, the balance of two-way or one-way communication was dependent on the

speciﬁc building, as well as the purpose of the communication.

126

Both parties said that the communication was intentional and frequent, with either
party initiating dialogue when an issue arose. Administrators communicated their desire
to maintain open communication channels with employees. They had established a
variety of formal one-way communication channels to keep teachers informed of relevant
information. One focus group of teachers commented:

Communication is outstanding. First of all, we have the agenda for the teachers’

meetings. We get a memo on Monday morning with an update on how the

athletic teams did, and what he sees us focusing on for the week. Often times
during the week, we get another memo in the morning, or in the afternoon, with
an update. And then Friday before we leave, we get a ﬁnal memo.
The administrators and teachers also listed e-mail as a frequently used form of one-way
and two-way communication. E—mail was also initiated on both a formal and informal
basis. An administrator commented, “I rely on e-mail; as things come up, I put it out. I
don’t know if that would be described as formal or informal, but that’s my primary means
of communication with staff on issues of general interest.”

An informal approach to communication was also evident in the interactions
between building-level administrators and teachers. The administrators and teachers who
were interviewed communicated their perceptions that the principal was “available,”

,9

“visible in the hallways,” and “approachable. One principal commented,

They have access to me. . . . Most of my processes of communication, whether
it’s with the group as a whole or individually, are informal, but they are
conscious. I consciously try to make sure that I’m present in places where they
are--where I can facilitate communication.

A focus group of teachers commented,

The communication is a very key ingredient, I believe, in the working of this
whole staff. . . . But how many times have you been in the lunchroom and the
principal kind of wanders in and he has something on this mind, and he’s kind of
brought it up and informally we’ve talked about it. . . . You know that we just had
a meeting, but without knowing we had a meeting.

127

Both parties said they recognized the value of communication in maintaining the
employer/teacher relationship. An administrator commented,

My biggest step to fostering the relationship is to be out and about; I call them

drive-bys. Every Friday morning I do an informational e-mail, but also include

several parts about the reality of this being a people business. It’s more of my
announcing what I believe.

The power of the teachers was derived from their ability to contribute value to the
processes involved in managing differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving).
Both parties communicated a shared philosophy that involving the would will enhance
the outcome. The level of their involvement in these processes depended on the building.
When asked about problem solving at the building level, one principal commented,

I like to look at what is the issue and what is the reasonable way by pulling some

people together, what is the best way to solve this. I haven’t found that utilizing

the whole staff, unless you’ve done a whole lot of groundwork up front, is an
effective way to solve problems. You’ve got way too many different opinions in

a limited amount of time, and that’s very difﬁcult to manage. So I like to break

the groups down into those who really have the issue and then try to solve the

problems that way.
The focus group of teachers in this building commented, “He’s attended meetings and
listened to our concerns and helped in terms of problem solving, involving all of us. It’s
been pretty positive so far.” In this particular building, principal and teachers
communicated that there was an effort to involve the teachers in the process. The
teachers said they thought their concerns were heard and their involvement was valued.

This same focus group of teachers shared a story to illustrate their belief that the
administrator listened to their concerns. Furthermore, the concerns were addressed in a
timely manner. They reﬂected,

Well, we just hired a new staff person last week because there was a problem with

overcrowding in math and science. And so, as a department chair, I brought it to

his attention and he went right to work on it . . . and he says, “Hey, give me your
input, give me your numbers and I’ll go to bat for you.” We got a new staff

128

member second semester. So there was a problem, he addressed it, attacked it.
He just didn’t let it sit and say, “Well, we can’t do anything.”

For the administrator, solving the problem on one level meant seeking factual input from
the teachers to support the solution. However, as the solution was being implemented,
the teachers vocalized their concern with the decision-making portion of the process,
stating:
We’re hiring a new teacher, and he didn’t come to the department chair and say,
“Would you like to be on the committee to help?” Or “Do you have suggestions
for a couple of your staff to be there?” So I talked to him about that. . . . I went in
and talked to him, and he said he honestly hadn’t thought about it. . . . Since
they’re looking at hiring this person, he has come to me two or three times to say
things look good . . . . They’re going to release her type of thing. But, again, I

think that’s because he’s new; he’s got to get used to the process that we’re used
to. And you know, just do more communication.

The building-level administrator did not seek teacher input in the decision-making
process for hiring a new teacher. Instead, there was one-way communication with the
department chair for the purpose of sharing information.

Another building-level administrator shared his belief that teachers contribute
value to the process of problem solving. Furthermore, he said that using an approach that
seeks teacher input and allowing varying perspectives to be voiced leads to teacher
support of the outcome. He commented,

We do some brainstorming among ourselves. We kind of work through it
naturally and comfortably, which so far in most cases has worked well and we get
to effective results. Everybody has a chance to speak and to talk, and those
opinions are respected. When they see that still a majority may feel a different
way, they’re quite content to go along with whatever the outcome is.

The focus group of teachers from this building reﬂected on the problem-solving process,

stating,

Almost every issue comes to a staff meeting. We’re very much on the problem-
solving, brainstorming level . . . very little is kept from us. We’re all part of that
situation. I think staff input has been important. It’s always requested . . . that
validates our importance as part of the decision-making process.

129

The building-level administrator and teachers communicated a shared perspective on the
value of teacher input in the problem-solving process.

This same administrator and focus group of teachers identiﬁed “intentional
efforts” that were made to promote opportunities for teachers to share their expertise in
ﬁnding acceptable and viable solutions. The building-level administrator offered speciﬁc
examples of how they problem solved issues. He reﬂected,

As we transitioned into the new building, I relied on staff to solve those problems.
And to make sure they have tons of input, because they’re the ones who had come
up with this new block schedule. I had to rely on them as the experts, and so I

incorporated a lot of input from them as we problem solved different issues that
came up.

He offered a speciﬁc example of a problem encountered in the transition to a block

schedule:

With our new block schedule we have a seminar period, which is kind of an
advisory 30 minutes; it had not been well laid out. And that was one of the ﬁrst
things we had to problem solve, and incorporated a lot of staff input into that
decision-making process of what to do with that, and everybody had a say. And
while we didn’t all agree, we came to a very healthy consensus on what we should
do and we kind of did it incrementally in stages and it went quite well.

At a third building in District 2, the administrator focused on the importance of

teacher input and two-way communication in a problem-solving approach, commenting,
We are and have been for a number of years fairly open in our communication. I
try to establish an open-door policy. Teachers are quite comfortable giving
feedback to me if there is a system problem in the building. They can bring it up
at staff meetings, which they do, and we try to work through it collaboratively.
I’m very honest with them about what needs to happen from our [administrative]
perspective. . . . But we usually work from a perspectives approach.

The teachers from this building conﬁrmed that their input was valued and that the

Principal was viewed as approachable. The focus group of teachers commented, “I’ve

neVer had a problem going in and sitting down and talking to the administrator. If we’re

anticipating some ﬂak in an area, to go in and sit down, and she’s been approachable. I

130

have always felt that my thinking counted.” Both parties said there was a belief that
teachers could make valuable contributions to the process of problem solving.
This same administrator related a problem-solving issue to the philosophical base
that guided her interactions with teachers. She reﬂected,
We started a practice of students doing the daily announcements. The week the
announcements were in a given teacher’s classroom, that involved some
preparation and some work for the classroom teacher. . . . Initially, we didn’t
know what the problems would be. . . . After the ﬁrst year, the union person came
and said they wanted to stop doing announcements because it was a hassle the
ﬁrst part of the day. . . . [I asked], Is it evident to the teachers that the students
enjoy this? Yes. Is it evident to the teachers that the students are learning
something? Yes. Can you give me a student-focus, leaming-focus reason why
we should stop doing this? No. Therefore, we continue to do it to this day.
In this case the problem was brought to the attention of the administrator, and after
applying the “philosophical standard,” she decided to continue the practice.

Administrators and teachers said that resolving conﬂict at the building or

individual level could be accomplished through “listening to all perspectives” and
seeking “common ground.” A building-level administrator commented, “Resolving
conﬂict involves hearing the perspective of the parties, allowing all to see the other’s
perspective. I just don’t believe that it’s any one person’s problem totally. So usually we
try to approach it from a positive perspective.”

Another administrator shared his belief that initiating open communication
between the parties involved in the conﬂict, and allowing them to share their individual
Perspectives, promoted viable solutions. He shared an example using this approach to
cOnﬂict resolution:

We had a space in the building where we had an applied tech lab, and we had the

lab space where we had various modules set up. The teacher also needed some

classroom space. She had expected to use a shop area. She expected to have that
whole area for her teaching space. . . . Some other district folks had planned to use

a portion of that space for storage. . . . I had to kind of mediate . . .We eventually
came to a compromise where I got the central office folks to put in a fence

131

partition, which provided plenty of classroom space for the teacher’s needs and at
the same time allowed for some districtwide storage. I just tried to ﬁnd a
workable solution. Both sides were accepting of that, and I think that is why we
got to a pretty reasonable solution, but it wasn’t so much a power play.

A focus group of teachers shared a similar experience with conﬂict resolution:

I guess I have had a little bit [of conﬂict] as far as budgeting. What I was seeing
and what he was seeing was not the same. And I just took the time to put it all
together and say, “You know, this is what I have.” He’s very open and honest.
You’re right. It wasn’t like he just wouldn’t listen to me. . . . If there is a conﬂict
he at least tells you where he’s at with it, and he hears your concerns. Let’s work
at seeing where we can ﬁnd other avenues.

Teachers at this building communicated their belief that their thoughts and feelings were

heard by administration and the outcome was acceptable.

In District 2, the union was actively involved in resolving conﬂicts and addressing
problems with the administration. In one building, the teachers said they believed there
were times that their “power” to resolve issues existed only by involving the union. They

discussed a problem they were having with a building-level administrator and

cemented,

It’s nothing. It’s something that should have been settled at the building in an
ofﬁce, talking reasonably to each other, instead of getting your puff chests and
stuff like that. We’ve got some new people here, and I don’t know if they’re
trying to make their point or trying to get on top or what.

In this case, the teachers involved the union to settle an issue that they believed should

have been resolved at the building level between the administrator and the speciﬁc

teacher. They continued,

If it is a staff-member problem, we try to handle it through building reps and take
those to our principal. . . . We get the feeling that he had a union at his other
school that wasn’t as much involved as the one here is. Because there have been
two or three incidents where it’s sometimes a contractual thing, or right on the
edge of a contractual thing, and he goes ahead and does it. And then he has to
back track. So I think he’s getting used to us and we’re kind of getting used to
him. And we’re both kind of looking for that trust factor.

132

This same focus group of teachers reﬂected on the role of the union in their building,
stating, “It’s [the union] a watch dog or protector. I think the administration is still

Ieaming what kinds of things they are able to do.”
The building-level administrator and focus group of teachers in this building
commented on the introduction of a teacher-evaluation packet. The principal explained,

I put together an evaluation packet. Really, it is an information packet for anyone
involved in the evaluation process with me. It is an identical packet that I used
for seven years as an administrator in another district. That led to a demand to
bargain, which I didn’t get involved in. . . . When I put a copy of effective
teaching characteristics in the packet, it was viewed as I was changing the
evaluation process. It was agreed upon that I wouldn’t use that as criteria, which

was never my intent. It was simply a language-development activity to provide
some focus.

The focus group of teachers reﬂected,

The union president said, “We can’t, that’s not the contract. What you’re doing
was not negotiated.” And so he backed off, and pulled those papers out of that
package. . . . We had to go eventually to our assistant superintendent and get that
straightened around. And that might have been a situation that he didn’t know
that, but probably should have asked up front. We adhere to the contract. You
know, that’s our life blood and we fought hard for it.

The teachers gave another example of seeking union support to address an issue with
administration:
Giving staff members reprimands, then the union has to come in and grieve it.
And then look at some sort of grievance with our Uniserv [director] before they

[administration] will take things back out of ﬁles or say, “I guess we were wrong.

We can’t do that. We shouldn’t have done that.” This happens at both the district
and building levels.

The teachers in this building communicated a belief that the administration “tests
the limits” and the role of the union is to maintain a “check and balance” on the actions of

the administration. They communicated a belief that their “power” to address issues lay

in the strength of the union.

133

The administrator in this building communicated recognition of the union’s role
and inﬂuence. The administrator reﬂected on the role of the union, stating,

I would describe it as very inﬂuential, very powerful. A fourth-year teacher told

me, “I don’t worry about those things because anything like that the union

president will take care of. That’s the role of the association. We’ve got a great
contract that protects us, and he’ll make sure it’s always there”. . . I think the
philosophy of the union is that we like the working conditions in our place and
anything that even looks vastly different, we’re going to grieve.

He shared another example:

Within an hour and a half on the job, I received a call from the Uniserv director

saying that he wanted a teaching schedule changed or they were going to ﬁle a

grievance. My response was, “Wow, I have never talked to a Uniserv director

about a teaching assignment ever before. A grievance was ﬁled.

The grievance process is one method of resolving conﬂicts. In general, the
grievance process is considered to be adversarial in nature. The grievance process forces
administration to hear the concerns of the teachers and ensures due process. In District 2,
the grievance process had been used 22 times over the past ﬁve years. Of the total
grievances ﬁled, 16 of the grievances addressed building-level decisions, but only 3 were
resolved at the building level.

With respect to the role of the union and the Master Agreement, administration
shared varying viewpoints. One building-level administrator commented,

I’m very aware of the contract, very comfortable reading the contract. And one of

the ﬁrst things I did when I came on was to familiarize myself with it. So I’m

very comfortable operating with a certain set of rules and recognize that directs

what we can and cannot do.
This administrator communicated his respect for the terms and conditions set forth in the
Master Agreement. Another administrator offered his perspective on the conﬂicting

philosophies of the union and administration:

I don’t always see the association as being considerate of kids in their Ieaming,
and I don’t know how to do anything else. And so we are by the very nature of

134

those conﬂicting philosophies opposed. I’m astute enough and smart enough to
know that I will always honor the master contract.

This building-level administrator communicated his commitment to follow the “rules”
that guided the employer/teacher relationship established by the Master Agreement.

Administration and teachers at the building level identiﬁed a “conscious and
intentional” effort to engage teachers in problem-solving and conﬂict-resolution efforts.
They said that managing differences through two-way communication allowed varying
perspectives to surface and promoted a resolution that was viewed as satisfactory to both
parties. There was also a strong presence of the union in managing differences.
Grievances were often used to resolve issues at the building level. Within this structure,
the parties engaged in a mixture of fostering and forcing strategies. The teachers said
they had experienced success with both approaches.

Decision making. In District 2, the decision-making process used at the building
level depended on the building, as well as the type of decision. It often, but not always,
involved input from teachers. Some of the building-level administrators communicated
their belief that seeking insights from teachers would only serve to better inform the
administration as decisions were made. In such cases, the teachers might be used as
sources of information to guide the decision-making process. Both parties said they
recognized that involving the teachers in this process resulted in decisions that were
better received and generally had the support of the teachers.

The administration’s approach to decision making at the building level depended
on the type of decision. Some decisions needed to be made by the administrator, due to
the nature of the decision. However, if the decision would affect teachers and learning,
depending on the building, the administrator would often involve them in the process.

One administrator explained,

135

There is a whole spectrum of decisions. Certain decisions for the effective,
efﬁcient operation of a building, I just need to make. They’re not long-term-
impact things, and they’re not quality-of-instruction issues. When it gets down to
the real meat of our work, I want the staff to have input.

He offered an example of an occasion when he made a decision with little staff input:

Last year we had a case where we had a preview provided by the high school
drama department that was debatable in content for our junior high. And they
wanted us to play [that preview], as part of our video announcements, and I
reviewed it with one staff member quickly and decided to go for it. As it turned
out, many staff felt that it probably shouldn’t have been shown. But that’s an
example of the type of decision I make. I respect the fact that they disagreed, and
I’ll take that into consideration when new issues come up. And I feel they were
pretty receptive to that.

He continued with an example of a decision in which staff input was sought:
When we get to things like designing that seminar program, that has far more to
do with the actual teaching and learning that goes on in our building, and I want
staff input. And I’m going to make sure that we go through some sort of process
that allows for input from all staff members.
There were times when the building-level administrator involved only those who had an
interest in the outcome of the decision-making process. He shared an example of this
type of teacher involvement:
Putting together an intramural program last year, I wanted lots of staff input, and
we arranged for voluntary meetings after school so that those with interest would
be involved. . . . If you have strong enough feelings that we would know them,
then you need to provide the input.
The focus group of teachers from this building commented on this approach to the
decision-making process:
He asks for our suggestions. We give it to him, and I think it’s pretty good
consensus. We’re involved all the time. You have a choice whether to be
involved or not . . . . If it ultimately comes down to two sides, he’ll make the
decision. His decisions are very well thought out. . . . We respect him . . . I feel
there is a mutual respect.

The decision making in this building was situational, depending on the perceived effect

on the teaching and Ieaming environment. On some decisions, both parties indicated that

136

 

 

teacher input was actively sought and valued. The teachers communicated their
satisfaction with this approach to decision making.

Another building-level administrator also communicated her belief that the
process for decision making depended on the type of decision. She stated,

I view myself as a Situational type of leader. There are some circumstances that

require me, and for the sake of time and urgency, to make an immediate decision.

That is a practice with which I am very uncomfortable because my preference is

always to be collaborative. I know that they have expertise beyond mine in

certain areas. . . . Most of the time it is up to me to determine, is this a decision I

have to make right now. Or is this a decision that I have the luxury to bring to the

faculty in general for the sake of the decision.
Furthermore, she commented on the standard used to guide decisions, commenting: “We
wanted a standard right away that this was a student-focus, Ieaming-focus building, and
that we would ﬁlter our decisions from a student-focus, Ieaming-focus perspective.”

The teachers acknowledged the decision-making process and the administrator’s
effort to seek input, stating, “She presents issues to the staff and asks for input. I don’t
sense that she wouldn’t make a decision. I think she tries really, really hard to have
win/win decision making. . . . I think she is very conscientious about using the input.”
The focus group of teachers continued:

I think the teaching staff gets frustrated because decisions are not made quickly; it

kind of takes a while. . . . For example, two staff members wanted to take a ﬁeld

trip to the Harry Potter movie. The discussion [at a faculty meeting] went on for a

long time, and nothing got resolved. Sometimes I think what the staff needs is for

someone to just step up. It should be the building administrator.
Both the administrator and the teachers in this building believed teacher input was sought
and valued. However, the teachers said they experienced some ﬁ'ustration with the length
of time it often took to engage in a collaborative decision—making process. They also

Communicated that the building administrator could have made some of the decisions

When a collaborative process was used.

137

At the third building in the district, the administrator commented on the process
he used for making various types of decisions. He said, “I’m a ﬁrm believer that decision
making is dependent upon the decision. My approach to that is I’ll let staff know what is
the model of decision that we’re going to use. It may be a decision where I’ll use limited
input, and I’ll make the decision.” He discussed the process for decisions that he
believed the teachers should make as a group:

At the last staff meeting there were a couple of decisions where I said, “They
don’t seem very signiﬁcant to me, but I’d like to have your thoughts on it.” Sixty-
six percent of us say “Yea, we’re moving on.” So we voted a couple of times. . . .
I counted hands, the decisions were made.

Some decisions would be made by the administration, but he attempted to gain teacher
support, as reﬂected in this example:

I’m going to ask the teachers to reconsider how we do parent-teacher conferences.
I’m going to do that by paper ballot. I’ll say up front, “I’m going to try and lay
out the pros and the cons.” I’m moving to more of an arena format rather than
using the appointment system. . . . I’m going to ask them to consider some
changes. But I’ll spend time announcing it and then give them time to send back
a paper ballot.

The building-level administrator gave an example of when he made the ﬁnal decision
with little teacher input:

I made the decision with very limited input two weeks ago about a marching
band. . . . I worked with the teacher. I laid out all the connections on the board
and realized that I probably upset a few people and said I’m approving 20 minutes
out of class for you to use. I announced it and then I said, “Here is howl made
the decision” to the staff.

The ﬁnal decision was communicated to staff as information.
The teacher focus group commented on the same decision:

Decisions are being made these days. I think we get a lot quicker response in
terms of the concerns that we have. . . . But it’s not necessarily good, in my
opinion. I mean, we’re a pretty involved staff, a pretty involved union. And
we’ve had some recent decisions made that maybe did not . . . use a thoughtful
process of, well, “how’s this going to affect everybody?” An example [is] our
marching band that has excelled in the last two or three years with a new staff

138

member. All of a sudden they’re going to be in a state competition at the Pontiac
Silver Dome, and we’re going to take these kids out of your class for 40 minutes
at the end of a block for ﬁve days so they can prepare. . . . We got an e-mail from
the band director. It wasn’t from our principal. There was a big uproar about it,
by almost everybody. I don’t think anybody that I talked to wasn’t upset about
that decision. . . . So I went in and talked to our principal and stated some of our
concerns. And there was a compromise made. . . . I think that decision would
have been better if (a) the e-mail would have come from our principal or (b) there
had been a quick ﬁve-minute meeting after school. . . . This is what we need to
do, any thoughts? But, it was like boom, and then we got 39 other classroom
teachers saying, “What the heck is this about?”
The teachers continued,
I think it’s a matter of you’ve got a problem, let’s work together. and try to ﬁgure
it out. Again, I know there are some decisions he has to make on his own. He
doesn’t have to involve anybody. I think with this staff anyway, he’d be better off
if it’s going to affect a lot of people that he have more input than for him to make
the decision himself.
In this particular building, the teacher focus group expressed a recognition and
appreciation that decisions were now being made in a timely manner. However, both the
administrator and the teachers said the ﬁnal decisions did not always have the support of
the teachers. The teachers communicated their belief that the administrator should
attempt to seek more teacher input in the decision-making process, and this would
ultimately enhance the outcome and promote teacher support.
The decision-making process used at the building level was not consistent
throughout the district. The amount of teacher involvement depended on the building, as
well as the type of decision. In some instances, teachers and administrators said teacher

input was sought and valued. In other instances, the administrator tended to make the

decision and then attempted to gain teacher support.

Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationship
As I interviewed the various individuals within their roles, many communicated

their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for employer/

139

teacher relations in the district. The teacher focus groups commented on the current tone
in the district:
I don’t feel welcome in central ofﬁce. I used to be able to walk in, and now they
put a piece of glass in. It’s almost like, if you go past the glass, they say, “What

are you doing here?” I don’t like it. I don’t want to go to central ofﬁce. It’s that
insulated factor.

Other teachers discussed the “glass” as a barrier:
Physically walking into the building now is glass barriers. I mean, you feel like
you need to be escorted in and have a reason for being there. . . . The physical
building is intimidating, and the way the staff and the rooms are physically set up
does not invite casual conversation. . . . I feel bad when I go over there,
intimidated.
The teachers continued, “I deﬁnitely feel a you and us . . . and that’s really weird because
negotiations went so smoothly.” The teachers communicated their belief that the
superintendent had placed a “barrier” between himself and the employees, or had
“insulated” himself from the employees. They said this sent a message of “us versus
them,” and they expressed concern about the “tone” in the district.
The teacher focus groups communicated their belief that the superintendent
wielded power and said there was a sense of fear in the district. They commented,
The principals are in a “watch your back” attitude. . . . They’re walking a thin
line, just because you don’t dare talk back to the superintendent. I think a lot of
teachers feel that way, too. I think we’ve had superintendents before that you
could approach and voice your opinion. I think now it’s very critical that you
keep your thoughts to yourself, you do your job, and hopefully you don’t have
any reason to get into a struggle with anyone.
The teacher focus groups continued, “He’s going to have it his way, and it’s a lot of
image right now. Make us look good as best you can; substance we don’t know about.”
The teachers expressed their concern about administrative support from central

ofﬁce: “I would be concerned if I had an issue on whether or not I would be backed by

the administration, higher than this building.” Another teacher focus group commented,

140

“If I had a problem right now that would have to go beyond the building, I don’t know
what I would do. I don’t know who I would call. At least we have the union.”

The teachers explained the restructuring that had occurred at the central ofﬁce
administrative level. The teachers claimed that the human resource director and the
community education director/elementary principal had been forced to leave their
positions. Both were “long time administrators” with the district. The teachers
communicated their perception: “There is a total lack of trust. I think when the
restructuring occurred with the administrative staff, it was devastating to this district . . .
the trust in our district.” The teachers said the process of eliminating these two positions
was “unfair” and negatively affected the level of trust between the superintendent and
employees.

Another focus group of teachers communicated an incident that they said resulted
in their withdrawal of trust from the superintendent/employee relationship. The district
was in the process of hiring a new high school principal. The teacher focus group
commented:

We were led to believe that the committee was going to look at our opinions as

staff members. Then we were told, “Well, you didn’t think your opinion was

going to make a difference, did you?” That was our superintendent at a staff
meeting, with our whole staff there. Basically made us feel like we were nothing.

It was totally ridiculous that the committee can come up with a consensus, these

are our best two. Then the superintendent can’t choose either one, and so they

brought in a third candidate for another dog and pony show. . . . There is no trust
there now, and we won’t do it again.
The teachers expressed their concern about the decision-making process used in selecting

a building principal. They said their actual role in the process had been different from the

role they were told they would have, resulting in a lack of trust in the superintendent.

141

Also, it must be noted that there had been signiﬁcant turnover in administration in
District 2, while the union leadership and teachers at the building level had remained
stable. The longevity of speciﬁc district employees is shown in Table 3.2.

The previous superintendent had been with the district for three years. The
superintendent before that had been with the district for six years. A teacher commented,
“When you look at how many years our most senior administrator has in our district, it’s
like ﬁve or Six. They don’t have historical background when they jump in. And yes,
they’re going to have some resistance to that.” Administratively, a philosophical
approach to employer/teacher relations had not endured over time. As a result, there was
not a shared history between the union and administration. Instead, it continued to be an

evolving relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2
Longevity in District 2
Employee Years in Current Total Years in
Position District 2

Superintendent 3 3
Assistant superintendent 2 2
High school principal I 1
Middle school principal 2 2
Elementary school principal 6 6
Union president 14 30
Teachers 18* 18*

 

 

 

 

*Average years of experience of teachers participating in focus groups.

Summary of District 2 Case Study
Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher
relationship at District 2 can be categorized as predominantly arm’s-length

accommodation/compliance, with some characteristics of cooperation/commitment.
142

According to the deﬁnition of a relationship based on arm’s-length accommodation/

compliance (see Chapter I), District 2 exhibited the following characteristics:

1.

The parties acknowledged their conﬂicting interests and often emphasized
equity in this context.

The power and responsibility for managing the organization were often
concentrated with management, with management accepting the union’s
checks and balances on management action.

There were adversarial, but legitimate, roles for both union and management.
The parties often relied on union representatives to express employees’
voices.

The parties sometimes engaged in forcing strategies when engaging in their

interactive processes.

However, there were some trends in the relationship that reﬂected to a lesser

degree an employer/teacher relationship based on cooperation/commitment. These

characteristics include:

1.

The power of the labor was sometimes derived from its ability to contribute
value.

There was some sharing of power and responsibility for the functioning of the
organization. .

A mixture of partnership and adversarial roles for the parties was
acknowledged.

The parties sometimes engaged in fostering strategies when engaging in their

interactive processes.

143

S. The bargaining process tended to be integrative, with some regression to

distributive or traditional.

As illustrated in the presentation of data, these characteristics were evident in
their approach to bargaining the Master Agreement, managing differences (conﬂict
resolution and problem solving), and making decisions. However, the approach to these
processes was not consistent between the district and building levels, or between the
buildings.

There is evidence that communication channels were both formal and informal,
resulting in frequent dialogue between the parties. This dialogue was often one-way and
informational in nature. However, there were times at the district level and at speciﬁc
buildings when there was two-way communication, with the intention of seeking teacher
input and perspective. The level of trust at the district and building levels was not
consistent throughout the district. Viewing the employer/teacher relationship on a
continuum, District 2 would be placed closer to arm’s-length accommodation/

compliance.

District 3
District 3 is a mid-size, central city. The total district population is approximately
59,803 peOple, with a total K-12 school enrollment of 3,603 students. Within the district

there are seven elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school.

District/Organizational-Level Employer/Teacher Relatiﬂ
With respect to the data collected in District 3, there was little emphasis on

mutual goals. Neither the administration nor the union spoke of a shared philosophy that

144

ultimately guided their interactions with one another. One reference in the Master

Agreement states,

WHEREAS, the Board and the Association recognize and declare that providing a
quality education for the children in the district is their responsibility and mutual
aim, and that the character of such education depends signiﬁcantly upon the
quality and morale of the teaching personnel, and that the members of the
teaching profession are particularly qualiﬁed to assist in formulating policies and
programs designed to improve educational standards; (p. 1)
In general, the Master Agreement prescribes behavior and reﬂects the priorities of the
parties. Again, the question becomes: Does the written philosophy truly exist in the
observable behaviors and the articulated belief systems of the parties? In the case of
District 3, the “mutual aim” referenced in the Master Agreement did not have a dominant
presence in the dialogue with the director of human resources or the union president.
The roles of the union and administration were more traditionally deﬁned in

District 3. When asked about the role of the union, the director of human resources

stated,

I see the role of union as watchdogs. They think that they need to keep abreast of
everything we’re doing so as not to stomp on the rights of the teachers under the
collective bargaining agreement. They’re watching us to see what we do because
once we make a mistake, or if we do something they perceive as a mistake, then
they can ﬁle a grievance.

She explained the role of the union as a protector of membership rights and commented,
“The watchdog is an ever-vigilant position, always assuming that something is going to
happen if they don’t stay vigilant.”

The director of human resources also shared her perceptions of the attitude of the
central ofﬁce administration (referring to the superintendent) toward the union. She
stated,

[The union is] a kind of necessary evil. Part of the problem is the superintendent

came from a state that has a different environment of labor relations than the state
of Michigan. We are unique. We have to see it that way. You come to Michigan

145

and you hit this rough sledding that is a part of our culture. This isn’t necessarily
the result of bad people trying to subvert things. This is basically how we
perceive labor relations to be. And this is what we grow up with in this state.
And you have a leader coming in from someplace else with a different perception

of labor relations; he’s apt to feel very burned in Michigan. And I think that’s the
current climate.

She continued,

I think our superintendent feels burned by the union, when in reality, that’s not
their goal to burn anybody. But it feels like it, when your initiatives are always,
“You can’t do that. You can’t do that and that’s our rights.” It becomes
adversarial. And that is the biggest mistake, because you’ve always got to sit back
and say, okay this is the climate. Now how can I deal with the climate creatively,
instead of pretending that the climate doesn’t exist, or you can change the climate.

. . .Good luck, because “The workers are taking it on the chin, because the bosses
won’t give in!”

In District 3, the union was concerned about their own survival, as they protected
the rights of their membership. The human resources director said she believed that the
superintendent discounted the role of the union, largely because he did not have the
experiences or had not developed an understanding of dealing with unions within the
existing culture of a strong labor state.

Bargaining the Master Agreement. Before the most recent negotiation of the
Master Agreement, District 3 engaged in a traditional or distributive approach to
bargaining. This type of bargaining has the function of resolving pure conﬂicts of
interest. In other words, both parties presented their proposals or demands, engaged in a
forcing strategy with the purpose of convincing the other party that each had the power
and resolution to accomplish their bargaining goals. Instead of sharing power and
seeking win-win outcomes, one party gained power at the expense of the other.

However, before the most recent negotiations, the union and administration
communicated their dissatisfaction with the traditional approach to bargaining and agreed

to approach bargaining from a different perspective. The parties entered into a letter of

146

agreement, documenting their willingness to explore collaborative, interest-based
bargaining. The letter of agreement also established Speciﬁc parameters. Parts of the

agreement read,

The two parties are considering a collaborative approach to negotiations for the
long term beneﬁt of both parties in providing services for the students of the
District . . . .

The two parties must receive appropriate in-depth training in the use of
this style and the training in collaborative bargaining must be conducted jointly
with the two teams. . . .

Should the two parties not reach agreement by May 28'”, 1999, the two
parties will revert to the regular and standard bargaining process for the
negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement. . . .

It is agreed and understood that all preliminary or tentative agreements
made during those negotiations shall be null and void unless the parties mutually
agree to carry out any or all of those agreements forward to the regular and

standard bargaining process.

This represents a more integrative form of bargaining. By deﬁnition, it requires parties to
share power and responsibility at the bargaining table. As parties engage in dialogue
about their individual positions and share accurate information, it allows for an
equalization of power between the parties. It must be noted, there has to be a certain
level of trust between the parties for the integrative approach to bargaining to be
successful.

The two parties were obligated to engage in “joint and in-depth training” in using
this style of collaborative bargaining. The director of human resources described the
training:

We all attended kind of a seminar that was put on by Michigan State University.

When I say all of us, the superintendent, myself, a couple members of our

bargaining team, and the bargaining team selected by the union. We went to kind

of an in-service on collaborative negotiations. . . . Most people talked about kind
of a bulky process, that it wasn’t perfect and that it was difﬁcult, particularly in

Michigan, where the climate is more of a hard bargaining kind of place. We grew

up with the AF L-CIO, and a lot of our parents were in labor unions. . . . It’s kind

of embedded, I think, in the way we do business here in Michigan.

She described the process of collaborative, interest-based bargaining:

147

You have to have a set of guiding principles by which you operate when you
discuss issues. And there is a format with which to discuss issues. So essentially
what you’re doing in collaborative negotiations is ﬁrst of all agreeing on an issue.
Okay, this is the problem.

She offered an example of an issue bargained through an interest-based perspective:

We started with something that was kind of silly, but by way of illustration, it did
help the group understand the training, because it was the ﬁrst thing we did after
the training; the change in the mileage rate to the IRS rate. . . .Obviously, we want
to be fair to our employees, and the union wants to collect as much compensation
as they can under the law, so we explored those issues. And then we brainstorm
ways to deal with the IRS rate, as opposed to the current mileage rate. Well, in
brainstorming, anything goes, so we’d go from the ridiculous to the sublime. One
of the ideas was that the superintendent would just cart people around in his car.
That brought a big laugh. That was absurd, but it was still a possible solution.
And ultimately we did decide, the way we knew we would, but we followed this
process of identifying an issue and coming up with mutual reasons why this is an
issue for both of us. And then, ultimately, brainstorming solutions to the problem.

The human resources director discussed the effectiveness of an interest-based approach
to negotiating:

We found it to be a pretty effective strategy. . . . A downside is that it is
enormously time consuming. But you truly exhaust all of the ramiﬁcations and
all of the solutions for an idea. So, when you’re asked, you can sufﬁciently
defend why the group made the decision. The decisions are made in a group, so
there is sort of this commonality of interest that is expressed in the results of the
decision that we arrive at.

A more traditional approach to bargaining was the norm in District 3, but the
administration and the union leadership were willing to attempt a different approach.
The director of human resources discussed her perspective on the union membership’s

suspicion of the new approach. She stated,

When you look at a labor climate, such as the one in Michigan, and you realize
that we come from a hard-bargaining model, there is a great deal of suspicion as
to just what it is we’re doing in there. So the way we counter that is, we put out
joint statements, but that too was viewed with a little bit of suspicion, I think, by
the union membership especially. . . . If I had it to do over again differently, we
really needed to extend that training and understanding of collaborative
negotiations to everyone who is a stakeholder. . . . We have to agree on a
statement, and that’s all we put out. That was very tough for the rank-and-ﬁle

148

teachers. And I think they felt left out of the process. Thus, when we reached our
collaboratively negotiated agreement, it was turned down by a huge majority.

She elaborated on other factors that might have caused the union membership to
vote down the tentative agreement reached through an interest-based bargaining
approach. She commented,

They [the teachers] were just angry. Now there were other things that went into
play, other factors, but I think their failure to understand collaborative bargaining
was a frustration I heard loud and clear. . . . Also, there was an article in the
newspaper that was published the day that our tentative agreement was set to be
voted upon. And it was an article that was talking about the superintendent’s pay
increase. The point of the article was to describe the stability that the current
superintendent was to bring to the district, because he was signing on for an
additional multi-year term. Unfortunately, the size of the increase was such that
the teachers revolted against that . . . there was a lot of ﬁngers pointing to the
article in the paper. . . . The superintendent’s raise was signiﬁcantly large in a
district that is telling their teachers’ union that they can’t really afford a
signiﬁcant increase.

The union president discussed the membership’s decision to vote down the
tentative agreement that was reached through the interest-based process. She
commented,

We did reach a tentative agreement last year. The contract was voted down. This
is the ﬁrst time ever, certainly the ﬁrst time since I’ve been here, . . . [that] our
negotiating team told us that the administration had to bargain from the standpoint
that the district was in dire ﬁnancial straits. They did not have any money or their
ﬁnancial outlook didn’t look good. So they bargained in good faith and took a
rather small pay increase, which was okay. I think it was about 2%, but the other
part that happened was that the things that we gave up were all things that
teachers needed.

She continued to talk about the teachers’ reaction to the tentative agreement, stating,

They [the teachers] were very upset because for two years or so, maybe more, the
district had agreed to bargain for the insurance as well as the longevity. And once
again, it had not been completed. But I think what really angered the teachers
was that at the time that we were voting, the superintendent received a rather large
raise. I think it was something like 7%, but also a $15,000-a-year bonus just to
remain in the district each year . . . and you are supposedly in such serious
ﬁnancial straits and you’re asking your teachers to take a 2% raise, which they
probably would have gone along with? It inﬁrriated the teachers and it infuriated
the negotiating team because they felt they had been betrayed.

149

Because the tentative agreement was voted down, the parties had to return to the

bargaining table. The director of human resources reﬂected, “The trust factor has been

eroded at this point.” Further, the union said it no longer believed the information that

was shared at the table was accurate. As a result, the union and administration returned

to a traditional, distributive approach to bargaining.

After the ﬁrst tentative agreement was voted down, the union leadership changed.

The new president had not been trained in the collaborative process. The director of

human resources commented,

I think the strength of the [interest-based] model is the relationships that are
formed among members of the team. . . . Then the whole collaborative model
could no longer really be justiﬁed . . . so the personnel changed. Then, too, did all
of the dynamics, and the relationships that we built.

The director of human resources commented further on the introduction of the new union

president into the negotiating process:

The new president came in determined to show her constituency that she was
going to be a strong leader who was going to get them another percent, and she
did. . . . We reverted back to traditional bargaining immediately, with proposals
on the table about salary and beneﬁts. And some of the things we agreed to--for
instance, we agreed in collaborative negotiations to form a joint committee to
look at beneﬁts, in terms of cutting costs; we agreed to hire a consultant, and we
agreed that this consultant was going to present us with all the pros and cons of all
the plans out there, by way of trying to ﬁnd a way to save money, through our
medical beneﬁts--and that agreement was just discarded.

The union president discussed her presence in renegotiating the master agreement. She

stated,

When we renegotiated and I went into the negotiations at that point, the
administration asked us, “What do you want?” And we said, “Everything you
tried to take away, plus the raise.” And we stood very ﬁrm on that. Everything
that was taken out of the contract, we put back in, plus we got our raise!

The distributive approach for negotiating was now being implemented by the parties at

the bargaining table. The union presented their demands and engaged in a forcing

150

strategy with the purpose of convincing administration that they had the power to
accomplish their goals.

The union president commented on the “leverage” or power the membership gave
to the negotiating team by voting down the original tentative agreement. She stated, “In
fact, when they voted it down they gave us some leverage, they gave us some clout. We
could go in there a lot tougher, a lot stronger, and say our membership wants this.” She
continued to reﬂect on the positive effect on the union:

In spite of the anger, in spite of the frustration, in spite of how the negotiators felt

and the teachers felt, there was something good that came out of that. And that

was the fact that the union was so united, so I have to build on that and keep it
going. And keep encouraging them.

One of the forcing strategies used by the union was their ability to delay the
publication of the school calendar. The union president stated,

We didn’t ﬁx the calendar until we got what we wanted. It was a very tense

situation at that time. The calendar was part of the package. What we were not

going to do was to resolve a portion of the package without having everything
else resolved. I think if there had been a level of trust there, that would not have
been a problem. But the trust had been eroded.
The inability to release a school calendar had ramiﬁcations for the administration and the
board. The director of human resources explained,

It was the middle of the summer, we at that point had no calendar, our parents and

our whole community were pretty much in an uproar about no calendar. This is

very disruptive to families. And so at the end it got down to the wire. We were

concerned about getting a tentative agreement before school started, and we did

what traditional bargainers do, agreed at the last minute.

The union gained power from withholding an agreement on the calendar. As a result, the
administration said there was a pressure to settle the agreement.

The union president was asked about the general tone in the district following the

negotiating of the ﬁnal Master Agreement. She commented on her perceptions and

deﬁned her role:

151

The general tone in the district was very disturbing to me because the
administration seemed to be very angry at the negotiating team because they had
not sold the contract, or gotten the people to pass the contract. Which struck me
as very unusual because it seems to me that my job is to take information back.
And the ﬁnal decision is left up to the membership. Because we bargained a
contract does not mean that they have to take it--they have a right to say no.

In discussing the “tone” of labor relations in District 3, the union president described her
reaction to a board member’s comment that was made in a public meeting:

One of the board members said something to the effect, “Well he hopes that the
people who voted no will just go on and do whatever it is they have to do
professionally.” That wasn’t the issue! When you vote no, that doesn’t mean that
you’re not going to go back and do your job. All of those people are doing their
job. I thought, “How inappropriate, you don’t get it.”

 

She also reﬂected on her perception that a lack of trust in administration existed. She
commented,

It will take a while to rebuild the trust. There have been a series of incidents. At
a board meeting, the superintendent made a public statement: “The teacher
contract is an anti-management contract.” You make those statements publicly,
how can you build trust when someone thinks like that? Then you have the
statement that “I would much rather do letters of agreement than to go through the
ratiﬁcation process.” The ratiﬁcation process involves the entire membership,
and changes that are made to their contract, an agreement between the district, the
board of education, and the teachers. If you’d rather do letters of agreement than
the process, you’re telling me something about the contract. Now when you add
to that instances where grievances are never settled, very seldom at the ﬁrst level,
then a red ﬂag in terms of what it is we’re trying to do here. . . . Many members
feel that there are things that are done that are unfair.

