INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.T he sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micrdfilms International 3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . A N N A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D RO W, L O N D O N W C 1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D a 001575 OMEN. W I L L I A M ROBERT WHY PROFESSORS CHOOSE C O L L E C T I V E THE M I C H I G A N E X P E R 1 E N C F . MICHI GAN STATE UN I V E R S I T Y» CCIPR. 1 9 7 9 OWEN, University . Microfilms International 300 n . z e e b p o a d , © WILLIAM PH .D ., ROBERT a n n a r b o r , mi 4 8 i o 6 1979 WILLIAM ROBERT OWEN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BARGAINING 1979 PLEASE NOTE: In a l l cases t h is material has been filmed 1n the b est p o ssib le way from the a v a ila b le copy. Problems encountered with th is document have been I d e n tifie d here with a check mark ^ . 1. Glossy photographs ________ 2. Colored I llu s t r a t io n s ________ 3. Photographs with dark background ________ '4. I llu s t r a t io n s are poor c o p y ________ 5. Print shows through as there i s t e x t on both sid es o f p a g e 6. I n d is t in c t , broken or small prin t on several pages _____ throughout 7. T ightly bound copy with p rin t l o s t in spine _________ 8. Computer printout pages with in d is t in c t print ________ 9. Page(s) lacking when material received , and not a v a ila b le from school or author ________ 10. Page(s) ________ seem to be missing in numbering c-«ly as te x t follow s ________ 11. Poor carbon copy ________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred____________ type __ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy _________ 14. Original copy with l i g h t type _________ 15. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s 16. Other _____ University M icitinlm s International 3 0 0 N 2 S E B R D .. A N N A R 9 0 R VII J 8 1 0 6 '3 1 3 1 7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 ■ - WHY PROFESSORS CHOOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE By William Robert Owen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1979 ABSTRACT WHY PROFESSORS CHOOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE MICHIGAN EXPERIENCE By William Robert Owen The primary purpose of this study was to seek to explain why faculty members in Michigan's state-supported colleges and universities either accept or reject collective bargaining. Such insights should help admini­ strators who are repelled by the notion of collective bargaining to adopt managerial practices that may preclude the need for a faculty union. If, however, a faculty union is inevitable, this study should also provide college and university administrators with an understanding of the dynamics of the faculty unionization process. Thus fortified with a better under­ standing of the reasons why faculty unions are formed, administrators may then be able to deal more effectively and rationally with the collective bargaining process. A concomitant purpose of this study was to provide those interested in the establishment of faculty unions with a procedure for successful union organizing techniques. This study employed the use of 1,667 questionnaires mailed to faculty members in the five non-union state supported bacculareate institutions of higher education in Michigan. The questionnaires were distributed in January, February, and April of 1977 and were received until November, 1978. The overall response rate was just over 30 percent and the findings based on the survey should therefore be interpreted with caution. The major findings of this study were not seriously limited or impaired by the low rate of response to the questionnaire because the primary research methods employed to discover why faculty accept or reject collective bar­ gaining were field observations and case studies. Considerable emphasis was placed on the two union defeats at Michigan State University in 1972 and 1978 and the union victories at Ferris State College in 1972 and Lake Superior State College in 1978. Because this study was conducted by a professional faculty union organizer, the perspective from which it was written should distinguish it from other studies. As a consequence of the researcher's background, this dissertation is in essence a field study. Some of the findings of this study are supported by their application to an actual field test situation, wherein the questionnaire results showing faculty readiness for collective bargaining at Lake Superior State College were used to justify a successful attempt to unionize the faculty at that institution. The application of the survey results to a working situation validated the usefulness of the survey instrument. Other findings were: 1) authoritarian administrations and administrators stimulate faculty interest in collective bargaining; 2) faculty members will not seek the union alternative where the following conditions prevail: a) faculty participates in policy determination, b) due process is protected by impartial third party adjudication, c) salaries and fringe benefits have not fallen below the norm, d) tenure rights are protected, e) campus governance is meaningful, f) administrative authority is shared and decisions with respect to tenure, staff selection, promotion work load, curriculum, institutional planning, and other important matters are not unilaterally or arbitrarily made by the central administration. The conclusion of the study was that collective bargaining will flourish when an administration loses touch with faculty and when faculty become disenchanted with their governance system. Professors do not alway unionize for higher wages and better working conditions. Faculty members do tend to unionize when they perceive the administration to be authori­ tarian, elitist, and insensitive to their needs. In appreciation of their continued support and encouragement this dissertation is dedicated to niy wife, Katharine K. Owen my sons Mark and Peter, and iry parents, William R. Owen, Sr. and Sadie E. Owen. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In 1964, Dr. E. Dale Kennedy, who was then Executive Secretary of the Michigan Education Association, suggested to me that a good use of my spare time as a new MEA staff member would be to pursue a Ph.D. Dr. Kennedy's advice was not taken seriously until 1972, when Wayne Taylor of MSU, now deceased, convinced me that I should indeed write a disser­ tation. After several more years of procrastination following my accept­ ance of Dr. Taylor's advice, I had the good fortune to meet John. W. Suehr whose patience and understanding made it possible for this dissertation to be written. Anyone who could procrastinate for fifteen years as I did requires a considerable amount of help and inspiration. Therefore the list of those to whom I am indebted is longer than usual, and includes the following people. My Graduate Committee, who offered guidance and support during the researching of this study: John H. Suehr, Chairperson, Calhoun C. Collier and Max R. Raines, of the College of Education and Dale G. Brickner, of the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University. I am deeply appreciative of the professional assistance provided by Nancy A. Dixon, who in her capacity as editor and technical consultant worked closely with me throughout the writing of this dissertation. I wish also to acknowledge the contributions of the following persons who provided technical assistance: Cindy Fenton, who prepared the graphic presentations of the survey results, William Graybeal, who helped design the questionaire which was used with modification as the survey instrument and William L. Ewens, who granted permission for the inclusion of the MSU Faculty Associates campaign master plan. Special thanks are due also to the Michigan Education Association for the use of resource materials on collective bargaining in higher education in Michigan. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements iii-iv List of Tables CHAPTER I: CHAPTER II: CHAPTER III: viii INTRODUCTION 1 Background 3 Design of the Study 5 Hypothesis 6 Presentation of the Data 8 Procedure for Data Collection 9 The Results of the Survey of FacultyOpinions 12 Summary 38 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 42 Who is Writing About Collective Bargaining and Why 43 The CMU Literature 45 Selected Articles and Studies on Why Faculties Choose Collective Bargaining 49 Other Recent Research 52 Bargaining Agents 61 Other Research on Why Faculties Choose Collective Bargaining 63 Summary 73 WHY PROFESSORS UNIONIZE: AdministrativeBehavior and Policy as a Stimulus to FacultyUnions The Impact of Collegial Unions on College and University Administrators v 76 95 Summary CHAPTER IV : CHAPTER V: CHAPTER VI: CHAPTER VII: EPILOGUE: 106 A CASE STUDY: Michigan State University Faculty Reject Collective Bargaining 107 Faculty and Administration Reactions 113 Summary 131 THE 1978 MSU ELECTION: A Case Study 133 Differences Between the 1978 and the 1972 Elections 135 The Campaign Plan 139 Campaign Activities 145 The 1978 Election 148 Summary 152 FERRIS FACULTY CHOOSES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: A Case Study 156 The Campaign Strategy 159 Why Unionism was Accepted at Ferris 165 The Union is Threatened atFerris 167 Summary 170 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 172 Conclusion 175 Recommendations for Further Research 180 WHY PROFESSORS UNIONIZE: The Effects of Faculty Unionism on Collegiality 182 The Senate 185 The Central Administration 189 The Department Chairperson 193 The Faculty Hierarchy 197 Summary 198 vi A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Questionnaire: Survey of Status and Opinions of Faculty in Michigan Public Higher Education APPENDIX B: Ladd-Lipsett Survey APPENDIX C: Efficiency Task Force Recommendations APPENDIX C-l: Administrator Characteristics and Union Activity APPENDIX D: MSUFA Correspondence APPENDIX E: The Master Plan for the 1972 Unionization Drive at Michigan State University APPENDIX F: Michigan State University Faculty Associates Newsletter Samples APPENDIX G: Faculty Bargaining Agents LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE I: Percent of Faculty Responding to Questionnaire by Rank and Sex 11 TABLE II: Faculty Characteristics 16 TABLE III: Annual Salary 9-10 Months 18-19 TABLE IV: Current