The Director of Human Resources went so far as to state, “There is a crisis of hate for
administration here.”
When the union president was asked whether she would be willing to attempt an
interest-based, collaborative approach to negotiating again, she stated,
I don’t think it was the process as much as the people involved in the process.
I’m not willing to judge the process at this point. I think that there’d have to be
some real adjustment in terms of interpersonal skills. And how administration

treats people and whether they Show the respect. The collaborative part of it was
negotiated into the contract, so we have to hone what we’ve agreed to do.

152

Letters of agreement are a means to reach an understanding between the parties
on an as-needed basis, rather than waiting for the bargaining event that is dictated by the
expiration of the Master Agreement. In District 3, the Master Agreement establishes a
“consultation procedure,” which is a formal process for addressing issues through letters
of agreement. The purpose of the consultation procedure is to “address matters which are
outside of the scope of this Agreement and/or related to the implementation of this
Agreement.”

The established guidelines require any formal proposals to be in writing, and the
other party must acknowledge their receipt. The consultation procedure also dictates
timelines for establishing a meeting between the parties to discuss the identiﬁed issue.
The Master Agreement reads,

If as a result of this meeting or subsequent meetings arranged to the mutual

satisfaction of the Association and the Superintendent or designee, agreement is

reached on the proposal, it shall be presented to the Board as a joint
recommendation of the Superintendent and the Association. Any proposal
adopted by the Board and initiated or approved by the Association shall be
reduced to writing, signed by the Board and the Association, and shall become an

addendum to this Agreement. (pp. 45-46)

The union president offered her opinion of letters of agreement, stating, “What letters of
agreement do is they allow changes in the contract without the ratiﬁcation. And to me,
they ought to be used very rarely, if there is a real exception where maybe one person is
in a situation that you want to address.”

In the past ﬁve years, District 3 had entered into nine letters of agreement. The
agreements established subcommittees to examine speciﬁc provisions of the Master
Agreement related to staff reductions and addressed issues related to elementary planning

time, collaborative bargaining, posting vacancies, speciﬁc stafﬁng needs, and an early

retirement incentive.

153

Managing internal differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solvirg). As the
parties managed differences, a “forcing” strategy was primarily used. A forcing strategy
involves using power to dictate outcomes. The parties engaged in a low frequency of
communication. It was generally one-way communication through formal channels.
There was little employee voice in managing internal differences in District 3. Instead,
the administration relied on its power to manage the organization. The power of the
teachers’ union was derived from their ability to force resolutions to problems and

conﬂicts through the grievance process.
Both the union and the administration said the communication from the central

ofﬁce administration sent a mixed message to the teachers. The director of human

resources commented,

After Proposal A, everything changed. I don’t think that really our community or
our teachers really understand the impact of that on the budget because one of the
strategies that I’ve observed in the last three administrations is that they haven’t
made cuts--administration has taken cuts, but programs haven’t. So we’ve kind of
kept our community and teachers kind of blind to the realities of the economic
crisis we’re facing.

She continued,

There has been a history of a lack of faith or belief in the administrators. They
just don’t believe what we say. And sometimes it has been for good reason
because we don’t really tell it like it is. We protect people from the realities of the
ﬁnancial situation, of education in Michigan, and don’t make the cuts that really

send a message. So consequently, the teachers are confused. “So do you have
money, or don’t you?”

The union president also commented on mixed messages coming out of central office.

She offered two examples where she viewed the superintendent’s behaviors and words as

contradictory. She stated,

You can tell me, you know, “We’re really for you guys and we really support
you,” but if everything that you do is counter to that. . . . For example, we had an
individual, a member, whose house burned down. She lost everything over
Christmas break . . . and in our contract it says that you have a right to grant such

154

a leave if they need it, and past practice has been that that kind of thing is just
done. Sort of like, we trusted administration to do the right thing for her. It was
worked out between the two of them. That was when there was trust. In this
situation, you can imagine the emotional state, the member was told to go check
into a letter of agreement from your association, see if they’ll agree to it. Well of
course we will, sure, ﬁne. She goes back and it is denied. Now, why do you send
people to do this and then you turn around and draw up a different letter where
she had to pay back days? The [superintendent’s] letter of agreement was also
pending ratiﬁcation of the contract. Now what does this catastrophic event have
to do with the ratiﬁcation of the contract? If you’re going to do the right thing, do
the right thing. Don’t tie it to the contract!

The union president continued,

You’re sending double messages. Another example, one of our experienced

teachers was asked [by a central ofﬁce administrator] to draw up a proposal to

mentor young teachers, initiating the language in our contract for a sabbatical. It
had been the practice to pretty much approve all sabbaticals. And when this one

got to the board, it was denied. Well, why go through that? What kind of a

message are you sending? You don’t value us!

Both the director of human resources and the union president said that the mixed
messages sent by the administration had caused the teachers to lose trust and faith in the
administration.

As the union and administration engaged in the processes of resolving conﬂict
and problem solving, formal channels of communication were established. The Master
Agreement dictates one such channel: “Before official action on reduction of bargaining
unit members is taken by the Board, it will give notice of the contemplated action to the
Association and afford the Association an opportunity to discuss it” (p. 21).

Both the director of human resources and the union president discussed an
intentional and ongoing formal channel of communication that was supposed to be
established between the superintendent and the union president. The director of human

resources explained, “The formal communication that was set up hasn’t been followed

through with. A weekly meeting between the union president and the superintendent to

155

discuss issues has not happened, and I don’t have an explanation why.” The union
president offered her perspective on this formal channel:
I think he would like to meet every week, but I have met twice this year. Only
because of my schedule, coming in as a new president. I am going to do a
schedule for the rest of the year. I will be taking at least one person from my
board, my vice-president, in with me. It will give the superintendent an
opportunity to hear from people at different levels so they can dialogue and share
some concerns. . . . We can talk about the tone. We can talk about some general
things.
The parties both identiﬁed the grievance process as a formal channel of communication
that forces dialogue. The union president commented, “The purpose is to get that
dialogue, and to honestly get people to listen to each other. It’s not happening!”
Communication through informal channels did not occur frequently in District 3.
The union president stated, “Informal dialogue, you have to have trust to do that. You’ve
got to trust that you have the same common goal, and that’s the interest of the kids, the
interest of the people that work with the kids. It’s not there.”
The director of human resources offered her perspective:
Some informal, but that’s the heading-off—at-the-pass kind of stuff. That can be
very collaborative and very helpful, but it usually takes the form of a call from the
union leadership. Someone in the leadership who feels like the administration is
not the enemy, saying “I just want to tell you what is going on in a building,
maybe you can smooth those waters.” It’s a heads up. So it’s informal and it’s
helpful, but it’s not something that person would necessarily admit to doing.
The director of human resources said that a union member “would not necessarily admit”
to such dialogue, which indicates this was not part of the prescribed behavior in District
3. Further, the communication that did occur was based on union representatives acting
as a voice for the membership.

The director of human resources acknowledged the importance and the value of

informal, two-way communication in addressing issues. She communicated her belief

156

that seeking input and allowing various perspectives to surface could enhance the

outcome. She stated,

I ﬁnd if very frustrating that people won’t talk because that is truly the only way
to solve a problem. You know, you’ve got to come to a table with a problem and
an open mind, and some possible solutions to which you’re not necessarily
wedded. And then you can come up with a pretty good solution. . . . We face all
kinds of really interesting pressures in public education. It seems like there would
be much more of a focus on keeping our own house in order and cooperating in
solving problems, but I don’t see that happening.

The union president identiﬁed the grievance process as a means to solve
problems. She stated, “Problems are solved through the grievance process, and
unfortunately we haven’t had many that have been settled on the ﬁrst level. I’ve had a lot
of complaints, but we’re the only ones that have to do the giving.” The Master
Agreement establishes a formal procedure involving the initiation of a grievance for
resolving the problem of classroom overloads. The Master Agreement reads:

When in the professional judgment of a teacher there exists a teacher overload

condition, the teacher or group of teachers or the Association shall have the right

to submit a grievance in writing to the building principal. Said grievance shall set
forth the reasons why . . . in professional judgment an overload condition exists.

. . . The grievance shall ﬁrst be presented to the Director of Personnel for a

discussion between the grieving party, a building level representative . . . and the

Director of Personnel. If the matter is not resolved in this discussion, it may be

submitted to the “Overload Arbitration Process.” (p. 13)

Based on the language in the contract, this process did not promote collaboration between
the parties. Instead, the teachers determined that a problem existed, and the
administration was “forced” through a grievance process to listen and address the issue.

The director of human resources discussed the method for addressing classroom
overload situations. She commented,

We have no class sizes listed in our contracts. If a teacher decides that this class

is too big, either on shear numbers alone or on classroom make-up, like they

could have some wild ones that make it difﬁcult for him to teach, he can bring a

grievance. And we have a set budget for overloading. That has become way
popular.

157

When asked, “Who makes the decision on whether and how to address the problem?”

she stated,

Well, it was me, in consultation with the principal and director of special services.
We would bring it before the superintendent and the director of ﬁnance because
we were dealing with the budget. . . . If the grievance is denied, then we have the
expedited arbitration, which is frankly a pain in the rear. Good luck getting
anything expedited from AAA!

She continued:

We had a grievance that included the primary reason was because she had so
many “only” children; that means children who are the only child in their family
in her classroom. And that these kids couldn’t take turns and needed a lot of adult
attention. . . . I think that the teachers honed in on groups of kids and made certain
judgments about them that I found a bit offensive. Another teacher let me know
that 25% of his class was African American. He was having a hard time
controlling them. I don’t think you can take a class of kids, whether it’s a racial
class or a birth-order class or a gender class or any class and say because of this, I
can’t teach.

The ﬁx has been put an aide in the classroom. . . . I think this has
prevented teachers from developing and principals from developing strategies that
would make them better educators. . . . I don’t think we have worked hard enough
to mind those things, because it requires more effort on the part of everyone.

She continued,
I don’t see a lot of teachers developing, honing classroom management skills to
meet these new demands. Rather than that, I see them asking the administration
for help and the help usually takes the form of a body. I would say that where the
union has dug in their heels is that we have failed to agree on what constitutes an
overload.
To deal with the problem of classroom overloads, a forcing strategy was used by the
union membership. In response, the administration dictated a solution that might or
might not be acceptable to the teacher.
In District 3, the grievance process was the prominent strategy for resolving
conﬂicts between the parties. In general, the grievance process is considered to be

adversarial in nature. It is initiated when a bargaining unit member or the union believes

the terms of the Master Agreement have been violated, infringing on their employment

158

rights. In general, the grievance process forces the administration to hear the concerns of
the union and ensures due process. The union president commented,
Conﬂicts are resolved through the grievance process. That’s it. They seem to
view us as confrontational. That’s what we get all the time. To ﬁle a grievance is
not necessarily confrontation. Sometimes you do it to bring clarity, to get the two
sides together to sit down and talk. . . . Initially you want to resolve it on the ﬁrst
level . . . but if the administrator cannot settle it because he has to check with
someone else and has to adhere to what he is being told to do, then you have to
grieve it.
The union president communicated her belief that “It’s the only way to initiate dialogue
around the concern.”
In District 3, the union had ﬁled a total of 27 written grievances over the past ﬁve
years. Of these grievances, 4 were settled at Level I with the building administrator, 11
were settled at Level II with the director of human resources, 4 were settled at Level II
with the superintendent, 7 proceeded to arbitration, and l was being heard in civil court.
Nine of the total grievances addressed class overloads. With respect to the outcomes of
the grievances, eight reﬂected the union’s position and ﬁve were still pending. The
speciﬁc details of the grievances can be found in Appendix D.
The director of human resources reﬂected on the use of the grievance process,

commenting,

I think it’s because they don’t believe that administration is doing all they can to
solve their problems. And they believe that they’re going to get a better result in
arbitration. . . . I ﬁnd that what they expect out of arbitration and what they get are
two different things. What they get is an answer to the very narrow question
they’ve asked the arbitrator. They don’t get advice on how to behave, and how to
get along. And that’s what they really want, I think.

In District 3, both the union and district-level administration identiﬁed the formal
grievance process as the primary strategy for resolving conﬂict. Initiating a grievance

forces the parties to initiate dialogue and resolve issues through a formal communication

159

 

channel. The parties exert their individual presence and power, creating a “separateness”

in the relationship.

Decision making In District 3, many of the decisions were made with little or no
teacher input. The union president stated, “Basically, they are unilateral decisions by the

administration.” She offered the following example:

I was on the design team for the middle school. Our responsibility was to ﬁnd
space for existing programs in the new building. . . . Early on, the superintendent
voiced a dislike for the Life Skill Program, not because it wasn’t necessarily
educationally sound, he just felt that it was outdated. But that’s not so. For
whatever reason he didn’t like it, so one day he came in and decided, “Well, we’re
not going to have that program.” It’s out. So I’m going to the board tonight with
a letter from the teachers. There’s no input.

She commented on communication and lack of teacher voice:

The dialogue is not there. The decisions are made without the dialogue. So
you’re put in a constant state of reacting to a decision, not just sitting there
allowing this dialogue to go forth with no intention of even embracing a different
opinion. Or just trying to see it from another person’s side. Your mind is made
up. That’s how decisions are made, and it has created resentment and distrust.

As a reaction to the decision to eliminate the Skills for Living class, the teachers
developed a letter addressing the issue, signed it, and submitted it to the superintendent
during the public-comment part of a board meeting. In response, the superintendent

addressed a letter to each of the teachers that read:

While writing a letter of concern is certainly an understandable and common
practice, it is also my experience, as well as my personal practice, that letters of
concern usually follow a personal discussion or, at the very least, are delivered
initially to the individual with whom there is a concern. That process gives the
individual an opportunity to hear the concern, establish a meeting for personal
dialogue to discuss the concern, clarify details, offer an explanation, and so on. In
that context, I am disappointed with your decision to deliver and have this letter
read at a public meeting where there is no opportunity for dialogue. I would not
do that to you, and I am disappointed that I was not offered the same professional
courtesy.

In addition, if it is your interest to discuss the details of the Skills for
Living decisions, I am more than willing to do so and welcome an invitation to do
so. I asked in my ofﬁce if anyone had recently attempted to establish such a
meeting, and apparently there was no such effort. You ask that I reconsider my

160

 

decision and I ask that you take the time to know what the facts are, as the letter

you signed has inaccurate statements. I hope you will call to make an

appointment to meet with me to discuss this important area of concern.
Intentional, two-way communication or dialogue to inform the original decision did not
exist. Further, intentional, two-way communication to resolve the resulting conﬂict was
not initiated. Instead, it was addressed through one-way communication channels,
“inviting” dialogue.

The union president discussed another example of a “unilateral,” “top-down”

decision. She commented on the decision-making process for hiring a building-level

administrator, stating,

If you call in a group of people to interview and the group unanimously decides
on a candidate, and you pick a different one, why bother? Just go on and pick
who you want. Don’t ask me to waste my time. He’s just going through the
motions of getting input, but it is very clear that the ﬁnal decision is always at the
top. I’m not necessarily critical of that, except for the fact you can’t say to me
that you value my input and you want us to collaborate.

She said she believed the superintendent made the actual decision and that teacher input
was not valued.

The director of human resources offered another example of a decision-making
process used in District 3. In this case, teacher input was considered in the decision to
establish an all-day kindergarten program. She stated,

We hired a consultant from Michigan State University; we called all of the
teachers together that were interested and talked about the kindergarten program.
We looked at the beneﬁts of all day versus half day, looked at the research as a
group. Ultimately, we decided to go with all-day kindergarten under the
guidelines of those consultants. We set up the classrooms and hired for the
positions.

The director of human resources continued by describing a problem that surfaced as a
result of the original decision:

There was a downside, too. The consultants strongly suggested an early
childhood endorsement. So when we posted for those positions, we posted for

161

that additional certiﬁcation. But we had a number of veteran kindergarten
teachers who had been here 20 years, who did not pursue additional certiﬁcations
. . . and they’re darn good at it. So, how dare we not hire them as all-day
kindergarten teachers?

As a result of the hiring process associated with the all-day kindergarten decision, she
continued,

Then there is a grievance, as a matter of fact, that is going to arbitration over that
very issue. . . .We were trying to build a quality program, and when you ask for
recommendations from a consultant you consider an expert, you kind of want to
follow them. So that created a huge rift in our district. . . . What we probably
could have done was to put some kind of system in place that would have given
credit toward a certiﬁcation. But we didn’t do that. So, rather than coming up
with a compromise, we said, “This is what the consultant told us, and this is what
we’re going to do.” There was a lack of meaningful dialogue about solving the
problem, a deﬁnite lack of meaningful dialogue, because I think we could have
come up with something. But now it’s going to arbitration.

She continued to reﬂect on the part of the decision to post for an early childhood
endorsement:

We didn’t bring someone in from the union. We brought in interested teachers,
but these people are not necessarily wearing union hats. They’re wearing teacher
hats. We should have invited the union in speciﬁcally to talk about what
problems they may see as a result of following the recommendation.

She discussed interacting with the union in the decision-making process: “I think we
make mistakes all the time about how we deal with the union. We have to bring them in
more. We have to make them a part of decisions. That was the whole point of the
collaborative process, but then it failed.” She continued,

I rarely see a decision made that has the intent of disadvantaging a group of
people. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decision made like that. But there
are a lot of decisions that are made that do disadvantage people, right or wrong.
That’s what I see most typically, is that if there were communication, 1 don’t think
that there would be as many mistakes, because you’d be hearing from the other
side, you’d be listening to what’s going on. You’d know what their perception is
of what’s going on. Sometimes the perception is totally wrong, and we waste a
lot of time, time better spent ironing out problems with conversations at lunch a
couple of times a month, than going to hearing. All the time wasted, and all of the
bitterness and the anger and the belief that this is the only way to address a
concern.

162

The director of human resources acknowledged that mistakes had been made in the
decision-making process. She said it was her belief that engaging the union in dialogue
would allow another perspective to surface and enhance the outcome. Further, initiating
dialogue could raise potential issues regarding the effect of the decision that
administration might not have considered.

Joint committees are one means to involve teachers in decision making and
problem solving. In District 3, the Master Agreement establishes a District School
Improvement Team. It reads: “The District School Improvement Team is hereby
recognized by the Association and the Board as an agency whose responsibility shall be
to initiate and recommend those policies which affect and guide the instructional
program” (p. 44). Neither the union nor the administration mentioned the efforts or
purpose of this joint committee or team.

Through a letter of agreement, the parties created a joint subcommittee to
examine staff-reduction provisions and qualiﬁcation and assignment provisions. The
goal was to develop an alternative provision that would be satisfactory to both parties.
Any recommendations for changes had to be directed to the parties’ respective
negotiation teams for review. The board and the union membership had to ratify the
changes. Neither the administration nor the union mentioned the existence of this
committee.

As described in the “Bargaining the Master Agreement” discussion, through the
interest-based negotiations process, the parties established a joint committee to look at
health care costs. The purpose of the committee was described as:

To look at beneﬁts, in terms of cutting costs, we agreed to hire a consultant. And
we agreed that this consultant was going to present us with all the pros and cons

163

of all the plans out there, by way of trying to ﬁnd a way to save money, through
our medical beneﬁts.

However, when the original tentative agreement was voted down by the membership, the

parties returned to traditional bargaining, and the agreement to establish this joint

committee was rescinded.
Summary of district/organizational-level relationship The union president shared

her beliefs about the teachers’ perspective with respect to the existing relationship at the

district level. She commented,

There seems to be the general tone in this district when you disagree, then you are
confrontational. Or you’re not a team player. That’s the tone. And that’s not so.
I think that I’ve learned a lot from people that disagree with me. Listen to what
they’re saying. There are going to be people that will disagree no matter what
you do, and that’s okay. Listen to that, too. But when people disagree,
sometimes that’s an opportunity for you to hear a different side and expand your
knowledge and use what they’re saying. This whole attitude that we’re here to do
whatever, and that we have all the answers and you don’t bring any opposition, is
not appropriate.

She continued,

It does not feel good in this district. All of these people can’t be wrong, you
know. So when you’ve got a staff that feels manipulated, when you’ve got a staff
that feels like they’re being controlled, and when you admit to the fact that there
is no trust, then you can’t deny. You have to take a look at the reasons that led up
to it and be honest with yourself . . . be willing to look at it. But if it’s always
someone else’s fault. . . . I don’t know if they are really, really aware or fully
understand how they’re being perceived.

The director of human resources shared her thoughts on the tone of labor relations at the
district level:
I don’t see conﬂicts being resolved in a cooperative way. I see the union is
digging in their heels. They’re angry. You know, they’ve gotten a lot of things,
but they still feel threatened, and not very good about administration, although it
doesn’t seem to be the case necessarily in the building.

At the district or organization level, District 3 had established an employer/

teacher relationship based on containment and/or avoidance. Throughout the data-

164

collection process, the union and administration communicated an “us versus them”
approach to the relationship. They placed little emphasis on mutual goals or a shared
philosophy that ultimately guided their interactions with one another. Instead, the union
was concerned about protecting their membership from the administration’s actions. The
central ofﬁce administration relied on its power to enforce decisions and took full
responsibility for managing the organization.

In the most recent negotiations, the union and administration attempted a
collabOrative, interest-based approach to bargaining, only to have the tentative agreement
voted down by the union membership. As a result, the parties reverted to a traditional
approach to settle the contract. The prescribed behavior in the district was primarily a
“forcing” approach. The grievance process was often initiated as a means to force
communication between the parties, resolve conﬂict, problem solve issues, and address
administrative decisions. The administration diminished the union’s role, whereas the

union maintained checks and balances on the actions of administration.

Buildinggr Individual-Level Employer/Teacher Relations

The employer/teacher relationship also exists at the building or individual level.
The processes of managing internal differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving)
and decision making occur at the building level between principals and teachers. Three
building-level administrators were interviewed, which offered an opportunity for varying
leadership styles. The relationships at the building level in District 3 did not always
reﬂect the relationship at the district level. Neither the building-level administrators nor
the teachers discussed a “philosophical” base for guiding their interactions.

The individual’s perspective on bargaining the Master Agreement. In the most

recent negotiations, the parties attempted “interest-based” bargaining. This represents a

165

more integrative form of bargaining. By deﬁnition, it requires parties to share power and
responsibility at the bargaining table. As parties engage in dialogue about their
individual positions and share accurate information, it allows for an equalization of
power between the parties. The two parties were obligated to engage in “joint and in-
depth training” in the use of this style of collaborative bargaining.

The actual bargaining was done at the district or organizational level. However,
the outcome directly affected teachers and administrators at the building level. When one
administrator was asked about the negotiating process, he commented,

I think, to understand the bargaining process, you ﬁrst need to understand the

relationship between the union and administration. It is adversarial. It is not

collegial. There is a general distrust between the union and administration. There
have been times in the past where there has been negotiation with the teachers,
and they’ve pretty much been told that either the cupboard is bare or this is the
whole amount that we’re able to give. So there has been an agreement, and then
shortly after that there has either been new funds found or there has been
administrative contracts that are granted which have higher raises, or more
beneﬁts, that are above and beyond what the teachers got.

Another building-level administrator reﬂected,

There wasn’t a lot of trust, trust being the issue. Trust I would deﬁne as the

ability of one person to predict the behavior of another. And I didn’t think there

was a lot of trust as teachers for the administration. It looked like we had to
please the superintendent.
He continued, “The superintendent had a team of principals, but he seemed to be the
main person, and he sat at the table. When I was in other districts in negotiations,
normally the superintendent wasn’t there. So I think that is a little bit different.”
A focus group of teachers discussed the superintendent’s presence at the table,

commenting,

People don’t feel like they were treated very well. Our negotiators were cursed,
when this is supposed to be collaborative bargaining. He’s [superintendent] just

not considered to be a very nice person. . . . I’ve been told he’s the only one that
counts anyway. So no one else will say anything at the negotiating table. He is
the negotiator.

166

The teachers continued,

In this district, collaborative bargaining basically means take it or leave it.
There’s no bargaining going on. Here’s what we’re offering you, if you don’t like
it. . . . Collaborative bargaining is that they’re asking us to be nice about it, when
we don’t like it.

Trust between parties is an essential component for the integrative approach to bargaining
to be successful. Both the teachers and administrators said that there was a lack of trust
and a concern about the superintendent’s presence at the bargaining table.

In District 3, after an agreement was reached using the interest-based bargaining
approach, the union membership voted down the tentative agreement. One focus group

of teachers commented,

The ﬁrst agreement was voted down without thought. It was a knee-jerk reaction
because the superintendent got an extension with a $15,000 bonus per year, just
for staying, after they had agreed that there was no money. So, since that news
came out right before the vote, the high school, leading the charge, voted it down.
They went back and came back with a considerably better contract offer, in terms
of salary.

Another focus group discussed the timing of the publication of the superintendent’s raise,

commenting,

It was published in the paper. . . . I think that was in error, because I truly believe
that the story was not supposed to come out until we had voted for the contract.
Unfortunately for them, our bylaws as an association read that you cannot have an
election without having a general meeting. And there was no time that the
elementary, the middle and the high school could get together until this date down
the road. Well, the story came out before that date arrived. Bad timing!

An administrator offered his understanding of the timing of the article:

The board said they wanted to be forthright with the union. They didn’t want the
appearance of “Well, we got that done.” . . . They didn’t want to have the opinion
of we win/you lose with the board. The board felt they needed to make this
announcement before the contract was ratiﬁed. Unfortunately, they doomed what
would have been a close vote anyway. Doomed the contract to failure.

The administrators and teachers said they believed the superintendent’s salary was the

main cause of the tentative agreement’s being voted down.

167

There were other factors that might have contributed to the rejection of the ﬁrst
tentative agreement. A focus group of teachers discussed a settlement reached with a
new central ofﬁce administrator after he had served six weeks in his position and then
was “let go.” They commented, “That was disconcerting to a lot of people, because that
was at the same time when we were hearing that we didn’t have any money. And yet,
here is this person that walks away with this big settlement.”

Another focus group discussed their belief that the board did not fulﬁll their
obligation to negotiate the issue of longevity:

There is a lot of resentment because there was supposed to be a longevity package

bargained at the same time that, to this day, still hasn’t gone forth. That was

supposed to happen in 1999 . . . so basically our side in good faith gave away a

very nice retirement package for nothing.

They continued, “I think the staff by and large was angry. They felt they had been sold a
bill of goods by the opposition, and absolutely do not trust them.” In general, the
teachers said they no longer believed that the communicated ﬁnancial status of the
district was accurate. Furthermore, they said they had bargained in good faith based on
this information, but the incidents involving salary and settlements at the district level
served to reinforce the mistrust between the teachers and administration.

The outcome of the negotiation process had a deﬁnite effect at the individual or
building level. One focus group of teachers commented on the union membership’s

decision to reject the ﬁrst tentative agreement:

The only impact I felt was probably that our staff felt pretty uniﬁed. . . . I just felt
like we really were very strong that we don’t like this contract. We deserve better
than this, so we’re going to ﬁght for it. And I just felt like that kind of made all of
us more uniﬁed, and then when it got defeated the ﬁrst time, I remember all of us
really kind of celebrating. This has not happened in 30-some years or something.
So we were really proud of that, not because we defeated anybody, but I think
because we were getting attention ﬁnally that we felt like we deserved better.

168

An administrator summarized the effect of the failed negotiations at the building level,
stating,

It’s not just negotiations. I would think the relationships with the union have a lot

of effect on teacher morale, and the way people have a level of trust, either

between administration, or as “they” when they always use the infamous “they”
or “them.” My feeling is that there is a lot of animosity or lack of trust directed at
one person, being the superintendent and some central administrators. The level
of distrust toward administration does affect how we work together.

Managing internal differences: Conﬂict resolution and problem solving, In
District 3, the approach to managing internal differences at the individual or building
level depended on the building. In other words, the approach to conﬂict resolution and
problem solving was not consistent throughout the district. As the teachers and building-
level administrators managed differences, a mixture of forcing and fostering strategies
was used to achieve a speciﬁc goal.

In all the buildings where data were collected, the parties engaged in intentional
communication that was initiated through both formal and informal channels. Both one-
way and two-way communication channels existed at this level. However, the balance of
the two-way or one-way communication depended on the speciﬁc building.

Administrators communicated their desire to maintain open communication
channels with teachers. They had established a variety of formal and informal,one-way
communication channels to keep teachers informed of relevant information. Strategies
for communicating with staff included memos and e-mails. One focus group of teachers
commented that “Most communication is done through our mailbox, and it’s one way.”

A building-level administrator discussed e-mail: “I use e-mail. That can be good and

bad. I think that sometimes we use e-mail for things that I think would be better off if we

had a face-to-face meeting.”

169

At each of the three buildings, staff meetings were also identiﬁed as a form of
formal communication. Depending on the building, the communication at these meetings
was described as both one-way and two-way in nature. One building administrator

stated,

We have three staff meetings a month. The ﬁrst staff meeting is for me to ﬁll
them in on anything going on districtwide. . . . Our second meeting is curriculum
based. . . . And then our last staff meeting is what we call our growing,
professional growth meeting. . . . Those are huge opportunities for us to get
together and communicate with one another.

Another administrator commented,
We usually have reports from teacher groups within the building. So I use
teachers a lot at the meetings. So people are presenting what they’re doing in the
classrooms, or ideas, or we just went through a building design. I use my teachers
meeting a lot for getting input on the design of the building.
The level of teacher involvement or two-way dialogue at each faculty meeting depended
on the building. A focus group of teachers from the third building commented, “We do
not have dialogue. We don’t have faculty meetings where it’s kind of like, this is a
problem, what do you think about it?”

An informal approach to communication was also evident in the interactions
between building-level administrators and teachers. The administrators and teachers who
were interviewed communicated their perceptions that the “principal is available,”
“visible,” and “accessible.” One principal commented,

I have an open-door policy. They know that. Teachers are in and out of my

ofﬁce. I feel it’s important to be in the classroom at least three times a week. So

I make it around to everybody’s classroom at least that often. And they pull me

aside and say, “I just got to thinking about this. I’m concerned about this or what

have you.
Another principal discussed his intentional attempts at informal dialogue, stating,
I try at least twice a week to eat lunch with the faculty. I feel that there is a lot of

communication that goes on. They ask me some very pointed questions. I
believe, though, that there is a lot of times that I’m able to dispel some

170

misinformation that’s out there. They don’t have any problems asking me the
tough questions. Likewise, I also don’t have any problem telling them they’re out
of line, and that’s not their decision or not any of their business. It’s a two way
street. . . . I think that’s very helpful.
A building-level administrator commented on the value of being visible as an informal
approach to communication: “At times this pays dividends. Someone will say, ‘Oh, by
the way, did you know this, or I need this.’ “ He commented on the informal
communication channel between himself and the building representative: “She will come
to me and say, ‘Have you heard this is going on, are you aware of this?’ She’ll come to
me and say, ‘15 this right, is this what’s really going on?’ and give me the background of
this and what do you know about this, which I think is the way to go.”
The principals and teachers said they recognized the value of maintaining informal, open
communication channels.

The level of teacher involvement in managing differences (conﬂict resolution and
problem solving) depended on the building. When asked about problem solving at the
building level, the administrator explained her approach:

I like to look at my role as a facilitator more than anything else. If we have a

problem, this staff is extremely good about bringing it forward immediately. And

they will ﬁrst communicate with me. And then we all meet together . . . we try to

brainstorm and see what’s going on and how to solve the problem. This group

does a great job of brainstorming and coming up with a collaborative solution.
The focus group of teachers from this building commented,

I feel like the administrator does a good job of pulling the staff together for a

meeting and usually tells us what the situation is and then asks for feedback from

us. I feel like she’s really good about ﬁnding out what we want to do. And the
people who have strong opinions on it have an opportunity to say. We have an
opportunity to hear different sides of different issues. . . . She pulls us together,
and we have an opportunity to talk about it.

However, there was disagreement within the focus group. Another teacher stated,

I disagree. We have almost no staff meetings. What staff is happy about is that
things get done. My perception would be that often we’ve made a decision [about

171

how to solve a problem] when one teacher has talked with her. The teacher goes
to her, “I’ve got a concern.” The principal stops or changes, and then later we
hear, “I had to do this because we all agreed that it was out of hand.”

He offered an example:

Someone went before the parent council and said what the teachers want is to
have money deferred to buying literacy texts. But a lot of teachers aren’t even
happy with the literacy program. They’re feeling it’s being imposed on them, but
now a lot of money is also going toward this. It was presented as a staff decision.
I don’t think it was a staff decision. . . . It was a one-person decision.

He communicated his belief that there was general satisfaction that problems were being

addressed:

But again, things are happening and problems are going away, and some of the
things that had completely disabled the staff in the past have stopped. . . . We
went from an administrator who said, “Gosh, that really troubles me” to an

administrator that says “that’s not going to happen.” Well, in between there could
be, “What do we think?”

The administrator said she made every attempt to engage staff in the problem-solving
process. The focus group of teachers in this building did not reach agreement on the
amount of teacher involvement in resolving problems. However, all the teachers agreed
that they believed and were satisﬁed that problems were being resolved.

Another building-level administrator shared his belief that many problems were

addressed through the grievance process. He commented,

I’ve probably had four of ﬁve grievances this year. There tends not to be a step in
the problem solving, the problem identiﬁcation and developing common interests,
let’s see if we can work this out. Usually what I’m getting is, we have a pre-
grievance hearing, but usually issues are presented with a concrete kind of a, this
is the remedy that I want. And so I’ve been facing each and every year more
increasingly kind of putting what I would consider solvable issues into a formal
grievance process.

He offered an example:

Teachers at all three levels ﬁled a grievance about too many hours in their day.
For department meetings, teachers meetings, we tend to run meetings at the end of
the day, very short, very businesslike, because they’ve already been here seven
hours. And no one has ever come close to the 31 hours. And it was really a

172

position that one of us was going to lose. Well, the union took it to arbitration
and they lost. But now when I try to get science department teachers to meet and
do curriculum, I used to be able to get release time for them. I could get subs, or I
could pay them curriculum rate. Now, I’ve got to make sure they have their 31
hours in. So a reaction has created another reaction. And we’re losing sight of
what our purpose was.

This administrator identiﬁed the grievance process as a means to force dialogue between
the teachers and administrators. He said he saw the value of two-way communication
and sharing perspectives to resolve problems. However, this was not the prescribed
behavior in this building.

The focus group of teachers from this building reﬂected on the problem-solving
process: “It depends sometimes on what the issue is. I feel like the administration
decides that these certain issues, they’re going to handle. I just always feel like, okay,
this is something new that’s going to happen. Never, what do you think about it?”

They discussed the opportunity for staff input through the school improvement team:

We do have a school improvement team. It is my opinion that it is not a good

representation of everybody in the building. I don’t think that it’s been a process

that we’ve necessarily felt, as staff members, welcome to contribute to because of
the fact that members were kind of selected by an individual. And that a decision
made by that person, and it’s ﬁne and there were reasons behind it, but I think that
it alienated quite a few people as far as having input. . . . I feel like the team is in
place and a lot of times we’re told, oh, well, that was a decision made by the
school improvement team. It’s like an untouchable kind of a thing, like we
decided. I mean, some of the decisions are wonderful and I think they beneﬁt all
of us. Not that we need input on absolutely every little tiny thing that goes on, but

I think that maybe that process has alienated some people.

The teachers in this building said they did not feel like they had a voice in the problem-
solving efforts. Teachers voices could be heard through the school improvement team,
but they said these teachers weren’t necessarily a “representative group.”

At a third building in District 3, a building-level administrator commented on

teacher input in the problem-solving process:

173

 

These people will speak out at a meeting, but they won’t come to administration
and express their concerns. I don’t like the issue of them addressing something in
a staff meeting, where they’re trying to make themselves look good, and trying to

make administration look bad.
He indicated that teachers did not identify problems in an appropriate forum. He said the
administration attempted to solicit their input on problems, but the teachers did not
respond. The focus group of teachers from this building commented, “I think if you
come to the assistant principals with a problem, they will deﬁnitely listen to you.
Whether they can do anything about it is dependent on the Situation.”

One teacher at this building communicated a problem-solving experience he

viewed as positive. He stated,

One assistant principal put together the exam schedule. He had ﬁrst hour being
100 minutes and second hour being 85 minutes. You know this isn’t going to be
fair to my second-hour class. So my problem was second hour has to stay 15
minutes late until you get your 100 minutes. So I went to the assistant principal.
He said, “I made a mistake. I’ll ﬁx it.”

He offered another example that he said was a positive problem-solving experience:

I had a problem once with a policy another teacher had in her class. I went and

talked to the principal about it, and she did listen to me. She listened to the other

teacher, and I think she made a decision that was good for both of us. So that was

a situation that I went to the principal about a curriculum issue and she did listen

to both teachers, and she still made the decision, but with our input.

Another teacher in the focus group replied, “AS a staff member, we ought to hear more of
that, because most of what we do hear is negative and that’s a positive!”

The approach to resolving conﬂict at the individual level depended on the
building. One building-level administrator discussed the importance of identifying
potential conﬂicts. She commented,

I touch base with every teacher every single day. If they have a gripe, I know

about it at the ground ﬂoor, and we can kind of smooth things out before they get

too big. These folks are open communicators. . . . They come directly to me and I
listen. I ﬁgure my job is to listen, and then I’ll tell them either “I can’t change it,

174

this is the way it is going to be,” or usually it comes out in our other process as
we’re discussing it openly.

The focus group of teachers from this building commented,

She isn’t afraid of conﬂict; 1 have a deﬁnite reverence for her. I have felt very
secure. I think it was just last year, I had an issue with a parent, and I remember

feeling like, I haven’t done anything wrong, and the principal will back me 100%.
And she did.

The teachers said they valued this administrator’s approach to conﬂict and felt supported.
Neither the administrator nor the teachers commented on the teacher’s role in resolving

conﬂict at the building level.

In another building, the approach to conﬂict resolution was situational. The

principal commented,

You know, it depends on what the conﬂict is. There is no general pattern to
conﬂicts. If it is a union contractual issue, it is usually done by the union ofﬁcers.
Most of the time the teachers aren’t even informed. Normally, I mean, there is a
grievance. I even had a grievance this year about a vacancy. Even the person
affected by it didn’t know a grievance had been ﬁled on their behalf. I would
think the situational things that affect everyone are probably taken to the union.

The principal discussed the role of the union in resolving conﬂicts through the formal

grievance process.

The administrator in the third building discussed the use of the grievance process

for resolving conﬂict. He reﬂected,

Last year we had the ﬁrst faculty meeting, and they ﬁled a grievance right after it
because according to the contract the only time we had left for their time period
was 15 minutes. So they ﬁled a grievance because the faculty meeting went for
45 minutes. The grievance was that they have professional hours, which means
they did not want the professional hours to be included in their duties. In other
words, we couldn’t ask them to help monitor during their planning period. They
won the grievance. Basically, we cannot assign any duties during their planning
period. When the grievance was ﬁled, they wanted that time, though, to be
included in their work week. They wanted the ﬁve hours counted toward the 32
in the contact, but they didn’t want us to be able to assign duties. So, I mean, that
is the attitude we’re dealing with. Basically, they wanted their cake, but they
wanted to eat it too, so to speak.

175

The teachers in this building commented on grievances as a means to resolve conﬂict:
I can’t tell you how many grievances we have pending, and they’re all dealt with
in the same way. There is absolutely no resolution. You can count on it. It will
be bumped out of the building to the superintendent’s level, and they will patently
be turned down. Then they will go to arbitration. We lost a very important
arbitration last year that had stagnated all year long, before we had an arbitrator.
Basically, the superintendent brought in a shark attorney out of Grand Rapids, and
we were given an MBA Uniserv director who wasn’t qualiﬁed to do the job.
The teachers offered an example: “Our planning periods are not considered part of our
professional day. We lost that, but we’ve now got grievances this year pending because
of the way that they’re interpreting the total hours; it’s contractual. It’s very nasty.” The
teachers continued, “I don’t think conﬂicts at this level are resolved. I think it’s ‘do it my
way or hit the highway.’ I cannot think of one thing that we as a staff were unhappy
about that has been changed.” They offered a historical perspective on conﬂict resolution
at the building level:
It used to be real open, real up front. It was, “I can ﬁx that,” or “No, I can’t; you
need to bump this up.” And so a lot of things never went out of this building.
We’ve had situations in the last two years that should have never, never left this
building, never should have gone as far as they did. And they’re going to
arbitration. I don’t know if it’s because our principal isn’t empowered to make
these decisions or if she doesn’t want to. Maybe she’s been given the order to
deny them all. The attitude is “deny them all and they’ll go away with time.” Or
we’ll ﬁnally get to arbitration and we’ll win.
Both the administration and the teachers recognized the grievance process as the means
for resolving conﬂict at the building level. Both said that resolving the conﬂict by
listening to varying perspectives was the preferred method, but it was not the prescribed
behavior at the building or district level.
The grievance process was recognized as the method for forcing dialogue
between the parties. In general, the grievance process is considered to be adversarial in

nature. It forces administration to hear the concerns of the teachers and ensures due

process. In District 3, the grievance process had been used 26 times over the past ﬁve

176

 

 

years. Of the total grievances ﬁled, 18 addressed building-level decisions, but only 4
were resolved at the building level.