Employment Conditions, Chart 1 Current Employment Conditions, Chart 2 Current Employment Conditions, Chart 3 21 22 23 TABLE V: Policy Development, Chart 1 Policy Development, Chart 1 25 26 TABLE VI: Policy Implementation 27 TABLE VII: Tenure Conditions 30 TABLE VIII: Faculty Morale 32 TABLE IX: Services Available 34-35 TABLE X: Posture Choice 37 TABLE XI: Faculty Readiness for Collective Bargaining 39 vii i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The phenomenon of faculty unions on the campuses of Michigan's state supported colleges and universities will be explored in this dissertation from a professional union organizer's perspective. A purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons individual faculty members choose to support a system, collective bargaining, that deviates from accepted governance systems in higher education. This study will seek to explore the condi­ tions that existed at those colleges and universities where collective bargaining has been established and to identify specific causes for a faculty to repudiate its traditional governance system and replace it with collective bargaining. Another purpose of the dissertation will be to identify conditions that will help to predict the state of faculty readi­ ness for collective bargaining at the remaining non-union colleges and universities in Michigan. The primary method of investigation used in this dissertation will be to emphasize field studies drawn from the writer's personal experience. The results of an opinion survey will be employed and emphasis will also be placed on personal contacts with faculty members and administrators from the campuses studied in this dissertation. The determinants of faculty attitude toward collective bargaining are often more charged with emotion than with rational thought. For this rea­ son, the choice of methodologies was broadened in this study in order to facilitate access to information that does not lend itself well to tradi­ tional scholarly investigative techniques. Therefore, this study employs surveys, field studies and personal contacts in order to evaluate the conditions that may have influenced a faculty decision to accept collective bargaining. As these techniques are employed, it should be noted that, whenever a faculty chooses collective bargaining, a substantial number remains passive on the issues. This makes it difficult to assess how the majority feels about the issues pertinent to the collective bargaining question. The use of field observations, supplemented by an opinion survey, and a review of the pro and anti union literature will form the data base of this study. The scope of the investigation will include all of the organi­ zed and unorganized state supported four-year colleges and universities in Michigan. Special attention will be given to MSU and Ferris State College, while a somewhat more cursory review will be made of the determinants for accepting or rejecting collective bargaining at a sampling of Michigan's private four-year colleges and universities. The general significance of this study will be to identify those conditions that stimulate and foster faculty unionism. Once such condi­ tions are identified at specific colleges and universities, it should be possible for administrators to take steps to ameliorate these conditions if the idea of dealing with a faculty union is intolerable. Once these conditions are identified, it will also, be possible for those who favor unions as a superior method for dealing with academic governance problems to ascertain the readiness of a given college or university faculty for collective bargaining, and thus be more efficient in the selection of organizing targets. 3 BACKGROUND Much has been written on the phenomenon of academic collective bargaining. The field of knowledge about the forces that precipitate a faculty union is expanding at a rapid rate as a consequence of scholarly preoccupation with the phenomenon of faculty unionism. Unfortunately, much of the research on this subject is conducted by scholars with no first-hand experience with faculty unionism, is based on secondary sources or it is written from a pro-management perspective. The few studies that do deal with the dynamics of a faculty decision to select collective bargaining are quite generalized and thus have limited value in providing the academic community with a precise understanding of those determinants that motivate a faculty to choose collective bargaining as its alternative to the more traditional governance systems. While much of the previous work on the collective bargaining phenomenon lacks specificity about the determinants that influence a faculty to accept unionism, there are several current works that deal rather well with this issue, and they will be treated at length in Chapter II. It will be a purpose of this dissertation to util­ ize the proven research methods enumerated above to identify those forces that were operative prior to the selection of a bargaining agent. Prior investigations on the influences upon faculty who are contemplating unionism include works'dealing with such determinants as: the increasing bureaucratic organization of colleges and universities, the legal bases for faculty bargaining, the decision making ability of faculties, faculty militancy, job satisfaction, and job security. Prob­ ably because most of the previous investigators were management oriented, 4 the role of administrators as precipitating forces for faculty unionism has been largely ignored. While it is not the intention of this dissertation to indict administrators, their obvious role in the intricate decision­ making process that precedes a faculty choice to pursue the establishment of an academic union will be reviewed. If this process reveals that a precipitating factor in faculty unionism is an increased alienation of faculty from central administrators, the higher education establishment could benefit if administrators learn to deal more effectively with faculty discontent. In any event, a sub-purpose of this study will be to help administrators understand that faculty unions don't happen spontaneously. Neither do they evolve as the natural consequence of a gradually develop­ ing governance system. Faculty unions are formed when members of a faculty come to the reasoned and seemingly spontaneous conclusion that their pre­ sent governance system is no longer appropriate to their needs. What then are the determining factors that lead to such a decision. This dissertation will seek to answer these questions in terms of the determinants that influence the majority of a faculty to choose the collec­ tive bargaining alternative. Some of the questions that may be answered directly or deduced from this dissertation are: 1) Which faculty members are more susceptible to union appeals for support and involvement? 2) What qualities do administrators possess that precipitate a faculty decision to unionize? 3) What bearing does size of an institution have on a faculty decision to unionize? 4) What does the academic status and reputation of an institution have to do with faculty unionism? 5 5) What are the identifiable characteristics, such as age, rank, sex, and specialty, of faculty who favor unionism? 6) What are the reasons given by faculty members for engaging in union activities? 7) What are the characteristics of a college president who would be likely to cause members of his faculty to con­ template unionizing? 8) What are the effects of centralized decision-making on faculty interest in unionism? 9) Is the decision to form a faculty union a defensive act? 10) What are the kinds of issues that create, faculty interest in collective bargaining? 11) Are these issues limited to job security, salaries, fringe benefits, hours, and other economic issues,'or is govern­ ance and decision-making power a more potent issue? 12) Do the precipitating issues vary greatly among institutions? 13) What actions on the part of administrators and anti-union faculty members are most effective in defeating unionizing attempts? These and related questions were contemplated when this dissertation was planned and to the extent that they are answerable, they will be answered, at least through inference. Serious attention to these ques­ tions should be useful in developing strategies for dealing with the condi' tions most likely to favorably influence a faculty in a given institution to lean.toward collective bargaining. DESIGN OF THE STUDY The broad scope of this dissertation will be given specificity through the employment of the following investigative techniques: 1) Review of existing literature, primary and secondary sources. 6 2) Examination of available primary documents, such as union files and government documents. 3) Survey of faculty attitude toward collective bargaining at Grand Valley State College, Lake Superior State College, Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University and the University of Michigan. 4) Personal interviews and contacts with selected administrators, faculty members and union leaders. 5) Field observations based on personal experience. Data sources will consist of: 1) Questionnaires mailed to 1,667 faculty members in five Michigan institutions of higher education in January, 1977. 2) Michigan Education Association and National Education Association confidential files. 3) Personal documents generated in unionizing drives at several Michigan colleges and universities. 4) Interviews and correspondence with college administrators, faculty members, and union leaders. 5) Books, articles and dissertations on the topic of unions in higher education. • HYPOTHESIS Stated in general terms, the hypothesis of this study is: Authoritarian and otherwise threatening behavior on the part of college and university administrators stimulates faculty interest in collective bargaining. One of the premises on which this hypothesis is bases is the belief that it is unnatural for faculty members to contemplate unionism and that the status quo will be preserved so long as faculty members are not radicalized by some form the administration. of overtly threatening behavior on the part of Chapters three through the epilogue of this dissertation will deal with different aspects of the above general hypothesis. The hypothesis will be supported empirically through the development of the subtheses of these chapters and the hypothesis will also be supported, but somewhat more tangentially, through the visual presentation of the findings of the questionnaires. The questionnaire material will be presented pictorially immediately follow­ ing this section. Chapter Three hypothesizes that: Autocratic behavior on the part of the administrators may precipitate faculty unionism. Chapter Four hypothesizes that: Faculty unionism will not be accepted when the decision to unionize is imposed and implemented at an institution by outside union organizers and/or a relatively small group of pro-union faculty members and faculty unionism will fail in the absence of clearly de­ fined compaign issues. Chapter Five hypothesized that: Even the most efficient, faculty planiied and implemented campaign strategy will not secure collective bargaining rights for a faculty that is apathetic and otherwise not ready to be organized. Chapter Six hypothesized that: Faculty unionism will be accepted when faculty are sufficiently threatened by administrative policy and where a determined nucleus of faculty leaders are willing to accept the responsibility for promoting the union alternative among their colleagues. Chapter Seven concludes that: Administrators who arrogate power to themselves run the risk that a contravening force in the form of a faculty union will emerge to oppose that power. The final chapter of this disser­ tation also concludes that administrators who do not involve their faculty members in decision making can expect a faculty union in the future, and the chief administrator is perhaps the single most important person in deter­ mining whether a faculty union will evolve. The Epilogue hypothesized that: Collective bargaining does not necessarily destroy collegiality or weaken existing governance traditions, and that it is possible for collective bargaining and a faculty governance system such as a faculty senate or academic council to coexist. (Even though the senate may survive a successful unionizing drive, a new polorization of power between faculty and administrators will occur and a new governance system based on collective bargaining will ultimately emerge.) PRESENTATION OF THE DATA As mentioned in the introduction, this dissertation is essentially a field study. The hypotheses were supported by the empirical evidence gen­ erated as each chapter dealing with actual unionizing activities was drafted. The data generated from the distribution of 1,667 questionnaires to faculty members at Michigan's state supported non-bargaining colleges and univer­ sities, if given in depth statistical treatment, could perhaps form the basis of a separate study. The present work will use the data generated by the questionnaires to support the writer's a pri o ri belief that when a substan­ tial majority of the faculty at a given college or university reflect a readiness for collective bargaining in their answers a decision to seek col­ lective bargaining rights for the faculty members would be justified. 8 9 The decision to present the questionnaire data in compact form as a part of this introductory chapter was made in compliance with a wish of my guidance coiunittee to keep this dissertation on track. The main strength of this dissertation is derived from its narrative presentation of the dynamics of several union organizing campaigns on the campuses of Michigan's state supported colleges and universities. While it will not be used in the main text of this dissertation, the data received from the distribution of the questionnaires to the institutions surveyed does, nonetheless, support the assumptions of this writer. Moreover, the ques­ tionnaire data that follows has intrinsic value as presented in chart and graph form with the accompanying interpretative comments. PROCEDURES FOR DATA COLLECTION The questionnaires to faculty members were mailed to 1,667 faculty members in the five Michigan non-union institutions of higher education (community colleges excluded) in January, 1977. At Michigan State Uni­ versity and at the University of Michigan, the questionnaires were sent to a sample of 18.8 and 25.0 percent of faculty respectively. Faculty who had not responded to the first mailing were sent a follow-up request in February. In April a final follow-up request was sent to 1,171 faculty, about 70 percent of those originally addressed. The overall response rate of 30 percent is disappointing because it % is likely that the findings are not representative of all faculty. 10 For example, response rates may be higher among faculty having a positive image of NEA/MEA than among faculty having a negative image or no familiar­ ity with NEA/MEA. While it is desirable that a response be received from at least two-thirds of faculty sampled in order to make reasonably accu­ rate estimates of the total population of faculty being sampled, the over­ all response rate of 3Q percent, while disappointing, is viable. the findings have been interpreted in very general terms. However, The estimates are not precise, and they should be interpreted with attention given to the direction of likely bias represented by those responding. The estimated rates of response by institution are as follows: 20.4% Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University of Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 Lake Superior State College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 Grand Valley State Colleges. . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8 Michigan T e c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.3 The percentage distributions of faculty by rank and by sex in the sample compared with the total population provides indications of the extent that the respondents may be representative of all faculty. The population estimate of the distribution of faculty by ranks is from the 1975-76 AAUP salary study, and the distribution of faculty by sex is from the 1976-77 NCES-HEGIS employees study. The summary of the survey which appears below shows that in all institutions except Grand Valley, the distributions of respondents by rank and sex are very similar to the estimated distributions of all faculty in the institution. Grand Valley had a relatively low rate of response accom panied by some evidence that those responding are not entirely representa­ tive of faculty by rank or by sex. Therefore, the findings for Grand Valley must be interpreted with even greater caution than is given to the 11 information for other institutions. The numbers of respondents shown in the summary tables reflect the application of weights to provide appropriate representation of faculty in institutions where questionnaires were sent to a sample of the total faculty. The actual number of respondents was 110 at Michigan State University and 192 at the University of Michigan. PERCENT OF FACULTY Institution Prof. Asso. Prof. Asst. Prof. Instructor Male 27.6% 25.9 19.7% 17.6 6.6% 10.2 — a/ 78.9% Michigan State Total Sample 46.1% 46.3 Univ. Michigan Total Sample 47.6 50.3 '22.8 27.9 24.2 19.7 5.3 2.1 — a/ 85.2 Lake Superior Total Sample 9.9 12.5 32.7 37.5 40.6 37.5 16.8 12.5 81 .3 81 .3 Grand Valley Total Sampl e 18.2 27.1 32.3 33.9 49.5 33.9 0.0 5.1 77.8 85.0 Michigan Tech Total Sample 24.1 26.3 32.6 39.4 31.1 30.3 12.2 4.0 89.9 89.0 a/ Population estimates for 1976-77 not available. b/ Population estimates derived from number of faculty employed on 9-10 month contracts in 1976-77 reported to NCES on HEGIS questionnaire are 14.8 percent professors, 36.0 percent asso­ ciate professors, 33.9 percent assistant professors, 1.3 per­ cent instructors, and 14.0 percent lecturers. 12 By virtue of my position as an MEA professional staff person with responsibility for organizing and servicing college and university fac­ ulties, I have access to confidential files that are relevant to the subject of this dissertation. Documents generated in faculty organizing drives used in this dissertation are in most cases the product of my activities as a faculty union organizer. servations followed no formula. Personal interviews and ob­ All administrators cited here were questioned directly or were observed by me during the course of my or­ ganizing activities. The procedure for personal interviews was, wherever possible, face to face. Where such meetings were not possible, telephone interviews were conducted. No administrator of any of the Michigan col­ leges and universities not known personally or at minimum dealt with in­ directly through my unionizing activities was quoted or commented upon by me in this dissertation. Primary and secondary data were collected by means of traditional research procedures. All data received statis­ tical treatment. THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OF FACULTY OPINIONS Beginning in January of 1977, questionaires were mailed to 1,667 faculty at Grand Valley State Colleges, Lake Superior State College, Michigan State University, Michigan Technological University, and the University of Michigan. These questionaires were sent to a sample of 18.8 percent of the faculty at Michigan State and 25.0 percent at the University of Michigan. April. Follow-up requests were sent in February and The April mailing was sent to 1,171 faculty members to about 70 percent of those originally queried. Following the April, 1S77 13 mailing, a few questionaires continued to dribble in, the last of which was received on November 1, 1978, thereby making the period over which questionaires were distributed and processed a span of over two years. There is no way to adequately rationalize the overall response of only 30 percent, a disappointing figure. The meaning of such a poor return could be indicative of many faults with the technique of the survey, or it could suggest an emotional reaction based on previously held negative feelings about the Michigan and National Education Assoc­ iations. This researcher suspects the latter, because while the survey instrument was a lengthy four pages, the questions were well-designed and easy to understand, and its return was facilitated by prepaid, selfaddressed return envelopes. There may be some corelation between the rates of response and the direction of the likely bias of the respondents. Of the five non-union faculties polled, the highest rate of response was from Lake Superior State College with a return of 38 percent of the total faculty (there questionaires were sent to every faculty member). The lowest rate of response was from