In District 3, the union was actively involved in resolving conﬂicts and addressing
problems with the administration. The level of union inﬂuence depended on the building.
A building-level administrator commented, “Either a building in this district is very hard-
line union, or they are of an ‘It’s there if I need it’ type attitude.” Another administrator
commented on the union presence and the Master Agreement:

I think the union is very active. They know the contract, they know when the

contract is being abused or when there are violations of the contract. But I think

that if you live by the letter of the law of the contract, I don’t think the school
system can do everything they need to have accomplished. I think when you look
at the contract it’s a give and take situation. Unfortunately, at times they want to
argue, want to live by the letter of the contract in some areas. But when you use

and read the contract, there is some latitude that administration can do like I

mentioned earlier with additional hours. If we were to start to assign teachers to

be here for additional time after the school day, they would ﬁle a grievance. Yet I

think we would be well within our rights to do it by the letter of the contract.
However, the relationship with the union within a building did not always reﬂect the
relationship with the teachers in general. A building-level administrator commented,

The working relationship in this building has not broken down. I don’t think our

working relationship in this building has broken down how the relationship with

the union officials and the administration has broken down. So I don’t think it
reﬂects that. I think people still want to do a good job. They still care about kids.

In District 3, there was a strong presence of the union in managing differences at
the building level. Both the teachers and administrators said there was an “us versus
them” tone that affected the process of managing differences. Grievances were often
used to resolve issues and address problems. It was through the grievance process that
dialogue was initiated or forced. The established formal and informal communication

channels often promoted one-way dialogue. However, at all buildings, both parties said

there was an attempt at informal, two-way dialogue through the conscious efforts made

177

by building-level administrators to be visible and accessible. Within this structure, the

parties engaged in a mixture of fostering and forcing strategies, with a greater use of

forcing strategies.

Decision majkipg, In District 3, the decision-making process used at the building
level depended on the building, as well as the type of decision. At times, decisions were
made with input from teachers. In such cases, the teachers might be used as sources of
information to guide the decision-making process. Several teachers communicated their

belief that they often were not part of the decision-making process, and voiced their

concerns.

In one building, the administrator said she sought and valued teacher input in
decisions that affected the building. However, there were times when the decision
needed to be made by the administrator. She commented on the process:

We do a lot of discussion and then we come up with a majority. “What can we
live with? Can everybody live with this?” Even if there is one person who says,
“I absolutely can’t live with that,” then we go back and take something else and
look at it and discuss it and see if we can live with that. Everyone doesn’t have to

be 100% happy, but our rule is everybody has to be able to live with it. And
nobody can sabotage whatever we do.

She continued,

When it comes to hard-core decisions, the teachers know that there is a rift, we
just can’t come to a collaborative agreement, I will make the decision. And they
understand that the bottom line is, if I have to, I’ll just make a decision and we’ll
go from there. And I’ll take any heat that comes from that.

She offered an example of a decision she had had to make:

I’ve only had to do that on probably one occasion here. It was a big issue, and it
was whether or not teachers would be turning in lesson plans. I was having
difﬁculty seeing where the curriculum was being taught at all times, at certain
grade levels. So we did a lot of discussing, they didn’t like it, it wasn’t going

certainly where I wanted it to go, so I had to say, “This is going to have to be an
administrative decision.” So we do that at times.

She offered an example of a collaborative decision, guided by teacher input:

178

 

Our parking lot situation here. . . . We had a lot of problems with parents and kids
being unsafe because parents were not picking up or dropping off appropriately.
All sorts of issues going on with the parking lot. Two teachers came to me and
said, “We’ve got to do something. This is getting really out of hand.” So we had
a meeting . . . we could tell the parents they can’t, you have to have your kid ride
the bus. We came up with all sorts of things. A lot of the teachers couldn’t live
with that because we’re here to serve the community and to help the community,
and that really broke down our community feeling. So then someone said, “Okay,
what we’ll do is all teachers will cram in on one side of the building,” which is
very inconvenient for the folks on the other side. But after a lot of discussion, and
a promise that we’d look into expanding the parking lot, everybody said they
could live with it. So, that’s what we’re doing at this point in time.

In this particular building, the administration’s approach to the decision depended on the
type of decision.

Another principal discussed a formalized decision-making process used in his
building. The process was called the “shared decision-making process” and had been
printed and placed in the teachers’ handbook, as well as distributed in mailboxes. The
ﬁve major steps of the process were: (a) announce the concern and form an interest
group; (b) interest group establishes goal, explores alternatives, selects a solution, and
develops an action plan; (c) interest group distributes draft of proposal, seeks feedback,
and develops ﬁnal draft; (d) entire staff votes, requires 75% of total staff to pass the
proposal; and (e) implement the proposal. This process was initiated through teacher
concern, elicited teacher input, and allowed teachers to vote on the ﬁnal outcome.

The administrator said this process was used “for short-term, procedural or policy
kinds of things that affect the working conditions or even the teachers.” He offered an
example:

The middle school shares buses with the high school. When the high school had

to change time, we had to change our time because of busing. We had to add ﬁve

minutes to our schedule. So the teachers were actually given the problem, “How
do you want to handle this ﬁve minutes?” It had to be instructional; we did have

some general guidelines. They came up with a solution, voted on it, and it was
put in.

179

He commented that the formal decision-making process, based on teacher input and
ownership of the decision, was not always used. He stated,

As the relationships with the union have become more formalized, and I would
say problematic, the less decision-making process is being used, even though it’s
available. I’m concerned that people don’t take problems on and try to come up
with a solution without seeking a remedy that is more formal and conﬂict. . . . The
informal relationship where things can kind of be prevented has sort of died away.

Another process for decision making in this building was through the school
improvement team. The school improvement team had a membership of teachers and
support staff. This representative group often was responsible for making decisions that

affected the building. The principal explained,

We have a school improvement team with 12 teachers on it. When we make
decisions, we report back on a monthly basis. These are our recommendations.
For a lot of teachers, everything is ﬁne until one of the recommendations impacts
what they are doing in the classroom, and then they say, “I want to vote on that.”
. . . But they don’t want to be on the school improvement team that does all the
work for the whole year.

He continued,

If you want to be empowered, you need to get on one of these committees. For
example, we wanted to make sure our reading scores at seventh grade were
maintaining, and we didn’t want to go down in reading content area. We wanted
to have dedicated reading time as a whole school. We were going to do it at the
beginning of Monday when we do announcements, so it was going to be
dedicated reading, silent reading in the whole school. . . . The school
improvement team brought this up, and we looked at all the statistics and made
the recommendation. We wanted a common time, but I had a lot of teams that all
wanted it to ﬁt into their schedule at different times. We had to say no, we’ve got
to ﬁnd a common time. So, I just made a decision, we’re going to do it at this
time. But that caused problems. And like a lot of teachers said, you guys can do
what you want, but when it affects me, then I want to be able to have some input.
And my concern is, you need to be part of the process, too. You can’t just veto
decisions that are coming out.

He expressed his belief that “the teachers are feeling they are not being involved in some

of the decision making at both the district and building level.”

180

The focus group of teachers from this building said they “couldn’t describe the

model.” They continued,

We have a decision-making model, but it isn’t used. And it isn’t being
implemented, which was a big question at the beginning of the year. . . . The
feeling I got was the teachers felt that decisions were being made without
discussion, without input. I feel like he would like to implement the model
consistently, but I don’t feel like it always is.

They offered an example of a decision that had been made with little teacher input:

One of the issues was the band/orchestra was taking a trip. The feeling from staff
was that the decisions were made about that trip, and implemented and then
informed to the teachers after everything was already done. You know, at what
point do you get people involved?

 

Both the administrator and teachers from this building said there was a concern about the
amount of employee voice in decision making. A formal model existed, but it was not
used consistently.

At the third building in the district, the administrator commented on his belief that
staff should be included in the decision-making process, but that was not easily
accomplished. He stated,

Our tone in this building in the last two years has not been cooperative. I feel that
there are a lot of things that the administration has tried to do, including the staff
in decisions. I think a lot of positive things are being tried here. Things that are
proposed to the staff are being shot down. There is a general antagonistic feeling
towards administration. . . . We consult them on things, bring them in. There is a
feeling behind closed doors of cooperation, and then when they go out all of a
sudden there is not that cooperation.

He reﬂected on a potential inﬂuence:
I believe that part of the problem is that the principal wasn’t their choice, so
they’re not going to be cooperative. I say, “The superintendent and the board of
education made the selection, a decision made outside of the building. So why is
the principal being held accountable for it?”

He continued, “A lot of times staff doesn’t want to get involved; they want to sit back and

say, ‘You go ahead and do something, and then let me know. I’ll let you know if it’s the

181

right choice.’ It’s a good staff, but I think they’re resistant to change.” He offered an
example regarding the attendance policy:

There is never a right answer as far as attendance. And so no matter what
attendance policy you have, you have some people who adhere to it and some that
don’t. You have some people who complain about it. . . . We’ve lowered our
number of absences from nine a semester to ﬁve. Some teachers expressed a
concern. So I sent an e-mail to staff asking them for any input they might have as
far as how we could improve policy within the current language. I got eight
responses. But yet when I sit down with teachers, they have all kinds of
suggestions. But they’re not willing to put it in writing. I probably had about 15,
“Let’s talk about it at a faculty meeting.” I’m not sure anything would get
accomplished in an open meeting.

The focus group of teachers offered a different perspective on the attendance-
policy decision. They commented, “Teacher input was asked for the second time around.
But the staff just shake their heads and say, ‘What’s the point?’” A teacher from the
focus group reﬂected on her understanding of the original attendance-policy decision
making:

I left the meeting of department chairs, assuming we were given a printout of

what was going to. . . . I was under the assumption that what we were given was

something preliminary, that it would be given to the entire staff for discussion. So

I was shocked when I came back on Tuesday and found a copy of it in my

mailbox. I said, “I thought we were going to talk?” . . . “Oh no, no. There’s no

discussion. This is it.”

The principal at the third building communicated his belief that attempts were
made to involve teachers in the decision-making process. However, he said the teachers
were unwilling to participate. The teachers said their input was not solicited until after
the fact and thought it was not valued by administration.

The focus group of teachers from the third building shared their perspectives on
the decision-making process and the role of the principal. One teacher commented,

I feel that decisions are made unilaterally by the principal, and not as much

collaboration as before she was the principal. She still decides she wants to do

something different, like graduation, there’s not talk about it with the faculty or
anything. You just get a memo.

182

 

Another teacher continued,

Before, our school was very collaboratively run. The faculty had a lot of say. It
was one of the things I really liked about it when I started working here. We were
asked about things. If there was going to be a graduation-requirement change,
there was a committee of teachers working through it. And now it seems like
changes are made and we ﬁnd out with a memo in our box that this change has
been made; it’s done, it’s over with.

They discussed the decision on graduation in more detail:

The decision was made to change graduation, which is always set in the calendar.
Now, instead of it being on Sunday, it’s going to be on Friday night. . . . For post-
commencement, kids would meet on Sunday night at [a local restaurant]. The
whole purpose of that is to get kids off the street and not drinking after
graduation. A parent-sponsored, parent-supervised party traditionally goes on
Friday night. Parents who have already scheduled caterers for their home for
Friday’s open houses, they’re all in trouble. Anybody who’s coming in from out
of state who wanted a place to stay, made reservations for Saturday night, and
then it’s Friday night. . . . The high school administration made that decision. . . .
Discussion didn’t go on. . . . The kids are in an uproar, too. They’re furious. We
just heard it in a memo. . . . I just saw it on the web site. I learned about it today
when people started talking about it.

They offered another example of a decision regarding grade books that they said was

made “unilaterally”:

She told us, “You absolutely must have a grade in your grade book every three
days.” She got off on a bad foot because of that. Can you imagine an English
teacher having to put a grade in that grade book every three days? An English
teacher who teaches expository writing or some other writing course. They had to
have three papers a week to grade, and it was just ridiculous. It was like we
weren’t treated like professionals.

A teacher from the focus group commented on how she felt about the relationship at the

building level, which had changed over time, stating,

It used to be, in my opinion, you couldn’t ask for a better job. Unfortunately, I’m
here until the end of my career. I expect to outlive it. But this used to be the
greatest school in the world to work for. I truly mean that. We were a family as
far as faculty and staff, and you could go see the principal if you had a problem.
Now, I don’t think you can without it coming back and getting you. Whether it’s
right or wrong, that’s the way too many of the staff feel. It’s us against them. . . .
We were always administration and staff or administration and faculty, and now
we’re labor and management.

183

The teachers said their input was not sought or valued. Instead, they said that ﬁnal
decisions often were communicated to the staff through one-way, informational channels.
The teachers said there is a sense of “us versus them” with respect to the overall
relationship between administration and teachers at this building.

The building-level administrator identiﬁed and described two collaborative
decision-making efforts in this building. He explained,

The master schedule and budget is collaborative. We will take at least a day,

sometimes more. We’ll pull the teachers’ curricular chairs out of their classes.

We’ll bring subs in, and we’ll arrange it. We’ll draw up the master schedule. Our

department chairs are actively involved. Our former principal started with the

idea that it’s your people’s money, and so department chairs sit down and we
come up with what the budget is. So teachers are involved in decision making.
In this example, the administrator said that teacher contributions and insights were a
valuable part of these decisions, enhancing the outcome. The focus group of teachers did
not comment on the collaborative development of either the master schedule or the
budget.

The decision-making process used at the building level was not consistent
throughout the district. The amount of teacher involvement depended on the building, as
well as the type of decision. In several instances, the administrator tended to make the
decision and the teachers were then informed of the outcome. The teachers said they
were not satisﬁed with the amount of teacher voice in the decision-making process.

Throughout the interviewing process, administrators and teachers consistently
commented on the district-level relationship between the employer and teachers. One
administrator commented,

We have very strained relations. We meaning administration, board, and

teachers. I don’t feel it because I think it is based more at the secondary level

than it is at the elementary level. I’ve never seen so many grievances go to
arbitration as I have in the last couple of years. I think that’s very telling. It’s a

184

lot of money to solve what I think are some pretty small problems, or small
differences of opinion. It’s getting tenser than I’ve seen it in probably 15 years.

Another administrator commented,

I think it’s really unfortunate that within our district right now I’m not seeing a lot

of collaboration between administration and teachers, the sit down let’s talk type

of thing, as opposed to “I’m immediately going to a grievance. We’re going to
push it through, we’re going to arbitration.” I’m feeling it’s a much more us-and-
them situation, and I think that’s really sad.

Teachers shared their perceptions on the overall climate in the district and the role
of the union. One teacher commented, “Teacher empowerment is a phrase of the past.”
Another teacher shared an opinion:

There’s also been an established tone that they will get rid of you if it saves them

a nickel, so that money could be spent elsewhere. So there’s no feeling of

security. Nontenured teachers feel like they can be the victims of arbitrary and

capricious behavior, that there’s no rhyme or reason. . . . Well, they are going to
lose their jobs in June. They’ll get pink slipped.
The teacher continued, “The union has become more active for self-preservation. You
sort of worry that decisions are being made without people thinking.” Another teacher
summarized at the end of the interview, “We’re really painting a pretty bleak picture, but

you know what, it’s pretty bleak! One thing that has come out of this, we’ve gotten

stronger. We’re better uniﬁed.”

Other Inﬂuences on the Employer/Teacher Relationsm

As I interviewed the various individuals within their roles, many communicated
their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for employer/
teacher relations in the district. One individual stated, “I truly believe the tone has been
set at the very top.” A teacher talked about a former superintendent, commenting,

We had one superintendent, she would like to know what you think. It’s just the

respect, the dialogue, just a different tone. I mean, she involuntarily transferred

me here. I was pleading, “Please don’t do this to me.” . . . It was a good decision.
But she took the time to get us all in and say, “Look, here’s what I’ve got to do.

185

 

Here are your options. What are you going to do?” Well, we all sat there and we
all ﬁgured out at a time of layoffs, what we wanted to do. She said, “Fine.” It
was like, wow, even though I was the one that got transferred, when I waited and
when we dialogued about it, and when I understood that someone’s job was being
saved. These are my parameters and this is based on your contract, based on a
respect for the document. We had input that was respected.

She offered that example to demonstrate a contrast with the current superintendent’s
leadership style. She described her perception of the current, established chain of

command:

There is a string of appointments from the superintendent that are new
personalities. So what we’ve established is a chain of command, but it’s not just
the technical chain of command, it’s favorites. . . . So you don’t challenge
somebody because they’re talking to the superintendent every day. And
retribution can be very personal. Individuals can be under attack because they’re
not with the programs.

She continued, “The board doesn’t seem to have a clue. After many things happening,
lots of complaints, the board, for example, approved mightily the superintendent’s actions
and we’re all thinking, wait a minute.”

An administrator commented,

I would say our superintendent has attracted a lot of negative attention from the
union. He tends to be a target of a lot of criticism openly by teachers. I’m not
sure where that is coming from. I’ve heard people say, “He’s trying to break the
union,” or “He can’t be believed.” But when I ask if they have talked with him,
the answer is “No.” So I’m not really sure how that gets ﬁltered out.

An administrator commented that she believed the overall relationship depended on the
leadership of both the union and the district. She stated, “The relationship has gone from
some years, good years, but depending on the personality of the superintendent, and the
personality of the union president.” She offered an example of “good year” and
compared it to the existing relationship:
The union president was a very diligent president and deﬁnitely insisted upon the
rights for her members. She was a good president. And our superintendent at that

time was very willing to discuss, and compromise, and cooperate, and bend over
backwards basically to meet them any time and place. And they had a president

186

 

who was willing. The next superintendent’s era, things didn’t go so well. He was
the kind to make administrative decisions. I think he came from another state,
where he felt that he had the ability to make unilateral kinds of decisions, and then
tell people. It doesn’t work like that. Now I would describe it as the parties don’t
have much conversation or collaboration.

A teacher commented on the challenges that the union had faced over time,

commenting,

I think a lot of people are very lost because our union went through a crisis
several years back. Our president resigned and nobody else wanted to be
president, and someone said, “Okay, we have to have a president, I’ll do it.” And
so it was-~we’ve been somewhat at loose ends for a while.
An administrator offered a similar perspective, commenting,
The union started to cave in upon itself about ﬁve years ago. When that started, I
think the feelings of us-and-them, and I must survive type of thing came in.
There was a lot of in-ﬁghting. Once that started to smooth out a little bit, it still
looked to the rest of the district for more of that conﬂict, combative type thing.
So it just kind of grew, it festered out.
Both parties said the existing relationship had been inﬂuenced by the superintendent’s
leadership style, as well as the challenges faced by the union over the past ﬁve years.
Also, it must be noted that there had been signiﬁcant turnover in administration
and union leadership in District 3. However, the teachers at the building level had
remained relatively stable. The longevity of speciﬁc district employees is shown in Table
3.3. Before the current superintendent, there was an interim superintendent for one year.
The two superintendents before that averaged 3.5 years in the position. One
administrator commented on the turnovers stating,
We’ve had kind of revolving superintendents, three in the past several years. One
superintendent who did not have credibility in the community and was asked to
resign. Another superintendent who was brought on board for one year to sort of

heal, because of all that was involved in closing schools.

She continued,

There is not the continuity; the stability. At times there has been good union-
management relations. And at other times there just hasn’t been. . . . It depends

187

on so many things. It depends on who’s leading the union. It depends on what
their perspective is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.3
Longevity in District 3
Employee Years in Total Years in
Current Position District 3
Superintendent 4 4
Director of human resources 4 17
High school principal 2 2
Middle school principal 3 11
Elementary school principal 3 28
Union president 1 17
Teachers 10* 10*

 

 

 

 

 

*Average years of experience of teachers participating in focus groups.

A teacher commented on the turnover in administration at both the district and
building levels and her perception of the effect on the district, stating,

We have superintendents that, we change superintendents every three to ﬁve

years. No only do we change superintendents, we seem to feel that we can’t hire

a superintendent from the state of Michigan. We have to go outside the state.

Every principal we’ve brought into the high school has been [from] outside the

district. And so the attitude of the teaching staff is they’re not going to be here

long. They’re only here to add District 3 to their resume, so they can move on to
the next step. The staff believes that they’re not really sure there is a lot of
concern for the district and the staff themselves. The people are here to promote
themselves and move on, as opposed to what is good for the district.

At the high school, there had been three principals in the past eight years. A
teacher commented on the turnover and her perspective on its effect: “We change
principals every three years, four years. So I think there is a feeling among staff
members that they don’t need to do that. I’ve been here 20-some years, so I’ll be here

after they leave. So I don’t need to do that.” The same pattern of turnover was evident at

the middle school level. The middle school principal stated,

188

One of the things is they wanted some stable leadership. Our middle school has
changed quite a bit with leadership the last three or four years before I came.
There used to be a principal here a long time, probably for 25 years, then retired.
There has been a different principal almost every year for about three or four
years. There was not consistency, no vision.

Administratively, a philosophical approach to employer/teacher relations had not

endured over time. The same can be said about the presidency of the union. As a result,

there was not a shared history between the union and administration. Instead, the

relationship seemed to be in a state of conﬂict.

Summry of District 3 Case Study

Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher

relationship in District 3 can be categorized as containment or avoidance/compliance.

There was an adversarial relationship between the employer and the teachers’ union, and

a level of compliance on behalf of the employees. According to the deﬁnition of a

relationship based on containment or avoidance/compliance (see Chapter 1), District 3

exhibited the following characteristics:

1.

2.

The parties were concerned about their own survival.

The power and responsibility for managing the organization were with
management.