the 18.8 percent sample of the faculty at Michigan State University, where the return was 20.4 percent. While this dis­ sertation was in progress the results of the Lake Superior questionaire were used in making a decision to seek union representational rights for the faculty at Lake Superior. At an election held in January 1978 the results were overwhelmingly pro-union, with a two-to-one margin for the MEA affiliated faculty association. The findings of the survey for faculty sampled at Michigan State University were judged to be in­ conclusive by those of us who were in the early Spring of 1977 contem­ 14 ' plating a second attempt to unionize the faculty at MSU. The smallness of the sample and the low rate of response caused the leaders of the Faculty Associates, the MEA faculty unit on the MSU campus, to disregard the survey and to rely instead on other indicators for determining fac­ ulty readiness for a second attempt to form a faculty union. In any event, the rate of return was high at Lake Superior, and the faculty there chose collective bargaining; by contrast, the rate of return was low at MSU and the faculty there rejected collective bargaining. The rate of return was also relatively high at the University of Michigan, with 37.9 percent of those sampled returning the questionaires. Since no attempt was made to form a union at the University of Michigan we may not draw any conclusions about the significance of the rate of return as an indicator of faculty bias toward the organization distri­ buting the questionaire. The questionaire results are not as precise as I had hoped they would be, and should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the results are interesting and in general terms the results that follow in chart and graph form add to the body of knowledge that is dealt with in this dissertation. In the following chapters the question of why faculty members choose collective bargaining will be addressed through other research techniques, thus relegating the questionaire results that follow to the position of background material. appears in Appendix A. The questionaire The visual presentation of the results of the questionaire follows in this chapter. The order of presentation of the material below does not follow the order in which the questions were presented on the questionaire, 15 since some of the questions were intentionally juxtaposed so as not to intimidate the respondents. Nor are all of the questions appearins,on the questionaire graphically reproduced here, since to do so would have produced more than enough material to synthesize the questionaire results. The following faculty characteristics graphs pertain to the pro­ fessional status of the respondents. As can readily be seen, approxi­ mately 80 percent of those responding were tenured and of that number, nearly 70 percent were engaged in teaching full time. Due to our ina­ bility to generate totally clean mailing lists, some questionaires were sent inadvertantly to administrators and professional support staff who teach on a part time basis. The number of full professors responding in relation to the percentage of tenured respondents was quite low, with only 45.4 percent of the respondents holding the rank of professor, while 80 percent of the respondents were tenured. A suprising outcome, which can be seen in the first two graphs was the fact that only 17 percent of those responding as tenured were females as opposed to 83 percent of tenured respondents being male. The age groups reflected on the age graph below provided no sur­ prises. Only 22 percent of the group was 35 years of age or less and 33 percent was over 50, while 45 percent was between the ages of 36 and 50. A question of great interest to those who favor the establishment of faculty unions, (would you join a faculty union?) brought surpris­ ingly favorable answers. A combined total of 63.8 percent of faculty polled indicated that they would join some sort of faculty union or association. The striking parallel between this response and the 65 percent favorable response in the Ladd-Lipset Survey can be seen in Appendix B. 16 FACULTY CHARACTERISTICS -O T H E R Not A p p l i c a b l e -3,2% INSTRUCTOR- No n t e n u r e d , 20.5: 17% ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 79.8% PROFESSOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR Tenured AGE Fe m a l e f 22% 35 OR LESS 83% 36 TO 50 Ma l e 50 OR MORE WOULD JOIN OTHER. 1 5 , LEAVE •■‘■'VjOTHER SABBAT ICAL-1. 10.8% 23.1 PT TEACHINI PT ADMIN— NO 63.81 ia.6: 68.5% 13.1 ,NO RESPONS FULL-TIME TEACHING PROF SUPPORT YES 17 The status question dealing with faculty salaries raised some serious doubts of the veracity of a few of the respondents. If we are to believe what we read on the completed questionaires, the range for faculty salaries for eleven-twelve month appointments is from a low of $5000 to $96,000. While the person reporting an income of $96,000 will remain anonymous, it can be said without violating his privacy that his questionaire answer indicated that the $96,000 figure was a composite of salary and consulting fees, with no attempt to separate the two. The $5000 figure is also subject to challenge, since no qualifying statements were made by the respondent. We can only assume that the person reporting the $5000 salary was in the 14.6 percent of respondents who were part time instructors with eleven and twelve month appointments. Given the high percentage of tenured faculty responding, it came as no surprise to learn that 'over 80 percent of the faculty surveyed earn over $20,000 and that almost 40 percent of these earn $30,000 or more. This set of figures dovetails very nicely with the 79.8 percent of the faculty respondents who are tenured. The salary data for faculty on twelve month appointments makes it abundantly clear that the vast majority of these respondents are relatively well paid and quite secure in their jobs. This information should not be comforting to anyone who seeks to secure collective bargaining rights for individuals so well situated. The range for those on nine-ten month appointments, from a low of $8,550 to a high of $35,000, is much more believable than the el even-twelve month range. Here also the parallel between tenured fac­ ulty and best-paid faculty is striking. 78.9 percent of respondents reported earnings of between $15,000 and $29,999 and 7.5 percent repor­ ted earnings of $30,000 or more. See graphs below. ANNUAL SALARY Hot A r m c m M .J t - 851 J*> t o SO 351 PT H .6 J 15.1 Mean Median Low High $20,059 $19,843 $ 8 ,5 5 0 $35,500 ANNUAL SALARY 11-12 Mos. in 7 5 .1 Mean Median Low High $27,767 $25,680 $ 5 ,0 0 0 $96,000* * q u est1 o n a b le d ata 20 Union organizers instincively know that as important as salaries and job security are to the rank and file, the adequacy of the "other" conditions of employment is at least as important as these traditional union concerns. In academe where jobs are secure, especially for those who have tenure, and where salaries are respectable, the adequacy of the fringe benefits and the perquisites of professorial status may be a po­ tential source of employee discontent severe enough to cause groups of otherwise complacent faculty members to contemplate unionism. The absence of adequate travel funds, poor parking facilities, in­ adequate secretarial assistance, and inadequate compensation for summer sessions are all potential sources of faculty discontent. as these tend to lurk beneath the surface. cerns become campus-wide issues. Issues such Seldom do these kinds of con­ More often they become imperatives for individuals and groups who may have had a leave request turned down or experienced some other slight at the hands of the administration. The sophisticated union organizer is often more skillful than the administra­ tion in discovering such sources of discontent and of course the union representative is ready with solutions to problems such as these. The following three charts were prepared from the question that asked the respondents to "indicate your personal opinion about the ade­ quacy" of these kinds of provisions. Salaries and job security related questions are reflected in the charts below, but they are of secondary importance to the questions that deal with faculty discontent about the seemingly routine working conditions. CURRENT CONDITIONS Chart 1 P ercen t in d ic a tin g " U n s a tis fa c to r y , Much Improvement Needed" HSU 9 0 -r TOO 8 0 .. -80 70 . . ••70 50 - - -60 50 - - --5 0 40 - - ••40 30 -- •30 — 1 1 - S a b b a tica l le a v e p o l i c i e s 2 ■20 - A v a ila b i li t y o f tr a v e l funds 3 - R etirem ent p r o v is io n s 4 - L ife in su ran ce 5 - H ealth in su ran ce 10 10 -- MSU UM LS GV HT 6 - Parking f a c i l i t i e s CURRENT CONDITIONS Chart 2 P ercen t in d ic a tin g " U n s a tis fa c to r y , Much Improvement Needed" MSU .80 80. - . TO- - . .70 1 60. . . 2 .60 3 SO. . 4 . .50 5 ---- 4 40- - . 2 6 -40 — 30. - . .30 1 - F a cu lty e v a lu a tio n 2 - S a la r y , academ ic year ..20 20. . -- 6 3 - S a la r y , summer s e s s io n 4 - Promotion p o l i c i e s 5 - Student r a t io 6 - Teaching m a te r ia ls and equipment 10- . MSU UM LS GV MT INoJ r HSU a o .. 70. . . -T O 60. . . _60 50- . .SO - 40- - —4 X ------- 5 20.. -.20 1 - Standards fo r n o tic e o f nonreappointm ent 2 - C lass s i z e 3 - Long term d i s a b i l i t y in su ran ce 4 - P rocedures fo r r ed u ctio n in fo r c e MSU UM LS GV 5 - S e c r e ta r ia l a s s is t a n c e and o f f i c e f a c i l i t i e s 6 - P ersonal le a v e p o l i c i e s CURRENT CONDITIONS Chart 3 P ercen t in d ic a tin g " U n s a tis fa c to r y , Much Improvement Needed" 24 Another important determinant of faculty morale is the extent to which faculty members in a given institution are given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the development of policy and/or in the implementation of policy. The following three charts depict the results of the questionaire on this sensitive governance aspect of faculty morale. Special attention should be focused on Lake Superior State College with respect to the Lake Superior faculty responses to the questions dealing with promotion standards, faculty evaluation, and tenure provisions. At Lake Superior these three faculty concerns as reflected in Chart 1 became organizing campaign issues in a successful drive to unionize the faculty. From the Lake Superior experience it would seem that the extent to which faculty members are involved in the development of policy is related to the extent to which faculty will seek alternative forms of campus governance. Chart 2 in the Policy Development series clearly shows that the faculty at Lake Superior were quite upset with their salaries and were not at all pleased with the criteria for selection of campus level ad­ ministrators. At Lake Superior as- we will see in Chapter III, the main source of this discontent was with the perceived authoritarianism of the president of the college. The third chart depicting the percent of faculty indicating "too little faculty representation" in the area of policy implementation reflects this high level of discontent with the president at Lake Superior State College. Nearly as severe as the discontent with the lack of faculty input into the choice of president of the school is the level of faculty discontent relative to their lack of input into decisions affecting institutional planning. Nearly 75 POLICY DEVELOPMENT Chart 1 P ercen t o f f a c u lt y in d ic a tin g "Too L i t t l e F a c u lty R ep resen tation " MSU UM LS GV MT _so BO. . . .80 TO. . - -70 .60 60 . - rtno 50- - . 40- . .40 - 30. . 4 6— . .50 .30 1 - A d d ition or d e le t io n o f 'courses 2 20-. . .s o - A d d ition or d e le t io n o f programs 3 - Tenure p r o v is io n s 4 - Promotion stand ard s 5 - S tu d en t ch e a tin g 1-... K).. . .10 MSU UM LS GV 6 - F a cu lty e v a lu a tio n POLICY DEVELOPMENT Chart 2 P ercen t o f f a c u lt y in d ic a tin g "Too L i t t l e F a c u lty R ep resen tation " HSU _PO 80- - . -BO 70. - . -70 g . .60 — 4 ft — 50. - !// 3— 40. . r» 2 — — CTl 5 -- 1 . -40 - -30 9----- ,2-— .3 30- - 5 ------ 1 - F a cu lty le a v e s o f absence . -20 2 - C r ite r ia f o r stu d en t adm ission 3 - A t h le t ic program 10 - 4 - F a cu lty perform ance standards - 5 - C r ite r ia fo r f a c u lt y censure or d is m is sa l MSU UM LS GV HT 8 - F a cu lty s a la r y sc h e d u le p r o v is io n s 9 - F a c u lty load 6 - C r ite r ia fo r s e l e c t i o n o f new f a c u lt y 7 - C r ite r ia fo r s e l e c t i o n o f cam p u s-level a d m in istr a to r s HSU UM LS GV MT eo- - 70. _ 5 . BO- - 50. .7 0 - -60 / A— 3 — 2 . 8 40- -80 - ro vj 30- 1 - 2 20 - - - 1 10. - - HSU POLICY IMPLEMENTATION P ercen t o f f a c u lt y in d ic a tin g "Too L i t t l e F a cu lty R ep resen tation " -10 1 - S e le c t io n o f departm ent ch airp erson 2 - G ranting o f tenure 3 - G ranting o f f a c u lt y prom otions 4 - S e le c t io n o f new f a c u lt y 5 - S e le c t io n o f cam p u s-level a d m in istra to rs 6 - D e c isio n s a f f e c t in g lon g-ran ge p lan s o f th e i n s t i t u t i o n 7 - D e c isio n s to cen su re or d is m is s f a c u lt y member 8 - S e le c t io n o f c o ll e g e p r e sid e n t 9 - S e le c t io n o f academic dean 28 percent of the faculty responded that they had too little faculty repre­ sentation in decisions affecting long-range planning. The consistently high level of faculty discontent at Lake Superior State College with governance related matters made it very easy for those of us who were seeking a new organizing target to choose Lake Superior from among the handful of state supported colleges and universities in Michigan that were not as yet organized. The evidence was empirical, and because of the disappointing return from the majority of the faculties surveyed, statistical treatment of the data was not advisable. Nonethe­ less, the return from Lake Superior was relatively high and the data received made overwhelmingly clear the fact that governance was a serious problem at Lake Superior. Lake Superior met all of the tests to make it a candidate for an organizing attempt. The data clearly showed that the governance system was unsatisfactory and that salaries and fringe benefits were low. Faculty voice in determining standards for promotion and evaluation, in selection of new faculty and campus level administra­ tors, in selection of the college president, and in long range planning was virtually nil. The low economic status of the faculty, combined with the obvious deficiencies in its governance system could lead only to one conclusion— Lake Superior was ripe for organizing. Tenure may be the most emotion packed word in all of higher educa­ tion. The tenure concept legitimizes many of the other cherished con­ cepts in academe, not the least of which is academic freedom. If tenure in higher education should ever become meaningless, union organizers would have unbridled success. For this reason the questionaire dealt thoroughly with the tenure issue. The results which are presented in 29 graph from below make it clear that the majority of the faculty polled - -do not believe that tenure is threatened. Fifty-eight percent of those responding did not agree with the premise that tenure is becoming mean­ ingless and only 10.4 percent strongly agreed with this premise, while 31.4 percent indicated that they tended to agree with the premise that tenure was becoming meaningless. With respect to due process when tenure is denied, the results overwhelmingly favored, by 91.4 percent, the position that the affected parties should receive a written reason why tenure was denied. Eighty- three point five percent of those responding thought that affected faculty should have access to an impartial appeal process. It should be noted here once more that the percentage of those responding to these questions who were themselves tenured was 79.8 percent. When the faculty union representative comes to campus, one of his first objectives is to determine the mood of the faculty. This is a critical task since the likelihood of a successful drive to unionize a faculty is invariably tied to the level of faculty morale. Due to the erratic response to the 1,667 questionnaires that were mailed to the five schools surveyed, it was not possible to draw any meaningful con­ clusions about faculty morale at individual institutions. Therefore, the following graphs on faculty morale are composites for the five schools polled. When combined, these data are rather dramatic in terms of the consistently high marks given their institutions by the respon­ dents to the academic freedom and staff evaluation questions. Again, the high correlation between staff satisfaction and tenure is selfevident with 79.8 percent of the respondents being tenured and 80.5 TENURE CONDITIONS m m S tro n g ly Agree Tend to Agree Tend to D isagree S tro n g ly D isagree 1m 13.1 tn o r ttit W o ro 00 *3* 00 00 -O 00 Q. a> CM < o y: rH OJ rH 00 UJ >- I;!;!;! I Tenure in Higher Education i s becom­ in g m ean in gless iwi F a cu lty Member's Tenure Request Denied-Should A ffec te d Party R eceive W ritten Reason Why? A ffe c te d F a cu lty Member should have a c c e ss to formal im p a rtia l th ird p a rty appeal p r o c e ss . What kind o f appointm ent do you have? Do you know person denied te n u r e , w ith ­ in l a s t 2 y e a r s , erron eou sly? 31 percent of the respondents saying that they are treated fairly when they are formally evaluated. The question in the faculty morale sequence of the questionaire, "How would you describe your personal morale as a faculty member and the morale of other faculty members you know?" yielded fascinating results. Nearly half, 44.6 percent, of those surveyed perceived their morale to be fairly high while 54.7 percent of these same faculty perceived their colleagues' morale to be even higher. Interestingly, of those who claimed to have very high morale, 26 percent, 8 percent of those per­ ceived that other faculty had "very high" morale. In any event, the results of this portion of the survey were disappointing from the fac­ ulty union organizer's perspective, since 70 percent of those surveyed claimed to have high personal morale, and 62.7 percent of those polled perceived that other faculty also had high morale. More encouraging to the potential union organizer were the respon­ ses to the question that asked whether "due process procedures for as­ suring just treatment in salary, welfare, and academic matters" were adequate. The responses to this rather complex question showed that a substantial majority, 61.3 percent, thought that at least some im­ provements were needed. Let us assume that our potential union organizer was not discour­ aged by the fact that faculty morale was quite high in all of the schools surveyed, and that this organizer was encouraged by the results of the survey that showed that the due process procedures for assuring just treatment regarding salary, welfare, and academic matters were viewed to be inadequate by a rather large number of those surveyed. Another FACULTY MORALE T033 0011 XI Q ) S. T3 X0I1 01 01 0>1 < L. 1 o ud E E 1O S-S to c o rv> s- ro LO r o CM O CO How would you d e sc r ib e th e d eg ree o f a ca ­ demic freedom a ffo r d e d f a c u lt y members 1n th e in s tit u tio n which employs you? Have you been form al­ l y e v a lu a te d d uring th e p a st two y r s f o r promo­ t i o n , s a la r y advancem ent, e tc ? I f y e s , in your o p in io n were you tr e a te d f a i r l y in th is e v a lu a tio n ? F a ir ly Low How would you d e s c r ib e your p erson al m orale a s a f a c u l t y member and th e m orale o f o th e r f a c u lt y members? /" } p erso n a l m orale o th e r fa c u l ty In your o p in io n , are due p r o c e ss procedures a t your i n s t i t u t i o n j u s t treatm en t in s a la r y w e lf a r e , and academic m a tters adequate or do th ey need improvement? 