Management diminished the union role, whereas the union maintained checks
and balances.

Management discounted the power of the union.

Neither party accepted the other’s deﬁnition of its legitimate role.

The parties struggled over the amount of employee voice.

Management relied on its power to implement decisions it made on behalf of

the organization.

189

 

8. The parties primarily engaged in forcing strategies when engaging in their

interactive processes.

As illustrated in the presentation of data, these characteristics were evident in
their approach to bargaining the Master Agreement, managing differences (conﬂict
resolution and problem solving), and making decisions. There is also evidence that
communication channels were both formal and informal. At the district level,
communication generally was formal and infrequent, and the dialogue often was one-way
and informational in nature. In fact, the grievance process often was used to initiate
dialogue at all levels. However, there were times at speciﬁc buildings when there was
two-way communication with the intention of seeking teachers’ input and perspectives.

A level of trust was not evident at the district or building level.

190

 

 

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION

Overview

Over the past 90 years, there have been many inﬂuences on the evolving
relationship between teachers and their employer. A historical perspective of the
employer/teacher relationship was presented in Chapter I. As a point of comparison, a
historical perspective of employer/employee relations in the realm of industry was also
documented in Chapter 1. Based on the literature, researchers are able to describe the
current status of the employer/employee industrial labor relationship. In this study, I
focused on bringing the historical account of the employer/teacher relationship in public
schools forward to the present by addressing the question, “What does the relationship
between teachers and their employer look like in the year 2002?”

This research was initiated to explore and describe the current relationship
between the employer and teachers in the public schools. An adapted conceptual
framework or model developed by researchers in the area of labor and industrial relations
was used to explore the employer/teacher relationship. The framework guided the
research and established distinct categories to guide the data-collection process. The
interview questions, as well as the information gathered through archival sources, were
directly related to the categories established in the labor relations model.

The literature review presented in Chapter I described the employer/teacher
relationship from the early 19005 up to the 19805. One of the intended outcomes of this
research was to extend the “timeline” and describe the type of employer/teacher

relationship that exists in the year 2002. Once this relationship was described, I was able

191

 

 

to compare the current trends in the employer/teacher relationship in public schools with
those trends identiﬁed in the industrial setting. A secondary objective of this research
was to determine whether a conceptual framework developed by researchers to describe
labor relations in industry would be applicable and useful for describing the
employer/teacher relationship in public schools.

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations
in today’s public schools. In this study, I examined (a) the relationships between the
teachers’ union and the administration at the district level and (b) the relationships
between teachers and administrators at the individual or building level in selected schools
in the district. In an effort to describe the employer/teacher relationship in public
schools, this level of abstraction was reduced to the investigation of observable or
describable interactions between the parties at both the building and district levels.
Therefore, the following exploratory questions were established and used to reduce this
abstraction to data:

]. To what extent do administrators and teachers engage in the strategies of
forcing, fostering, and escaping as a means for interacting with each other? More
speciﬁcally:

a. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual
schools’ bargaining processes?

b. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual
schools’ problem-solving processes?

c. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the individual

schools’ conﬂict-resolution processes?

192

2. To what extent do the board and the teachers’ union engage in the strategies of
forcing, fostering, and escaping as a means for interacting with each other? More
speciﬁcally:

d. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the district’s
bargaining process?

e. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in district’s problem-
solving process?

f. How does forcing, fostering, or escaping show up in the district’s conﬂict-
resolution process?

On a third level, the answers to these questions provided an overall way to
describe or categorize the employer/teacher relationship in an entire district. After
gathering data by addressing the ﬁrst two exploratory questions, a generalization was
made about the relationship between the administrator and the teacher at the building
level, and the teachers’ union and the administration at the district level. Therefore, a
ﬁnal exploratory question answered in this research was:

3. Is the existing relationship between the teachers and the administrators, as well
as the union and the board of education, best categorized as (a) teacher commitment and
union cooperation, (b) teacher compliance and union containment/avoidance, or (c)
teacher compliance and union arm’s-length accormnodation?

The outcome of addressing these exploratory questions in three separate
“instances of the case” allowed me to establish a guarded description or categorization of

the employer/teacher relationship in those speciﬁc public school settings.

193

 

 

Addressing the Exploratory Questions

In an effort to explore and describe employer/teacher relations in public schools,
answers to the exploratory questions were sought in three school districts, each
representing an instance of the case of employer/teacher relations. The exploratory
questions focused the research on the interactions between teachers and administrators,
allowing me to describe the existing relationship. The goal was to gain an in-depth
understanding of the structures and processes that inﬂuence the relationship, as well as an
understanding of the meaning for those involved in the employer/teacher relationship.
This generated a broader understanding of the phenomenon of employer/teacher relations
in each of the public school settings.

In an effort to explore and describe the existing relationship at both the individual
and organizational level, respondents were asked to discuss and give examples of how the
processes of bargaining, problem solving, conﬂict resolution, and decision making
occurred at the building and district levels. The respondents were also asked to describe
and give examples of the existing structure and frequency of communication, which
either enabled or detracted from the processes. By gathering data through interviews and
reviewing archival data (grievances and letters of agreement) and the Master Agreements,
1 was able to infer the prescribed behaviors or strategies (forcing, fostering, or escaping)
used by the parties as they engaged in the employer/teacher relationship.

To determine whether parties used primarily fostering or forcing strategies in their
interactions with each other, I looked for speciﬁc indicants. If the parties predominantly
used a forcing strategy, administrators and unions mobilized coercive or persuasive
powers to achieve their goals. This was evident in the way the parties engaged in

bargaining, problem solving, conﬂict resolution, and decision making. A forcing strategy

194

 

‘ ’1.

 

emphasizes distributive bargaining. Other indicants of a forcing strategy would be one-
way dialogue, with one party communicating or dictating ﬁnal outcomes. Often the
outcome of decision making, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution is based on little
input by the other party, and the solution ultimately reﬂects a minimum number of
Options generated for consideration. With a forcing strategy, there is a low frequency of
dialogue between the parties, and the communication is predominantly through formal
channels. Finally, the teachers’ union generally ﬁles a large number of grievances. The
grievance process is an adversarial means for the union to exert their power, forcing the
administration to dialogue with the union and resolve issues.

If the parties predominantly use a fostering strategy, administrators and unions
generally use a more cooperative approach to achieving speciﬁc goals. This was evident
in the way the parties engaged in bargaining, problem solving, conﬂict resolution, and
decision making. A fostering strategy emphasizes integrative bargaining. Other indicants
of a fostering strategy would be two-way dialogue, initiated by either party to solicit
input that could ultimately inﬂuence or determine ﬁnal outcomes. Often the outcome of
decision making, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution is based on many options,
generated by both the employer and teachers. In general, the parties share power and
responsibility for decision making, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution. Employee
input is sought and valued by administration. Furthermore, the administrators in this
study communicated a belief that gaining teacher input served to enhance the outcomes
generated by these processes. With a fostering strategy, there is a high frequency of
continuous dialogue between the parties, and the communication is initiated through both

informal and formal channels. Finally, the teachers’ union generally ﬁles a small number

195

 

 

of grievances. This reﬂects the parties’ willingness to resolve issues through ongoing
communication and joint problem-solving efforts.

The answers to exploratory questions 1 and 2, which address the processes of
bargaining, solving problems, and resolving conﬂicts at both the individual and district
levels, provide a means to infer the categorization of the employer/teacher relationship
for a speciﬁc district. In the end, a guarded generalization can be made about the
relationship between the administrator and the teacher at one level, and the teachers’
union and the central ofﬁce administration at a second level. In other words, the outcome
of answering the ﬁrst two exploratory questions promotes an answer to the third
exploratory question, or to a greater or lessor degree, the categorization of the
employer/teacher relationship. The categories for the employer/teacher relationship are
(a) district-level cooperation and individual-level commitment, (b) district-level
containment or avoidance and individual-level compliance, and (c) district-level arm’s-
length accommodation and individual-level compliance. This analysis was applied to

each of three public school districts.

District 1

As the data reﬂect, in District 1, the teachers and administrators at thebuilding
level primarily used fostering strategies as a means for interacting with each other. This
was evident in the way the parties managed differences. As the teachers and
administrators solved problems and resolved conﬂicts, they engaged in frequent, two-way
communication. The teachers and administrators communicated a shared belief that both
sides had something valuable to contribute to the processes involved in managing
differences. Therefore, seeking the other’s perspective and generating a variety of

potential solutions was viewed as a means to enhance the outcome. In general, the

196

 

relationship at the building level in District 1 was based on a cooperative and
collaborative approach, with a joint emphasis on mutual goals that ultimately promoted a
high level of commitment on the behalf of the teachers.

The data collected at the district level in District 1 reﬂected a similar cooperative
and collaborative relationship. Again, the parties primarily used fostering strategies as
they engaged in bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict resolution. This was
evidenced by the frequent, two-way communication through primarily informal channels
initiated by the parties to manage their differences. Like the building level, the union and
central ofﬁce administrator communicated a shared belief that both sides had something
valuable to contribute to the processes of bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict
resolution. Therefore, seeking the other’s perspective and generating a variety of
potential solutions was viewed as a means to enhance the outcome. The relationship at
the district level was based on a cooperative and collaborative approach, with a joint
emphasis on mutual goals.

There were other inﬂuences on the relationship as well. Many of the respondents
communicated their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for
employer/teacher relations in the district. In District 1, the superintendent was viewed as
promoting a cooperative relationship based on compromise and collaboration. Another
inﬂuence identiﬁed by respondents was the longevity or stability of individuals in
leadership roles. A shared commitment to a collaborative relationship, as well as the
intentional behaviors that promoted a cooperative environment, had endured over time.
As a result, the parties had experienced a history of shared successes, the collaborative
approach had persisted, and a culture of cooperation and commitment had been

. maintained.

197

 

 

Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher
relationship at District 1 can be categorized as cooperation/commitment. There was a
cooperative relationship between the employer and the teachers’ union, and a high level
of commitment on behalf of the employees. According to the deﬁnition of a relationship

based on cooperation/commitment (see Chapter 1), District 1 exhibited the following

 

characteristics:

I The parties placed joint emphasis on mutual goals.

 

I There was a Signiﬁcant sharing of power and responsibility for the functioning
of the organization.

I The power of the labor was derived from its ability to contribute value.

I A mixture of partnership and adversarial roles for the parties was
acknowledged.

I Direct worker participation and representative democracy were considered

important.

 

I The parties relied on shared goals and agreed-on principles for prescribing
behavior.

I The parties primarily used the strategy of fostering when engaging in their
interactive processes.

I The parties engaged in an integrative approach to the bargaining process.

I Communication was frequent, and parties used both formal and informal
channels.

I The level of trust was high.

198

District 2

In addressing the exploratory questions in District 2, the data reﬂect that the
approach to managing differences at the building level between teachers and
administrators depended on the building. The parties engaged in a mixture of forcing and
fostering strategies as a means for interacting with each other. This was evident in the
way they managed differences. As the teachers and administrators solved problems and
resolved conﬂicts, they engaged in frequent communication, through a mixture of formal
and informal channels that were both one-way and two-way in nature. The balance of the
type of communication depended on the speciﬁc building. There was a strong presence
of the union in managing differences, often using the grievance procedure as a means to
resolve issues. The teachers and administrators communicated a shared belief that both
Sides had something valuable to contribute to the processes involved in managing
differences. However, the behaviors exhibited by the parties were not always consistent
with the stated belief.

As the data reﬂect, in District 2 the central office administrator and the union
engaged in a mixture of forcing and fostering strategies as they engaged in bargaining,
problem solving, and conﬂict resolution. The parties discussed the existence of two-way,
frequent communication. However, the data tended to reﬂect the existence of one-way
communication that was initiated through formal and informal channels, with some use
of two-way communication. The parties described a shared belief that both sides had
something valuable to contribute to the processes of bargaining, problem solving, and
conﬂict resolution, but this was not always consistent with the behaviors described
through the data-collection process. The frequent interactions that occurred between the

union and administration did not always result in the surfacing of individual perspectives,

199

 

but instead were often an attempt to build internal consensus around a speciﬁc solution.
Often, there was a dependence on the formal grievance process to resolve conﬂicts and
address issues.

There were other inﬂuences on the relationship as well. Many of the respondents
communicated their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for
employer/teacher relations in the district. In District 2, the superintendent was viewed as
promoting an “us versus them” perspective and had insulated himself from the
employees. The respondents communicated a lack of trust for the current superintendent,
resulting from their perceptions of the leadership behaviors he had exhibited within that
role. Another inﬂuence identiﬁed by respondents was the lack of longevity or stability of
individuals in administrative, leadership roles. There had been a signiﬁcant turnover in
administration in District 2. Administratively, a philosophical approach to the employer/
teacher relationship had not endured over time, and there was no shared history between
the union and administration.

Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher
relationship at District 2 can be categorized as predominantly arm’s-length
accommodation/compliance, with some characteristics of cooperation/commitment.
According to the deﬁnition of a relationship based on arms-length accommodation!
compliance (see Chapter 1), District 2 exhibits the following characteristics:

I The parties acknowledged their conﬂicting interests and often emphasized

equity in this context.

I The power and responsibility for managing the organization were often

concentrated with management, with the management accepting the union’s

checks and balances on management action.

200

I There were adversarial but legitimate roles for both union and management.
I The parties often relied on union representatives to express employee voice.
I The parties sometimes engaged in forcing strategies when engaging in their
interactive processes.
I Communication was often one-way and informational in nature.
I The level of trust was low.
However, some trends in the relationship reﬂected to a lesser degree an employer/teacher
relationship based on cooperation/commitment. These characteristics include:
I The power of the labor was sometimes derived from its ability to contribute value.
I There was some sharing of power and responsibility for the functioning of the
organization.
I A mixture of partnership and adversarial roles for the parties was acknowledged.
I The parties sometimes engaged in fostering strategies when engaging in their
interactive processes.
I The bargaining process tended to be integrative, with some regression to
distributive or traditional.
Viewing the employer/teacher relationship on a continuum, District 2 would be placed

closer to arm’s-length accommodation/compliance.

District 3

In addressing the exploratory questions in District 3, the data reﬂect that the
approach to managing differences at the building level between teachers and
administrators depended on the building. The parties engaged in a mixture of forcing and
fostering strategies as a means for interacting with each other, with a greater use of

forcing strategies. This was evident in the way they managed differences. As the

201

teachers and administrators solved problems and resolved conﬂicts, they engaged in
communication through a mixture of formal and informal channels that were both one-
way and two-way in nature. The balance of the type of communication depended on the
speciﬁc building.

In general, the teachers at the building level said their input or perspective was not
sought or valued by administration. There was a strong presence of the union in
managing differences, Often using the grievance procedure as a means to resolve issues.
The level of teacher involvement in managing differences depended on the building as
well. Both administrators and teachei‘s said there was an “us versus them” tone at the
building level, which affected the processes involved in managing differences.

As the data reﬂect, in District 3 the central ofﬁce administrator and union engaged
in forcing strategies as they engaged in bargaining, problem solving, and conﬂict
resolution. The parties engaged in a low frequency of communication that was generally
through one-way and formal channels. There was little employee voice in the processes
of problem solving and conﬂict resolution. Instead, the administration relied on its power
to manage the organization. The union derived its power from their ability to force
communication and resolutions through the formal grievance process.

There were other inﬂuences on the relationship as well. Many of the respondents
communicated their view that the superintendent played a key role in setting the tone for
employer/teacher relations in the district. In District 3, the superintendent was viewed as
promoting an adversarial or “us versus them” perspective. The respondents
communicated a lack of trust for the current superintendent, resulting from their
perceptions of the leadership behaviors he had exhibited in that role. Another inﬂuence

identiﬁed by respondents was the lack of longevity or stability of individuals in both

202

 

administrative and union leadership roles. There had been a signiﬁcant turnover in

leadership in District 3. A philosophical approach to employer/teacher relationship had

not endured over time, and there was no shared history between the union and

administration. The relationship seemed to be in a constant state of turmoil and conﬂict.

Based on the collected data and resulting analysis, the existing employer/teacher

relationship in District 3 can be categorized as containment or avoidance/compliance.

There was an adversarial relationship between the employer and the teachers’ union, and

a level of compliance on behalf of the employees. According to the deﬁnition of a

relationship based on containment or avoidance/compliance (see Chapter 1), District 3

exhibited the following characteristics:

The parties were concerned about their own survival.

The power and responsibility fOr managing the organization was with the
management.

The management diminished the union role, whereas the union maintained checks
and balances.

Management discounted the power of the union.

Neither party accepted the other’s deﬁnition of its legitimate role.

The parties struggled over the amount of employee voice.

Management relied on its power to implement decisions it made on behalf of the
organization.

Parties primarily engaged in forcing strategies when engaging in their interactive
processes.

Communication was generally formal and infrequent, and the dialogue was often

one-way and informational in nature.

203

I The grievance process was often used to initiate dialogue.

I The level of trust was low.

Discussion
Current Trends in Employer/Teacher Relations

The answers to exploratory questions 1 and 2, which address the processes of
bargaining, solving problems, and resolving conﬂicts at both the individual and district
levels, provide a means to infer the categorization of the employer/teacher relationship
for a speciﬁc district. The ﬁrst step in describing the existing relationship within a
district was to determine whether the employer and teachers used predominantly forcing
or fostering strategies to engage in their interactions. The indicants for forcing and
fostering strategies included the type of bargaining (integrative or distributive), frequency
of interaction, one-way or two-way communication, formal and/or informal
communication channels, amount and perceived value of input sought by other party,
few or many options generated to address issues, and the number of grievances ﬁled by
the union. The second step in describing the existing relationship was to make a guarded
inference from the answers to exploratory questions 1 and 2 as to whether the relationship
was one based on cooperation/commitment, arm’s-length accommodation/cOmpliance,
and/or containment or avoidance/compliance.

One of the intended outcomes of this research was to extend the timeline and
describe the type of employer/teacher relationship that exists in the year 2002. After
exploring and analyzing the employer/teacher relationship in three separate case studies,
a description of the employer/teacher relationship that exists in today’s public schools, at
least with respect to those speciﬁc cases, was generated. Once this relationship was

described, I was able to compare and establish whether the current trends in the

204

‘rm1

employer/teacher relationship that exist in the three public schools described in this
research were similar to those trends found in the industrial setting. Therefore, this study
contributes a description of the current status of the employer/teacher relationship to the
established historical perspective of its evolution.

With respect to the three public school districts investigated in this research, at
one end of the continuum, District 1 had established an employer/teacher relationship
based on district-level cooperation and individual or employee-level commitment. The
existing relationship in 2002 was one of “professional unionism” as deﬁned by Kerchner
and Koppich (1993), in which unions discard beliefs about the inherent separateness of
labor and management, teachers and administration. Furthermore, the parties had
established a “partnership” as described and endorsed by Chuck Anderson, Executive
Director of the MEA (personal communication, 2000).

At the other end of the continuum was a more contentious relationship. In 2002,
an adversarial relationship based on union containment or avoidance at the district level
and individual or employee compliance was evident in District 3. The district-level
administration dictated outcomes, while the union initiated the grievance process to force
dialogue. The tone in the district was described by both parties as “us versus them.” In
District 2, there was a verbalized attempt to move the existing relationship toward one of
district-level cooperation and individual or employee-level commitment. However, the
prescribed behaviors were currently closer to arm’s-length accommodation and employee
compliance.

In general, the current employer/teacher relationship found in the three public

school settings explored and described in this research can be categorized along a

205

continuum, with contentious and cooperative extremes. The continuum of the existing

teacher/employer relationships in the identiﬁed public schools is depicted in Figure 4.1.

 

District 3 District 2 District 1
I l l
T I 1
Containment or avoidance/ Arms-length accommodation/ Cooperation/
Compliance Compliance Commitment

Figpre 4.1: Continuum of the existing teacher/employer relationships in the identiﬁed
public schools.

In this study, I explored and described the employer/teacher relationship in three
public school settings. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge and
advances the historical perspective to 2002. Once this relationship was described, I was
able to compare and establish whether the current trends in the employer/teacher
relationship in the three public schools described in this research were similar to those
trends found in the industrial setting. Walton et al. (1994) identiﬁed a trend toward both
cooperative and contentious relationships as the prominent approaches to employer/
employee relations in today’s industrial setting. In other words, in their research they
found that the employer/employee relationship is moving away from arm’s-length
accommodation/compliance toward a more cooperative extreme of cooperation/
commitment or a more contentious extreme of containment or avoidance/compliance.

For the ﬁndings of this study, it was beneﬁcial to categorize the existing
employer/teacher relationship along a continuum, rather than create separate and
exclusive categories. Similar to the industrial labor trends, this study indicated that there

seems to be movement toward one of the two extremes on the continuum. As illustrated

206

 

above, the employer/teacher relationship that currently exists in three speciﬁc public
school districts reﬂects a movement toward cooperative and contentious extremes.
Applicapility of the Frameworkaor Analysis

in the Public School Settigg

As the research proceeded, a secondary or underlying purpose of this study
presented itself. The secondary purpose was to investigate the applicability and
usefulness of a labor relations model in describing the employer/teacher relationship in
the public school setting. The trends in the labor and industrial relationship, or the move
from arm’s-length accommodation to cooperative and contentious extremes, captured by
Walton et al. (1994) were analyzed through the lens of a speciﬁc and substantiated
conceptual framework. It was a modiﬁed and simpliﬁed version of this conceptual
framework that I applied to the public school setting, allowing for a description of the
current relationship between the employer and the teachers.