33 thing the union organizer would need to know would be the way in which potential union supporters prioritized the services a union could ren­ der to its members. The chart below depicts by institution the services which are perceived to be of major importance to the respondents. From the union organizer's perspective, the results of this portion of the survey was disappointing with the exception of results reported by the faculty at Lake Superior State College. At Lake Superior the need was clearly seen by a large majority of its faculty to have a pot­ ential union provide assistance in protecting due process, providing staff for collective bargaining, and establishing minimum standards for salaries, work load, and job security. Lake Superior's faculty was, however, quite consistent with its sister institutions in stating that thei.r highest priority for a faculty union would be to be represented in legislative and governmental groups deliberating policies affecting faculty. From the union organizer's perspective, this response also was disappointing; a more desirable response would have placed the col­ lective bargaining and due process items across the top of the chart. The fact that all of the respondents placed a relatively high (between 63 and 80 percent) value on a union's ability to represent faculty interests in legislative matters also served to downgrade traditional union services, at least in their estimation. It can be safely generalized that once a group, be they garment workers or college professors, have determined that they want a union, their tendency is to select a militant organization. The graphs below show conclusively that regarding the conditions on which a decision is made to support a union, those surveyed proved the opposite to be true; SERVICES AVAILABLE P ercen t o f f a c u l t y in d ic a tin g "Major Importance" MSU 90 80 70 60 ■60 50 40 30 See a tta ch ed l i s t 20 10 MSU UM LS GV MT 35 SERVICES AVAILABLE 1 - Provide personal benefits, such as insurance and investment services, as low cost 2 - Provide legal assistance in protecting the right of due process 3 - Provide staff for faculty engaged in collective bargaining 4 - Represent faculty interests in legislative and governmental groups deliberating policies affecting faculty 5 - Conduct training programs for faculty advocates 6 - Provide assistance in developing faculty-run public relations campaigns 7 - Conduct and disseminate research on matters effecting faculty welfare 8 - Establish minimum standards for.conditions of employment, e.g., salaries, load, job security 9 - Provide consultants to assist faculty in reviewing employment condi­ tions to determine their adequacy MSU UM LS GV MT = = = = = Michigan State University University of Michigan Lake Superior State College Grand Valley State Colleges Michigan Tech 36 i.e., an effective faculty organization should have a cooperative atti­ tude toward the administration. Again, these results in terms of reflecting a readiness for union representation are disappointing. Only 36.1 percent of those surveyed thought that an agressive organization would have a positive effect in its efforts to represent faculty members. An overwhelming 67.7 percent of those polled felt that the corrolary was true and that a cooperative attitude toward the administration would be effective. While it is sat­ isfying to be cooperative, such a perception reflects an attitude of satisfaction with the status quo as well as a rejection of the adver­ sarial approach to problem solving which is the very essence of the collective bargaining process. The answer to the question of whether the faculty at the schools surveyed are ready for collective bargaining is inconclusive and ambi­ valent. Clearly, with 73.1 percent of those surveyed saying.they would either prefer to be represented by the faculty senate and have no union contract or that they would prefer to continue as individual contractors, the outlook for faculty unionism does not look bright at these schools. Nonetheless, 59 percent of those surveyed indicated interest in becoming a member of a faculty organization that provides typical union services. Moreover, a surprising 63.8 percent indicated that they would indeed join one of the three national faculty unions. Even more surprising is the response from 76.7 percent of the faculty surveyed that they would engage in collective action to protect due process rights. To be sure, collective action does not mean collective bargaining, but given the previously noted predilection of 63.8 percent of the faculty POSTURE CHOICE Hot N egative E ffe c t No E ffe c t 171 n.n 67.7% P o s it iv e E ffe c t io.n u.i u - CO In d ic a te th e e f f e c t o f each o f th e fo llo w in g c o n d itio n s upon your d e c is io n to support a lo c a l o rg a n iza ­ tio n in i t s e f f o r t s to r e p resen t the in t e r e s t s o f you and your c o lle a g u e s . A g g ressiv e A ttitu d e Toward th e A d m in istra tio n C ooperative A ttitu d e Toward th e A d m in istration 38 to join a faculty union it seems to be a safe assumption that the coll­ ective action undertaken by a faculty threatened with a loss of due process would be the establishment of a faculty union. A substantial majority, 54 percent, of the respondents stated that collective bargaining does indeed have a place in higher education. Of this number, however, only 23.7 percent believe strongly in this concept. On the other side, the split is nearly even between those who strongly oppose collective bargaining in higher education, 21.4 percent of res­ pondents, and those who only tend to agree that collective bargaining has no place in higher education, 23.7 percent of respondents. Perhaps the most significant of these figures are the 54.9 percent of those surveyed who only tended to believe that collective bargaining did, or did not, have a place in higher education. From the union organizers point of view this large number of "leaners" represents a potential for organizing. Finally, the response to the question, "Do you believe members of faculties in higher education should ever strike?" was tot­ ally unexpected. In Michigan where it is well known that strikes by educators are illegal, a surprising 57.4 percent of respondents stated that at least under extreme circumstances faculty members should strike. This quasi-mi 1itant response should be encouraging to those who favor faculty unions. SUMMARY This chapter of the dissertation was essentially a presentation of the findings derived from the questionaire distributed over a period of nearly two years to 1,667 faculty members at Michigan colleges and t/l tno ro* 39 Arrangement choice for representan 22.6% rt> 3 rt> to I n d iv id u a l f a c u l t y n e g o t i a t i n g f o r t h e m s e lv e s (n o group r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) F a c u lt y S e n a te (g ro u p r e p r e s e n t a t io n 50.5% w it h o u t fo rm a l a g r e em e n t) F a c u lt y Un io n b a r g a in in g a c o n t r a c t 26.9% tO I a> 3 -s O. (T> Interest in being member of faculty organization n> —< © S 25.4% M ild ly i n t e r e s t e d in j o i n i n g i t 33.6% 0> Q_ to 2 7 .3 * U n d ecid ed o r i n d i f f e r e n t a b o u t m em bership Campus faculty w illin g to a c tiv e ly support a v a ilable due process o m 11 .2 % t/i -s to 3 Q> o —» 5 9 .7 2 G ; 40 universities. Because the overall response rate was just 30 percent, it was not possible to generalize those findings to all faculty. The one possible exception to this was Lake Superior State College, where approximately 38 percent of the total faculty responded. Based on the results of this questionaire, a decision was made while this dissertation was being researched to seek collective bargaining rights for the fac­ ulty at Lake Superior State College. The resultant victory for the collective bargaining supporters at Lake Superior State College justified basing the organizing attempt at that school on the questionaire results. The effect of this application of the questionaire results to an actual field situation was to vindicate the survey, at least insofar as it applied to the faculty at Lake Sup­ erior State College. The consistently high level of discontent of the faculty at Lake Superior State College was clearly reflected in the questionaire results. Perhaps just as important as their apparent dis­ satisfaction was the relatively high rate of response from the faculty at Lake Superior State College. An unproven, but rather compelling assumption made by this researcher is that failure to return the com­ pleted questionaire may have been a way of expressing bias against col­ lective bargaining, or at a minimum, bias against the organization dis­ seminating the survey instrument. If this is a correct assumption, then it is likely that those schools making poor responses to the questionaires would have shown a strong disposition against collective bargain­ ing had their response rates been more satisfactory. Even though the questionaire results were not statistically sig­ nificant and were therefore interpreted with caution, the results were nonetheless useful in providing many valuable insights into the ways in which faculty members at the schools surveyed feel about such important matters as tenure, academic freedom, due process, and participation in campus governance. The subsequent chapters of this dissertation will continue to probe the question, "Why do faculty members choose collective bargaining?" The primary emphasis in the remaining chapters will be on field observation, and experiences of the writer. Primary and secondary documents will be employed to supplement and substantiate the narrative based on the writer's field observations and experiences as a union or­ ganizer for higher education in Michigan. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The higher education community, in response to the recent phenomenon of academic collective bargaining, has produced a plethora of published material. This characteristic outpouring of literature consists mainly of secondary materials generated by the intellectually curious, as well as materials compiled by those who may have been motivated by a need to identify with a new and decidedly exciting movement within the academic environment. In general, the quantity of research being published on the various aspects of collective bargaining in higher education has been sub­ stantial. Neither quantity nor scholarly competence is lacking in most of this literature; the missing ingredients are innovation and originality. There tends also to be a sameness to much of the literature, since the majority of it is written from a management perspective, and little of it examines either motivations for or results of academic collective bargain­ ing from the point of view of faculty members who have engaged in or are considering the process. Currently available literature in the field of collective bargaining in higher education falls generally into one of the following categories: a) Conference proceedings, e.g., Proceedings, First Annual Conference: National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education. Baruch College, City University of New York, 1973. b) Compiled and edited articles and papers, e.g., Campus Employment Relations: Readings and Resources. Terrence N. Tice, ed. with Grace W. Holmes. Institute of Continuing 42 43 Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975. This genre of literature consists mainly of brief papers written for presentation at conferences and brief, pointed articles by professional practitioners such as college and university administrators, lawyers, and labor relations professionals. c) Commission studies, e.g., Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, by Carl Everett Ladd, Jr. and Seymour Lipset, American Enterprise Institute for Public Research, Domestic Affairs Study 16, Washington, D. C., 1973. In terms of sound research and objective reporting of their findings, Ladd and Lipset in this study prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, and in a subsequent series of reports published by the Chronicle of Higher Edu­ cation , have no peers in the field of academic collective bargaining . d) Monographs and practical guides on how to deal with faculty unions and unionists, e.g., Collective Bargaining Comes to Campus, by Robert K. Carr and Daniel Van Eyck, American "Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1973. This is one of the best of its kind. This work combines a complete overview with specific instructions to administrators on how to select bargaining teams and how the bargaining process should be conducted. e) Status reports, e.g., "Where Faculties Have Chosen Bargaining Agents," by Howard B. Means and Philip Semans, in Faculty Collective Bargaining, 2nd ed., Editorial Projects for Edu­ cation, Washington, D.C. p. 84. & WHO IS WRITING ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND WHY The amount of literature at first seems overwhelming. It is only after hours and days of review that one comes to the conclusion that the literature on academic collective bargaining is plentiful but redun­ dant. This redundancy has been evident since about the time the speeches were transcribed following the first annual conference sponsored by the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in New York in 1973. As we review the literature we cannot help but notice that certain names seem to recur again and again, mainly in compiled editions and occasionally in other forms. J. W. Garbarino, Director of the Institute 44 for Business and Economic Research at the University of California at Berkley is one such contributor to the literature on academic collective bargaining. His most recent contribution is an essay on "State Experi­ ence in Collective Bargaining" in Faculty Bargaining in Public Higher Education.1 In this particular study Garbarino analyzes the collective bargaining structure of seven states. In this work he concludes that faculty bargaining has so far created more change in administrative struc­ ture than it has in academic affairs. In a previous contribution to another book in the Jossey-Bass Series in Higher Education, "Emergence of Collective Bargaining', p Garbarino introduces his analysis of the influences which have supported the emer­ ging faculty commitment to unionize. It is important to note that much of Garbarino's analysis is drawn from research he conducted in a national study of collective bargaining underwritten by the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education. The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education and the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Higher Education are frequently noted as the sponsoring agency behind much of the work done by authors like Garbarino. In its capacity of sponsor, the Carnegie Council Series has generated the following studies that either directly or indirectly relate to collective bargaining in higher education: 1 Joseph W. Garbarino, David E. Feller, and Mathew W. Finkin, Faculty Bargaining in Pub!ic Higher Education: A Report and Two Essays, Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. 2 In E. D. Duryea, Robert S. Fisk, and Associates, Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1977. 45 More Than Survival: Prospects for Higher Education in £ Period of Uncertainty. CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Managing Multi-Campus Systems: Effective Administration in an Unsteady State, by Eugene C.“ Lee and Frank M. Bowen. Challenges Past, Challenges Present: An Analysis of American Higher Education Since 1930. by David D. Henry. Faculty Bargaining in Public Higher Education, by Joseph V/. Garbarino, David E. Feller, and Mathew W. Finkin. It may not be possible to categorize completely the authors who contribute the most to the academic bargaining literature, but it is tempting to try. Apparently there are several clearly definable categories of interest that have captured the interest of specific writers arvd analysts. In simplest terms, these interest areas appear to fall into the following categories: tional. 1) legal, 2) technical, 3) institutional, and 4) organiza­ For the purpose of this review the literature will be examined mainly from the perspective of literature generated at the institutional level. THE CMU LITERATURE An example of how a particular institution can become the source of a considerable volume of writing on the subject of academic collective bargaining is Central Michigan University. Central Michigan University was the first state-supported single campus university in America whose faculty chose collective bargaining. The rather abrupt and surprising decision of the faculty at Central Michigan to embrace Collective bar­ gaining created many ripple effects; not the least of which was the emer­ gence of a new breed of administrator. As a result of its collective 46 bargaining experience, CMU has produced four administrators who have been frequently noted among the ranks of those recurring names in the various anthologies on academic collective bargaining. The four are: William B. Boyd Former President, Central Michigan University Neil S. Bucklew Vice Provost, Central Michigan University J. David Kerr Legal Counsel, Central Michigan University Charles J. Ping Former Provost, Central Michigan University Had collective bargaining not become a part of the governance system at Central Michigan University, those professional college administrators would probably not have become such prolific writers on the subject. Neil Bucklew, irrespective of his CMU experience, would probably have emerged as an intrepretor of the academic bargaining phenomena, since he has a PhD in Industrial Relations and was active in labor rela­ tions at the University of Wisconsin before coming to CMU. Bucklew is probably one of the all time favorites of those who edit collections of essays on the nuances of collective bargaining in higher education. For example, in one collection of several edited by Terrence N. Tice on campub employment relations, Bucklew contributed two articles, both written by an administrator for administrative consumption. Neither the first, appropriately titled "The Expanding Role of University Personnel Administration," 3 nor the second, "Administrating a Faculty Agreement," a bear surprising titles, given Dr. Bucklew's position as a labor relations 3 Carnpus Employment Relations: Readings and Resources, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975. 4 Ibid. 47 specialist. While writers like Bucklew are competent and responsible, their pro-management orientation makes it apparent that more pro-faculty materials are needed, if a balanced view of faculty unionism is to be presented. In the same book in which Bucklew's article appeared, two other CMU administrators also make contributions. William B. Boyd, president of Central Michigan University during some of the more hectic bargaining years (since departed to another presidency at Washington State) wrote, "The Impact of Collective Bargaining on University Governance." 5 The third CMU administrator to appear in Tice was Charles J. Ping, who at the time of the book's publication was provost at CMU. In his article, "Unionization and Institutional Planning," Ping views institutional planning as "an on­ going process, rather than a project to be completed." He sees faculty as essential to the process and he avows that the "union is a direct stimulus to institutional planning in higher education."7 J. David Kerr is the only member of the original CMU writers on the subject of faculty bargaining who remains on campus. (1978). Kerr shares the distinction with Bucklew of appearing twice in the same publication, suggesting some pro-administration bias in a number of the current studies of faculty unionization. The study focuses on legal aspects of the union issue, with emphasis on administrative policy formulation. Kerr's first contribution consisted of a listing of cases dealing with the constitutional status of public universities. This study is of dubious value to anyone 5 Tice, ed., Campus Employment Relations. 6 See also the companion volumes, Faculty Power; Collective Bargaining on Campus, (1972) and Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies, (1973). Both were published by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ping was a contributor to these studies also. 7 Campus Employment Relations, p. 315. 48 other than another attorney seeking to defeat a faculty union. His second contribution to the collection, "Preparation for Bargaining and Creating O the Negotiating Team," is a six and one-half page outline without commen­ tary on preparing for bargaining. It carries such advice as "Start Early," q and "Everything Doesn't Have to Be Determined at the Beginning." This is perhaps one of the best examples of how individuals in positions such as Kerr's rushed into print with advice to other campus administrators that was timely, but in retrospect seems superflous and lacking in substance. The practical use of such material to today's administrator is nil. This same study also carries another article by William B. Boyd, CMU president at the time of its publication. In this article, "Collective Bargaining in Academe: Causes and Consequences,"*0 appearing in an anthol­ ogy prepared for distribution at the Labor Relations in Higher Education Conference in November, 1972, Boyd analyzes the reasons for the spread of faculty unionism and points out some of the perceived dangers and suggests v/ays to reconcile faculty unionism with academic tradition. 