Walton et al. (1994) introduced a lens through which to view the employer/
employee relationship at both the individual and organizational levels. The model
identiﬁes and deﬁnes key concepts within the framework that promote a more diversiﬁed
analysis of the relationship within the roles of employers and teachers. The relationship
at both the individual and organizational level is referred to as a “social contract” that
represents the quid pro quos between labor and management, as well as the shared
understandings about the “rules of the game.”

Traditionally, the social contract at the individual level was premised on
compliance, whereas the social contract at the organizational level was premised on
arm’s-length accommodation. In recent years, there has been a trend at the individual

level for the relationship to be described as compliance or commitment. At the

207

 

organizational level, the trend for this relationship has moved to a description of
cooperation or containment/avoidance.

To further reduce, the lens presented by Walton et al. (1994) is designed to
analyze and identify or categorize the existing relationship (social contract) between
employers and employees by understanding the “interaction system.” The interaction
system becomes the unit of analysis and comprises three components: (a) processes,
(b) strategies, and (0) structures. Investigating the interaction system leads to a more
diversiﬁed analysis of the employer/employee relationship. The adapted framework or

theory operationalized in this study is summarized in Figure 4.2.

 

Interaction System

Processes
- Bargaining
- Managing internal differences
I workplace problem solving
I conﬂict management/due
process
Strategies
- Forcing
- Fostering
- Escape

Structures

- Frequency of interaction
- Communication channels

!

Employer/Employee Relationship (Social Contract)

 

 

 

 

Containment or avoidance/compliance
I Arms length accommodation/compliance
I Cooperation/commitment

 

 

 

F igpre 4.2: Framework for analyzing employer/employee relations.
208

According to the original model, the essence of labor-management interactions
consists of the critical processes that include bargaining and managing differences
(problem solving and conﬂict resolution). These processes are highly interrelated. A
party’s actions in each of the processes are guided by three speciﬁc strategies that include
forcing, fostering, or escaping. Finally, structural features such as frequency of
interactions and types of communication channels inﬂuence the processes as well. These
structural features can either complicate or enable the parties as they engage in
bargaining and managing differences.

A secondary objective of this research was to determine whether a conceptual
framework developed by researchers to describe labor relations in industry would be
applicable and useful for describing the employer/teacher relationship in public schools.
The original model offered a useful lens to explore and describe the employer/teacher
relationship in today’s public schools. The framework focused the research and
established distinct categories to guide the data-collection process and initiated
meaningful dialogue with respondents. It assisted with analyzing the interaction system
that deﬁned or prescribed the behaviors of the parties as they engaged in the ongoing
relationship. The framework promoted a more diversiﬁed analysis of the employer/
teacher relationship, beyond the bargaining table. As an outcome, I was able to analyze
the meaning and perspective of the respondents and establish a guarded categorization of
the employer/teacher relationship.

However, after implementing the adapted and simpliﬁed conceptual framework, 1
would suggest further adaptations to the model, making it even more applicable or

relevant to the educational environment. Public schools are a unique setting. Based on

209

the outcome of this research, describing the existing employer/teacher relationship

requires the exploration of other inﬂuences on the relationship.

Further Revisions to the Fpameworla of Analysis

First, after engaging in in-depth studies of three public school districts, it became
evident that the leadership at the district level, primarily the superintendent, set the tone
for employer/teacher relations throughout the district. In all cases, the individuals
commented on the leadership style of the superintendent and referred to it consistently
when discussing the “overall tone.” An important component related to the leadership
style of the superintendent was individuals’ perceptions of a “level of trust” and a “sense
of fairness” that existed with respect to that position. Individuals were looking for
consistency in actions and words, as well as a sense that individual input was sought,
contemplated, and valued by the superintendent as he or she managed the district.

In addition, the longevity, stability, or consistency of individuals in administrative
and union leadership roles also played a part in the relationship. In districts where there
was a shared history of interaction, the prescribed behaviors were well established and
allowed for the parties to predict each other’s behaviors. In other words, a philosophical
approach to the employer/teacher relationship had developed and endured oVer time. If
the union and/or administrative leaders tend to change frequently, it does not lend itself to
establishing a predictable and consistent relationship. Parties spend a signiﬁcant amount
of time acquainting themselves and reacting to the other’s approach to employer/teacher
relations. Building a level of understanding, predictability, and trust between the parties

requires a historical perspective that cannot be developed with the frequent change of

individuals in leadership roles.

210

 

Another revision would be to include the process of decision making as its own
entity. The process of decision making is worth investigating, separate from the
processes involved in managing differences (problem solving and conﬂict resolution).
The approach to decision making may be similar or vary from the approach used in
managing differences. Teachers may be active in making the ﬁnal decisions, insights
from teachers may be used to inform administrative decisions, or the decisions are made
by administration. The decision-making process used in a district may incorporate any
one of these approaches, or a combination of approaches.

Another factor or component in the decision-making process is the
administration’s level of commitment to deﬁning and communicating the role of teachers
in speciﬁc decisions. In other words, at what point does the administration communicate
to the teachers the level of their responsibility or ownership with respect to a particular
decision? In the interviews with building-level teachers, the teachers communicated their
belief that understanding the amount of teacher inﬂuence and ownership in a particular
decision from the initiation of the decision-making process was valuable and appreciated.
The teachers looked for consistency between what the administration communicated as
the teacher’s role in the decision-making process and the ﬁnal outcome of the process. If
consistency existed, the teachers communicated a sense of trust for the administration, a
sense of professional responsibility, and a willingness to participate in future decisions.

However, the opposite was also true. Respondents communicated their frustration
with and mistrust of administration when they thought their input was being actively
sought by administration for the purpose of gaining their perspective and inﬂuencing the
outcome and then the ﬁnal outcome did not reﬂect their perspective. The teachers became

skeptical of their role and inﬂuence in the decision-making process, and were less willing

211

' ‘5.

 

 

to participate in future decision-making efforts. In other words, the teachers were
looking for consistency between administration’s verbal communication of the teachers’
role or the teachers’ perception of their role in a speciﬁc decision-making process and the
actual outcome of the process.

In this research, the teachers and administrators communicated strong beliefs
about their role in the Speciﬁc process of decision making. Similar to the processes of
bargaining and managing differences (conﬂict resolution and problem solving), decision
making can also be described in terms of a strategy (forcing, fostering, and escaping) and
structural components (communication channels). As stated previously, actions directly
related to any one particular process could affect the other processes as well, including
the process of decision making. Therefore, in a revised model, I would incorporate
decision making as another process in the interaction system.

Finally, as discussed previously, I would represent the employer/teacher
relationship along a continuum, rather than as separate categories. Not only do
relationships evolve over time, but they may also vary depending on the circumstances at
hand. District 2 offers an example of an employer/teacher relationship that did not ﬁt a
speciﬁc category, but exhibited characteristics of two categories. It was clear that there
was a strong tendency to behave or react in a speciﬁc manner, but the consistent
interjection of behaviors reﬂecting another approach to the relationship could not be
ignored. Therefore, the relationship was best described along a continuum, with the
degree or magnitude of the identiﬁed behaviors represented accordingly.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that the original model was effective for
describing the relationship at the district level, but it was not as effective at the individual

level. There was a great deal of variance in leadership style from building to building

212

'\

 

 

within a district. Therefore, all components of the interaction system were potentially
different and often lacked consistency between buildings. As individuals discussed the
processes and structures in place within their individual settings, it was difﬁcult to
categorize the individual employee’s perspective for the district as a whole. In other
words, it was not easy to infer a general category of individual commitment or
compliance through dialogue about the building-level interaction system. However,
gaining the perspective of individuals at the building level about the district-level
relationship through general dialogue did inform the outcome.

After completing this study, the adapted model or framework that I would suggest
for analyzing employer/teacher relations within the public school setting is summarized
in Figure 4.3. Even though I left the individual relationship incorporated in the revised
model, I would suggest that for future research on the employer/teacher relationship in
public schools, this portion of the relationship should be analyzed using a different
approach. It is not easy to categorize the individual relationship as one based on
commitment or compliance through dialogue about the parties’ approach to problem
solving, conﬂict resolution, and decision making at the building level, or through
discussion about established communication channels at the building level. There is too
much variance within a district, from building Even though I left the individual
relationship incorporated in the revised model, I would suggest that for future research on
the employer/teacher relationship in public schools, this portion of the relationship should
be analyzed using a different approach. It is not easy to categorize the individual
relationship as one based on commitment or compliance through dialogue about the
parties’ approach to problem solving, conﬂict resolution, and decision making at the

building level, or through discussion about established communication channels at the

213

 

‘5

 

building level. There is too much variance within a district, from building to building.
However, identifying the individual’s level of commitment or compliance is an essential

component of the overall relationship and should be a point of focus.

 

Interaction System

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Processes
- Bargaining
- Managing internal differences
Leadership I workplace problem solving
Longevity ofleadershyb ( union ' 001ml“ management/due
and administrative . . Pmcess
. . - Decrsron making
I Building level S tra te ies
I District level —g_F .
- orcrng
Superintendent : 22:22:“
- Individual teacher
perceptions of? Structures

- Frequency of interaction
- Communication channels

 

 

 

 

Employer/Employee Relationship (Social Contract)

 

L l l

l T l

Containment or Arm’s-length accommodation/ Cooperation/
avoidance/compliance compliance commitment

 

 

Figpre 4.3: Revised framework for analyzing employer/employee relations.

214

 

 

ﬁggestions for Further Research

The validity of this research would be enhanced through replication of the study
in other public school settings. By using the revised model or ﬁamework of analysis,
additional case studies could be conducted to substantiate or challenge the ﬁndings of this
research. In other words, the outcomes of applying this research in other public school
settings may or may not concur with the ﬁnding that the employer/teacher relationship is
moving toward one of cooperative or contentious extremes. Therefore, one suggestion
for further research would be to extend this study to more “instances of the case.”

In addition, I did not attempt to investigate the effect of speciﬁc legislation or
external factors on the existing employer/teacher relationship. Instead, I only
acknowledged that there were historical events that may have resulted in an “evolution”
of the relationship. The fact that there may have been a change in the relationship over
time was the impetus for this research on the existing relationship. After describing the
existing relationship, further research could be conducted on the speciﬁc effect of such
identiﬁable factors.

Finally, additional research could target the effect of today’s relationship on
various aspects of education. This study accomplished the essential component of
describing the existing employer/teacher relationship, and providing a lens to analyze the
existing relationship in a district or building. Further research could address the second
component of describing the effect of a speciﬁc type of relationship on the educational

process.

Implications

Employer/teacher relations in the public school setting have implications not only

for the operations of schools, but also for the community’s perception of its school and on

215

 

the educational process itself. It seems reasonable that the Ieaming environment would
quite naturally be inﬂuenced by the overall school environment created within the realm
of employer/teacher relations. After all, it is exactly this environment in which the
educational process is delivered. Obviously, employer/teacher relations in today’s public
school setting have an inﬂuence that reaches beyond the issue of employer/teacher
interactions. However, the ﬁrst step is gaining an understanding of the existing
employer/teacher relationship.

This research adds to the existing body of knowledge on employer/employee
relationships in general and employer/teacher relations speciﬁcally. It addressed the
substantive gap between existing research on employer/teacher relations in public schools
and how this relationship looks in the year 2002. This study focused on three speciﬁc
school districts, allowing me to describe the general status or phenomenon of employer/
teacher relations in those public schools. This research demonstrated the trend of the
relationship in the three public schools researched as shifting to one of cooperative and
contentious extremes, similar to the trends found in the realm of industry.

This study also allowed me to evaluate whether an adapted conceptual ﬁamework
developed by researchers in the ﬁeld of industrial labor relations applies reasonably well
to public schools. Even though the adapted industrial relations conceptual framework
offered a useful lens through which to explore and describe the employer/teacher
relationship, it did not capture all of the inﬂuences on the relationship. Therefore, an
outcome of this research was the development of a revised model that has been tailored to
the uniqueness of public schools.

This revised model offers practitioners a better lens through which to analyze and

deﬁne their existing employer/teacher relationship beyond the bargaining table. The

216

 

 

components of such a lens offer practitioners a guide to alter their existing relationship if
it is problematic, or to sustain the existing relationship if it meets the parties’ needs and
expectations. The administrators and teachers can determine whether they use primarily
forcing or fostering strategies as they engage in decision making, problem solving, and
conﬂict resolution. By identifying the established type of communication (one-way or
two-way), the type of communication channels (formal and/or informal), and the
frequency of communication, the parties can determine whether these structures are
enabling the parties to produce the desired relationship. If not, they can focus on speciﬁc
components of the interaction system, alter their behavior, and create an environment that
promotes the desired relationship. Analyzing the relationship using this model could help
leadership at both the district and the building levels make conscious and informed
decisions with respect to maintaining or changing the existing relationship between the

teachers and the employer.

Lumen

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe employer/teacher relations
in today’s public school setting. One of the intended outcomes of the research was to
extend the historical perspective of the employer/teacher relationship or the timeline from
the 19805 up to the year 2002. Further, the research was intended to illustrate whether
the trends in the employer/teacher relationship in public schools were similar to those
trends found in the industrial setting. A modiﬁed and simpliﬁed conceptual framework
developed by researchers in the area of labor and industrial relations was used as the lens
through which to describe the employer/teacher relationship. Therefore, an underlying

objective of this study was to determine whether the industrial relations conceptual

217

 

framework was applicable to and useful for describing the employer/teacher relationship
in public schools.

In the early 19005, the employer/teacher relationship was grounded in Frederick
Taylor’s Principles of Scientiﬁc Management (1911). Taylor’s principles guided
management in their pursuit of efﬁciency or getting greater productivity from human
labor. Inﬂuenced by this theory, Franklin Bobbitt (1913) claimed that if the organization
is to be effective and efﬁcient, the managerial tasks are always directive and supervisory.
In other words, the management was responsible for deﬁning the goals of the
organization and coordinating the efforts of the teachers to attain these goals. As
administrators were trained under this guiding philosophy, this was the dominant
approach to employer/teacher relations into the 19605.

In 1962, unions gained recognition and consequently collective-bargaining rights
for teachers. Collective bargaining was a valid process for teachers to seek gains in
salary, beneﬁts, and working conditions. Teachers began to initiate their inﬂuence on
matters once dictated by the board or administration. As a result, in an effort for teachers
to be recognized and treated as professionals, an adversarial relationship evolved between
teachers and administrators. As the teachers demanded to be recognized, the board and
administration fought to maintain their “directive” role in the management of the
organization, and ultimately to maintain their source of power. The relationship between
administrators and teachers could be described as adversarial in nature.

In the 19905, two legislative initiatives were passed that imposed constraints on a
district’s ability to acquire additional funding, as well as constraints on the collective-
bargaining process. Even though this study was not intended to determine the effect of

such legislative action on the existing employer/teacher relationship, political initiatives

218

are some of many potential factors that may have altered the way administrators and
teachers interact with each other. Therefore, this study was focused on describing the
existing employer/teacher relationship in public schools, looking for changes or an
evolution in the relationship and bringing the historical description up to the present.

This research showed that the current employer/teacher relationship in three
public school districts could be described as moving toward cooperative and contentious
extremes. District 1 can be described as having a relationship based on district-level
cooperation and individual or employee commitment. District 2 had an employer/teacher
relationship categorized as predominantly district-level, arm’s-length accommodation and
employee compliance, with some characteristics of district-level cooperation and
employee commitment. District 3 had a relationship described as district-level
containment or avoidance and employee compliance. The movement toward cooperative
and contentious extremes in these three public school settings was similar to those trends
found in the industrial setting.

This research indicated that the original model or ﬂamework offered a useful lens
through which to explore and describe the employer/teacher relationship in today’s public
schools. The framework focused the research and established distinct categories to guide
the data-collection process. It assisted with analyzing the interaction system that deﬁnes
or prescribes the behaviors of the parties as they engage in the ongoing relationship. The
framework promoted a more diversiﬁed analysis of the employer/ teacher relationship
beyond the bargaining table.

However, after implementing the adapted conceptual framework, further
adaptations to the model were suggested, making it even more applicable or relevant to

the public school setting. It is recommended that the following components be

219

 

incorporated into the framework: (a) consideration of the longevity of leadership (union
and administration) in their roles; (b) consideration of the teachers’ perceptions of the
superintendent’s leadership style or approach, trustworthiness, and fairness; (c)
description of the process of decision making; and (d) categorization of the
employer/teacher relationship along a continuum. Public schools are a unique setting.
Based on the outcome of this research, describing the existing employer/teacher

relationship requires the exploration of other inﬂuences beyond those identiﬁed using the

industrial relations lens.

220

 

APPENDICES

221

 

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

Date

Name
Address

Dear Name:

I am an Educational Administration doctoral student at Michigan State University. As
part of the doctoral program, I am required to engage in research and produce a
dissertation. Currently, I am working on a study that will focus on employer/teacher
relations within today's public schools. The purpose of this letter is to introduce and
summarize my study, as well as invite you to participate in my research project.

Over the past ninety years, there have been many inﬂuences on the evolving relationship
between teachers and their employer. The purpose of my study is to explore and describe
this relationship at both the individual or building level and the district or organizational
level within today's public schools. To gain insight into the current relationship within
your district, I will gather information about the interaction system that exists between
teachers and their employer. I propose to gather this information through personal
interviews, as well as archival data collection regarding historical information on
grievances, joint committees, and the time line for completing the last round of
negotiations.

The relationship at the building level will by analyzed through individual, audiotaped
interviews with high school, middle school and elementary school administrators, as well
as teacher focus groups at the same schools. At the district level, individual audiotaped
interviews will be conducted with the union president and the central office administrator
with the primary function of human resources. These interviews will last approximately

one hour and will occur at the speciﬁc buildings where the teachers and administrators
work.

Participation in this study is voluntary and may be discontinued at any time before,
during, or after the interview. Please be assured the information collected in the
interview will be held to strict standards of conﬁdentiality, and your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Prior to conducting the interview, I
will ask you to sign an informed consent form, which details this information for your
protection. If you have questions related to participation in this study, please feel free to
call me at (517) 669-6603. You may also call the "Responsible Project Investigator" of
this study, Dr. Philip Cusick, at Michigan State University (517) 355-4539.

I will be conducting a focus group interview on January 24, 2002, from 2:45—3:45 pm.
in the High School conference room off from the principal’s ofﬁce. This letter of

222

 

‘5.

 

invitation to participate will be followed by a telephone call or e-mail within the next 2-3
days. I realize the constraints on your schedule, but I hope you will consider sharing your
perceptions of the employer/teacher relationship within your district.

I look forward to talking with you should you decide to participate in this study. Thank
you for your time and for considering this invitation.

Sincerely,

Catherine J. Ash

223

 

APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT

You are invited to participate in Catherine Ash's doctoral study. The purpose of the study
is to describe the existing relationship between teachers and their employers in today's
public schools. This study will seek to describe this relationship in terms of the way
teachers and administrators interact at both the building and district levels.

You are being asked to participate in an interview of approximately one hour in duration.
As a teacher at the building level, you will be interviewed as a member of a focus group
consisting of you and four or ﬁve of your teaching peers. As an administrator or union
president, you will be interviewed on an individual basis. During this interview, you will
be asked questions regarding the way teachers and administrators interact when
bargaining, problem solving, and resolving conﬂict within your building or district. All
interviews will be audiotaped for purposes of accuracy in data collection and
transcription.

All information collected in the interview and prepared in transcription will be held to
strict standards of security and conﬁdentiality. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Subjects and districts involved or named in data
collection will remain anonymous in any written or published reports. Data gathered
through the interviews will be presented as a group response and as a general description
whenever possible. However, it must be stated that there are limits of conﬁdentiality for
speciﬁc participants. Within each district, the union president and the central ofﬁce
administrator will be the only two individuals to describe the employer/teacher
relationship from a "district" perspective. Therefore, someone from the researched
district may be able to connect speciﬁc information to the individual source. Upon

request and within the restrictions stated, you may have the results of this study made
available to you.

Your participation is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any question, and you may
withdraw from participation at any time before, during, or after the interview, all without
penalty or loss of beneﬁt.

If you have questions or concerns related to this study, you may call Catherine Ash at
(517) 669-6603. You may also contact the "Responsible Project Investigator," Dr. Philip
Cusick, at Michigan State University at (517) 355-4539. If you have questions about
your role or rights as a subject of research, you may contact Dr. David E. Wright,

Chairperson, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at (517)
355-2180.

You will be provided with a signed copy of this informed consent form.

Signature Date

 

Printed Name

 

224

 

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

District/Organizational Level: Central Ofﬁce Administrator
Building/Individual Level: Principals

. How do you bargain within this district? Describe the process.
A. Who’s involved?

B. How does it occur?

C. Where does it occur?

D. Tell me a story which typiﬁes the bargaining process.

. How are problems solved within the district/building?

A. Who is involved?

B. Give me an example of a problem that was solved, describing the process
which was followed and the outcome.

. How are decisions made?

A. Who is involved?
B. Give me an example of a decision which was made, describing the process
which was followed and the outcome.

. How are conﬂicts between administration and teachers resolved?

A. Who’s involved?

B. Give me an example of a conﬂict between administration and the union,
describing the process which was utilized to resolve the conﬂict and the
outcome.

. Describe the communication channels or ﬂow of communication between the union

and administration at the building/district level.
A. Formal processes?
B. Informal processes?
C. Can you give me a speciﬁc example(s) of how communication ﬂows?

. In a month, how often are there intentional interactions with the teachers’ union at the

building/district level?
A. In general, what is the purpose or context of those interactions?

. How much time during a typical month do you spend talking with the teachers’ union
leadership?
A. What are these communications about?

. From your perspective, describe the role of the teachers’ union in your
building/district

225

9. From your perspective, describe the role of the administration as it relates to the
teachers’ union.

10. How long have you been in your current position?
11. How has the relationship changed over time, if at all?

12. Is there anything else you would like to add or offer further examples which will help

me to better understand the existing relationship between the teachers’ union and the
administration?

226

 

District/Organizational Level: Union Leadership
Building/Individual Level: Teacher Focus Group

 

1. How do you bargain within this district? Describe the process.
A. Who’s involved?
B. How does it occur?
C. Where does it occur?
D. Tell me a story which typiﬁes the bargaining process.

2. How are problems solved within the district/building?
A. Who is involved?
B. Give me an example of a problem that was solved, describing the process
which was followed and the outcome.

 

3. How are decisions made?
A. Who is involved?
B. Give me an example of a decision which was made, describing the process
which was followed and the outcome.

4. How are conﬂicts between administration and teachers resolved?
A. Who’s involved?
B. Give me an example of a conﬂict between administration and the union,
describing the process which was utilized to resolve the conﬂict and the
outcome.

5. Describe the communication channels or ﬂow of communication between the union
and administration at the building/district level.
A. Formal processes?
B. Informal processes?
C. Can you give me a speciﬁc example(s) of how communication ﬂows?

6. In a month, how often are there intentional interactions with the administration at the
building/district level?

A. What is the purpose of context of those interactions?

7. How much time during a typical month do you spend talking with the administration?
A. What are these communications about?

8. From your perspective, describe the role of the teachers’ union in your building/
district.

9. From your perspective, describe the role of the administration as it relates to the
teachers’ union.

10. How long have you been a building representative/district union leader?

1]. How has the relationship changed over time, if at all?

227

12. Is there anything else you would like to add or offer further examples which will help
me to better understand the existing relationship between the teachers’ union and the
administration?

228

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL DATA

Table D. 1: District 1 grievance history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

Step of Grievance
Issue Process Where Resolution
Issue Resolved*

 

1996-97

No Grievances

 

1997-98

No Grievances

 

1998-99

No Grievances

 

1999-00

No Grievances

 

2000-01

No Grievances

 

2001-02 (September-December)

 

 

 

 

No Grievances

 

*Grievance procedure:

Level One — Orally discuss the grievance with the building principal. If not
resolved, written grievance is provided to building principal.

Level Two — Superintendent or designated agent

Level Three — Arbitration (only if Association chooses to move the grievance forward)

229

 

Table D2: District 1 letters-of-agreement history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

1998/99

1999/00

1999/00

2000/01

2000/01

2000/01

Deﬁned student contact time for middle school teachers engaging in the
team-teaching initiative.

Deﬁned the instructional day for kindergarten teachers and students on an
alternative schedule.

Deﬁned the instructional day for second-grade teachers and students.

Initiated insurance beneﬁts and premiums for adult and alternative
education teaching staff.

Initiated a Voluntary Severance Retirement Plan.

Identiﬁed level of pay for speciﬁc extra-duty positions.

 

230

 

Table D3: District 2 grievance history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step of Grievance
Issue Process Where Resolution
Issue Resolved“

1996-97
No grievances

1997-98

1. Exceeded contractual 1. Step II 1. Implemented Class-Size
class-size limits (middle (Superintendent) Relief Committee to look for
school Solution, as outlined in

Master Agreement

2. Involuntarily transferred 2. Step II 2. Apologized for lack of discus-
a teacher to the 3rd grade (Superintendent) ion prior to transfer; agreed to
(elementary school) be more collaborative in future;

upheld original decision

3. Exceeded contractual 3. Step III 3. Board determined class-size
class-size limits (middle maximum could be exceeded
school)

4. Principal told teachers 4. Step III 4. Approved number of copies at
there was not enough middle school equal to previous
paper for 2nd semester year’s utilization plus addi-
(middle school) tional 52,290

5. Board violated spirit and 5. Step III 5. Agreed to improve future com-
intent of grievance munications and dealings with
procedure when dealing grievances; union withdrew the
with grievance 3. grievance; maintained overage

in middle school class sizes

6. Terminated the assistant 6. Step I 6. Grievance denied: upheld ter-
football coach, based on mination
rumors (high school)

 

231

 

 

Table D3 (cont’d)

 

Issue

Step of Grievance
Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

1998-99

1. Did not meet the intent
of contractual language on

class size in computer lab
(middle school)

2. Did not pay terminal leave to
a teacher after he voluntarily
resigned from his position to
accept another teaching
position; he had no intent of
entering the retirement
system at this time

1. Step II
(Superintendent)

2. Step IV

1. Grievance denied;
class size upheld

2. District must pay terminal-

leave stipend once the
employee enters the
retirement system

 

 

1999-2000

1. Contractual limits on class
size exceeded (high school)

2. Assigned a teacher outside
of certiﬁcation (high school)

3. Contractual limits on class
size exceeded in health
class (high school)

4. Teacher docked three days
for absence from school

5. Teacher wrongfully
reassigned to greater number
of health courses (high
school)

6. Posting for high school
counselor did not include:
certiﬁed and qualiﬁed

 

1. Step III

2. Step I

3. Step III

4. Step III

5. Step 11 (Director
of Human
Resources)

6. Step 11 (Director
of Human
Resources)

 

1. Implemented Class-Size
Relief Committee to look
For solution, as outlined in
Master Agreement

2. Hired a teacher within the

certiﬁcation area

3. Grievance denied: class

size upheld

4. Grievance denied: upheld

docking of teacher’s pay

5. Teaching assignment

returned to previous year’s
ratio of physical education
and health classes

6. Posted with the words

“certiﬁed and qualiﬁed”
under qualiﬁcations

 

232

 

Table D3 (cont’d)

 

Issue

Step of Grievance
Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

 

2000-01

1. Teacher placed incorrectly
on salary schedule, based
on graduate credits earned

2. Teacher received a “disci-
plenary memo” without just
cause (high school)

3. Teacher received a “disci-
plenary memo” without just
cause (high school)

4. Teacher received a letter of
reprimand without just
cause or due process
(high school)

5. Principal did not follow dis-
ciplinary procedure and
issued discipline prior to
grievance process (high
school)

6. Teacher wrongfully
reassigned to greater number
of health courses (high
school)

 

1. Step II
(Superintendent)

2. Step II
(Superintendent)

3. Step II
(Superintendent)

4. Step II
(Superintendent)

5. Step I

6. Step II
(Superintendent)

 

1. Adjusted placement on

salary schedule

. Clariﬁed, not a disciplinary

memo; removed from person-
nel ﬁle; grievant signed and
dated memo as “read and
understood”; withdrew
grievance

. Clariﬁed, not a disciplinary

memo; removed from person-
nel ﬁle; grievant signed and
dated memo as “read and
understood”; withdrew
grievance

4. Letter of reprimand was

rescinded

5. Modiﬁed letter and

reissued

6. Teaching assignment

returned to previous year’s
ratio of physical education
and health classes

 

233

 

 

 

Table D3 (cont’d)

 

Step of Grievance
Issue Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

2001-02 (September-December)

1. Teacher wrongfully reassigned 1. Step II

 

 

1. Teaching assignment

 

to greater number of health (Superintendent) returned to previous year’s
courses ratio of physical education
and health courses
2. Teacher received a letter of 2. Level II 2. Letter of reprimand was
reprimand without just cause (Superintendent) rescinded
*Grievance procedure:

Initial concern = Informal discussion with administrator
Step I = Principal

Step II = Superintendent or designee
Step III = Board hearing
Step IV = Arbitration

234

 

 

Table D4: District 2 letters-of-agreement history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

1997/98

1 998/ 99

2001/02

If the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement Board institutes a
program for purchasing service credits on a tax-deferred basis, the Board
of District 2 will take the necessary steps to allow bargaining-unit
members to participate in the program.

Bargaining teams will meet and negotiate insurance, longevity, terminal-

leave pay, calendar, student/teacher daily schedules, salary schedule, and
extra-duty pay schedule.

Established a joint committee to study these issues and make
recommendations.

Changed the monetary value of the stipend given to mentor teachers to
$500; can now be accumulated to $1,500 toward purchasing college credit
or accept stipend of $500 at end of year.

 

235

 

Table D.5: District 3 grievance history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

Issue

Step of Grievance
Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

1996-97

No grievances found

 

1997-98

No grievances found

 

 

1998-98

1. Instructional aide has been
assigned duties outside those
speciﬁed by contract

2. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (high school)

3. Hiring practices violate the
recognition clause and past
practice

4. Substitutes are often not
provided for absent
paraprofessionals

5. Untimely, discriminatory,
arbitrary, and capricious
application of Board Policy
and Student Handbook

regulations, when dealing with

student discipline (middle
school)

6. Contact time with students is
above stated average

 

1. Level 11 (Human
resource director)

2. Level 1
(Principal)

3. Level I
(Principal)

4. Arbitration
5. Level 11 (Human

resource director)

6. Level 11 (Human
resource director)

 

1. Relief granted

2. Relief granted

3. Grievance denied

4. Grievance dropped

5. Change in administration
prior to hearing the
grievance

6. Grievance denied

 

236

 

 

Table D.5 (cont’d)

 

Issue

Step of Grievance
Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

 

1999-2000

1. Involuntary transfer of
teacher (elementary)

2. Involuntary transfer of
teacher (elementary)

3. Involuntary transfer of
seven teachers, lack of
timeliness

4. Vacancy not posted and
ﬁled according to contract

 

l. Arbitration.
Civil court

2. Level 11 (Director
of human resources)

3. Level 11 (Director
of human resources)

4. Level 11 (Director
of human resources)

 

1. Grievance denied; district
acted properly. Lawsuit failed

2. Grievance denied

3. Grievance denied

4. Grievance denied

 

237

 

Table D.5 (cont’d)

 

Issue

Step of Grievance
Process Where
Issue Resolved*

Resolution

 

 

2000-2001

1. Teachers’ responsibility for
being in their assigned
buildings exceeds 31 hours
(high school, middle school
and elementary—consolidated
all grievances)

2. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (high school)

3. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (elementary)

4. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (high school)

5. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (elementary)

6. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (high school)

7. Class size exceeds contractual
limits (high school)

8. The principal should have the
primary responsibility for
evaluating teachers

 

l. Arbitration

2. Level 11 (Human
resource director)

3. Level II (Human
resource director)

4. Level 11 (Human

resource director)

5. Level 11 (Human
resource director)

6. Level I
(Principal)

7. Level I
(Principal)

8. Level 11 (Human
resource director)

 

1. Grievance denied; union

not able to sustain burden

of proof

2. Relief granted

3. Relief granted

4. Grievance denied

5. Grievance denied

6. Relief granted

7. Relief granted

8. Agreed to comply with
contract; withdrawn

 

238

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D.5 (cont’d)
Step of Grievance
Issue Process Where Resolution
Issue Resolved*
2001-02 (September-December)
1. Posted full-time kindergarten, l. Arbitration 1. Pending
requiring ZA endorsement;
doesn’t consider current
bargaining-unit members
2. Class size exceeds contractual 2. Level II 2. Relief granted
limits (high school) (Superintendent)
3. Computers don’t work in 3. Level II 3. Attempting to remedy
computer lab or classroom; (Superintendent) situation
repair is low priority
4. Letter of direction placed in 4. Level II 4. Letter remains in ﬁle; if no
teacher’s personnel ﬁle (Superintendent) further incidents, it will be
removed at end of year
5. District has hired long-term 5. Arbitration 5. Pending
substitutes instead of qualiﬁed
teachers for vacant positions
6. Vacancy for maternity leave 6. Arbitration 6. Pending
should have been posted
7. Middle school administration 7. Arbitration 7. Pending
assigned asked for volunteers
to supervise student after-school
activity; not enough volunteers
so assigned four teachers
8. Class limits exceeded at 8. Level II— 8. To be determined
kindergarten level scheduled
(Superintendent)
Grievance procedure:
Level I = Principal
Level II = Superintendent or designee

Level 111 = Arbitration

239

 

Table D6: District 3 letters-of-agreement history (September 1996 to December 2001)

 

1999/00

1999/00

1 999/00

1999/00

1999/00

1999/00

2000/01

2000/01

2000/01

Created a subcommittee of the Board and the Association to examine staff
reduction provisions and qualiﬁcation and assignment provisions, in an attempt
to develop an alternative provision that would be satisfactory to both parties.
Any recommendations for changes will be directed to the parties’ respective
negotiations teams for review. The Board and union membership must ratify
changes.

Establish a joint labor-management committee to study the insurance cost issue.
Any plan to address the issue will be directed to the parties’ respective
negotiations team for review. The Board and union membership must ratify
changes.

Establish a committee of four elementary teachers and three elementary
principals to address the unique problems associated with planning time at the
Elementary level.

The parties agree to participate in a collaborative bargaining process. The parties
must receive appropriate training. The Association and District agree to
negotiate between May 7 and May 28, 1999. The current agreement (July, 1996-
June 30, 1999) shall continue and remain in full force, until June 30, 2000. This
extension is contingent upon mutual agreement on salary, employee earned
beneﬁts, and calendar/days/hours. The intent is that the joint collaborative
bargaining training take place in the ﬁrst year and that one to three issues be
identiﬁed and collaboratively bargained. If the two parties do not reach mutual
agreement by May 28, 1999, on the above extension of the contract, the two
parties will revert to the regular and standard process for negotiating.

Initiated a new process for posting and ﬁlling mid-year vacancies at the high
school.

A teacher will perform the duties of interim principal at the elementary school.
During that period of time, she will not be a member of the union.

The parties mutually agree to allow the Intermediate School District to
professionally staff an autistic impaired classroom in the School District.

A teacher will be temporarily assigned to associate principal at the high school,
while current associate principal is on maternity leave. The teacher shall remain
an active member of the union. A rate of compensation was established.

Teachers will be eligible for the Early Retirement Assistance Plan who meet the
Michigan Department of Management and Budgets Ofﬁce of Retirement
Services requirements for deferred retirement status and have accumulated 30 or
more years of service.

 

240

 

REFERENCES

241

 

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. (2000). Executive Director of Michigan Education Association.
Presentation to Capitol Area Negotiators Association:

Blumer, H. (1962). Symbolic interaction: Perspective and method. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Bobbitt, F. (1913). The supervision of city schools: Some general principles of
management applied to the problem of city-school systems. In Twelfth yearbook
of the National Society of the Study of Education (part1). Bloomington, IL.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theory and methods (2"" ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.

Boyd, W., Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (2000). Teachers Unions in Hard Times. In
Conﬂicting missions? Teachers unions and educational reform (pp. 174-210). ,
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Brimelow, P., & Spencer, L- (1993). The national extortion association? Forbes, 72-
84.

Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the cult of eﬁiciency. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Chamberlain, N., & Kuhn, J. (1965). Collective bargaining (2“ ed. ). New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Cohn, J. (2001, February 19). Amazon.com and the return of the old economy. The
jungle. New Republic, pp. 23-27.

Commons, J. (1911). A documentary history of American industrial society (Vol. 5).
Cleveland, OH: A.H. Clark.

Cooke, W. (1990). Labor management cooperation: New partnerships or going in
circles? Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Cooper, B. (1992). Labor relations in education: An international perspective.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Craypo, C. (1990). The decline in union bargaining power. In U.S. labor relations,
1945-1989: Accommodation and conﬂict (pp. 137-172). New York: Garland.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New
Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

242

Dashiell, D. (1967). Teacher revolt in Michigan. Phi Delta Kappan, 49(1), 20-26.

Doherty, R. (1967). Employer-Employee relations in the public schools. New York:
Cornell University, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

Dunlop, J. (1958). Industrial relations systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Durkheim, E. (193 8). The rules of sociological method. Glencoe, 11: The Free Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1981). On the differences between scientiﬁc and artistic approaches to
qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 10(4), 5-9.

Eisner, E. W. (199]). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and enhancement of
educational practice. Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.

Elan, S. (1964). Teacher power--product of uniﬁcation and bigness. Phi Delta Kappan,
45(6), 269.

Filippelli, R. (1990). The historical context of postwar industrial relations. In U.S. labor
relations, 1945-1989: Accommodation and conﬂict (pp. 137-172). New York:
Garland.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes (2"d ed.). Ontario: Penguin Books.

Fossum, J. (1990). Employer and employee relations in an evolving environment. In
Employee and Labor Relations (pp. 4-1 - 4-19). Washington, DC: BNA Books.

Gorden, R. L. (1969). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques and tactics. Homewood, IL:
Dorsey Press.

Gorden, R. (1987). Interviewing strategies. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Hacker, D. (1993, March 23). Kalkaska closure in U.S. spotlight: School radio to miss
story, must sign off. Detroit Free Press, p. 3a.

Hamel, J. (1993). Case study methods: Qualitative research methods (V 01. 32).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoaglin, D. C., & others (1982). Data for decisions. Cambridge, MA: ABT Books.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Johnson, S. (1984). Teacher unions in schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

243

 

Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winston Taylor and the enigma of
efﬁciency. New York: Viking.

Kearney, C. (1994). A primer on Michigan school ﬁnance (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.

Kerchner, C., & Koppich, J. (1993). A union of professionals: Labor relations and
educational reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kerchner, C., & Mitchell, D. (1988). The changing idea of a teachers union. New
York: Falmer Press.

Kochan, T., Katz, H., & McKersie, R. (1994). A transformation of American industrial
relations. New York: ILR Press.

La Rae, G., & Munk, J. D. (1998). Collective bargaining: Bringing education to the
table. Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Lewicki, R., Litterer, J., Minton, J., & Saunders, D. (1994). Negotiation (2"" ed.).
Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Lieberman, M. (1964). Teachers’ strikes: Acceptable strategy? Phi Delta Kappan, 46
(4), 237-240.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S. J. (1993). Proposals that work: A guide for
planning dissertations and grants proposals (3” ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Maher, J. (1961). The wage pattern in the United States. Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 15, 1-20.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Michigan Negotiators Association. (1996). A new age of bargaining: Michigan
Negotiators Association Handbook. Lansing: Author.

Michigan Public Employer Labor Relations Association. (1994). Michigan public

employer and labor relations law. Lansing: Michigan Public Employer Labor
Relations Association.

Murphy, M. (1990). Blackboard unions: The AFT and the NEA, [900-1980. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.

Nadwomy, M. (1955). Scientific management and the unions: [900-1932. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Press.

244

 

Nissen, B. (1990). U. S. Labor relations, 1945-1989: Accommodation and conﬂict.
New York: Garland.

Oberer W., Hanslowe, K., & Heinsz, T. (1994). Labor law: Collective bargaining in a
free society (4” Ed.). Minnesota: West Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (1985). Quality in qualitative research: Methodological principles and
recent developments. Invited address to Division J of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods (2“d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Rich, J. (1963). A philosophic view--Civil disobedience and teacher strikes. Phi Delta
Kappan, 45(3), 151-154.

Risley, R. (1967). Introduction. In Employer-employee relations in the public schools

(pp. 3-5). New York: Cornell University, New York State School of Industrial
and Labor Relations.

Robbins, S. (1998). Organizational behavior (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Rugh, J. (1992). Labor relations, World War 11, before, during and after: The
autobiography of a one-eyed Jack. California: Warrens Waller Press.

Schatz, R. (1983). The electrical workers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Schuster, M. (1990). Evolution of union management cooperation. In Employee and
labor relations (pp. 4-44 - 4-76). Washington, DC: BNA Books.

Seidman, I. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Seldon, D. (1964). Class size and the New York contracts. Phi Delta Kappan, 45(6),
283-287.

Shulman, L. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. Jaeger
(Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.

Simmel, G. (1971). Georg Simmel on individuality and social reforms. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

245

Simmel, G. (1997). Simmel on culture: Selected writings (theory, culture and society).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, L. M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational
ethnography and other case studies. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in
education. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York.

Walton, R., Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J ., & McKersie, R. (1994). Strategic negotiations: A
theory of change in labor-management relations. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Weiss, R. (1994). The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The
Free Press.

Wildman, W. (1964). Implication of teacher bargaining for school afﬁrmation. Phi
Delta Kappan, 45(4), 152-158.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2“1 ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

246