8 Labor Relations in Higher Education, Criminal Law and Urban Prob­ lems Course Handbook Series, No. 47, Practicing Law Institute, New York, 1972, p. 69. 9 Ibid., p. 71. 10 This article originally appeared in Liberal Education, 57 (1971) 306-18, later reprinted as part of the above cited collection, p. 117. 49 SELECTED ARTICLES AND STUDIES ON WHY FACULTIES CHOOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING In the literature on collective bargaining most of the writing of substance has been done by college and university administrators, or by those aspiring to be administrators, legal practioners, and labor rela­ tions professionals. In the case of Garbarino, who did not fit precisely into any of these molds, the quality and quantity of his writings in this field resulted in his becoming known on the national level as a specialist in academic collective bargaining. The same can be said of Ladd and Lip­ set, whose research into campus attitudes and issues about collective bargaining received national prominence through serial publication in the Chronicle of Higher Education.** An interesting research emphasis can be seen in the work of Terrence N. Tice, editor of three of the most effective works in the field of academic bargaining: Faculty Power,12 a legal discussion of college and uni13 versity bargaining, Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies, a description of the actual bargaining process, and Campus Employment Relations, ^ a case book of academic employee relations. Tice was an assistant professor 11 Everett Carl Ladd, Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset, "The LaddLipset Survey." Technical data on the Survey is available from the Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268. 12 Terrence N. Tice, ed., with Grace Holmes, Faculty Power: Collec­ tive Bargaining on Campus, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972. 13 Terrence N. Tice, ed., Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies, Insti­ tute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, MicTTigan, 1973. 14 Terrence N. Tice, ed., Campus Employment Relations: Readings and Resources, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975. 50 of philosophy in the School of Education at the University of Michigan when Faculty Power was produced for the Institute for Continuing Legal Education. In the Preface, he predicts that "Since this study is the only one of its kind in the field, it has been designed as a lasting foundation for any works that follow." This statement was prophetic; many did fol­ low; indeed, a few preceded and at least one was simultaneous. Before the competition could fully materialize however, Tice was back with the second work of his trilogy. In the second book, Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies,15 some of the same contributors appear in it as in the first and third works; e.g., William P. Lemmer, Ray Howe, Maurice Benewitz, and William B. Boyd, to name a few. A simultaneous work of similar format and 1fi direction as the Tice books was Labor Relations in Higher Education, produced by the Practicing Law Institute in New York City as part of the Criminal Law and Urban Problems course handbook series. the same names appear in both works. Again, many of For example, William P. Lemmer, counsel for the University of Michigan, contributed to both works, as did J. David Kerr, attorney for Central Michigan University. Examples of other works that followed the format of the first Tice collection were randomly selected to show patterns in publication of collective bargaining research. The following titles are fairly typical of the current available research on academic bargaining activity. 15 Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973. 16 Practicing Law Institute, Labor Relations in Higher Education, Lee J. Dunn, Program Director, New York, 1973. 51 Maurice Benewitz, ed. Proceedings: First Annual Conference, Apri1 1973. National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education. Baruch College, City University of New York. Subsequent to the first conference, the National Center has published six more sets of its annual proceedings. Clarence R. Hughes, Robert L. Underbrink, and Charles 0. Gordon, eds. Collective Negotiations in Higher Education. Carlinville, 111.: Blackburn College Press, 1973. E. D. Duryea and Robert S. Fisk and Associates. Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 1973. Raymond G. Hewitt, ed. The Effects of Faculty Collective Bargain­ ing on Higher Education.' Proceedings of a Conference held in Boston Massachusetts. Wesley, Mass.: New England Board of Higher Education, 1973. Judith P. Vladeck and Stephen C. Vladeck. eds. Collective Bargain­ ing in Higher Education: The Developing Law. Practicing Law Insti­ tute, New York, 1975. Kenneth P. Mortimer. Faculty Bargaining, State Government, and Cam­ pus Autonomy: The Experience in Eight''States. Pennsylvania State University and the Educational Commission of the States. Denver, 1976. George A. Angell and Edward P. Kelley. Jr., eds. Bargaining. San Franciscoi Jossey-Bass, 1977. Many of these works share the same contributors. format, seldom in content. Handbook of Faculty They vary mainly in Funding sources are usually provided by an agency such as the Practicing Law Institute, or by the Educational Comm­ ission of the States, which can be considered to have special interest in the effects of collective bargaining upon higher education institutions. The point of all this is that one can easily get the impression that a vast body of literature about collective bargaining in higher education is developing when the fact is that relatively few people, and the institutions which sponsor them are compiling and publishing the majority of the mat­ erials written on the subject of academic collective bargaining. 52 There are exceptions to the above format, usually in the form of independent articles by individual faculty members, such as "Timetable for a Takeover,"^7 by John C. Hepler,professor of English at Central Michigan University. Hepler does not fit the mold for most of those who write in this field, since he is a teacher and not an administrator, attorney, or labor relations specialist. his intense dislike for faculty unions. Hepler1s motivation seems to be For Hepler, the presence of a union on his campus must have seemed nearly as bad as the threat of a communist takeover of the government. In response to faculty unionism on his own campus, he referred to the CMU election in 1969 as " a pre­ cursor of a direction colleges and universities may be forced to take." (emphasis added.) Hepler's article detailed the election and lamented over the slim margin of the union's victory. In net effect, Hepler's article provided the writer with a catharsis, and added a point of view not flattering to unions, to the body of knowledge on academic collective bargaining. OTHER RECENT RESEARCH Much of the early scholarly work on the subject of collective bargaining in higher education deals with either the causes of the phe­ nomenon of collective bargaining in an academic setting or the impact of collective bargaining on the institutions where collective bargaining has been established. As observed by Charles B. House, Jr. in his disserta­ tion entitled "Self-Perceived Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on the Academic Leadership Roles of College And University Administrators," 17 Journal of Higher Education, 42 (February, 1971), 103-15. 53 "these early articles contained a great deal of speculation and opinion, but as more faculties were unionized, "harder" evidence became available, permitting careful study and data-based con­ clusions regarding the conditions which led faculties to organize." It may be true to some extent that a better determination can now be made of why faculty members in higher education choose collective bargain­ ing; however, the answers to this question still cannot be found through a search of the current literature, including the available doctoral dis­ sertations on this topic. In making a search of the recent dissertations on the general topic of collective bargaining in higher education, a DATRIX II search was made using the following key words: Academic; Collective; College (s); Faculty; University (ies); Union; Officer (s); Organization; Association; and Teacher. Additional searches were made through the use of Dissertation Abstracts International, and Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI. The results were overwhelming in terms of the sheer numbers of citations. Title after title was obtained on the general subject of collective bar­ gaining in higher education. The following examples of specific titles are listed to show the range of the researched topics. This list will show that no thorough and purely data-based studies on why faculties choose collective bargaining are to be found through these sources. "Faculty Involvement in the Decision-Making Process and Experience in Collective Negotiations." Gordon Eugene Wendlandt. PhD Disser­ tation, University of Wisconsin, 1970. "Death of a Dream: The Variables which Determine What Bargaining Agent is Chosen at a Four-Year College." Susan Wainstock. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan^ 1971. 18 PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. 54 "Impact of Collective Bargaining on Faculty Salary Structure in Michigan Conmunity Colleges." Christine E. G. Harris. PhD Dis­ sertation, University of Michigan, 1971. "Collective Bargaining in Higher Education in the United States: Conceptual Models and a Survey of Incidence Among Faculty and Supportive Professional Personnel." Jean Rupp Kennely. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, 1972. "The Setting and Scope of Collective Negotiations in Higher Edu­ cation, 1970." Susan Ann Gebhardt. PhD Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1972. "A Study of the Procedures Used in Collective Bargaining With Fac­ ulty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities." Charles Alan Coe. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. "Unionism and Collective Bargaining Among Academic Employees in Higher Education: Job Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Individuals' Perceptions of Self and Faculty Consensus in Rating Contract Items." Gerald Dent Ramsey. PhD Dissertation, Purdue University, 1973. "Motives of Faculty Who Vote for a Bargaining Agent in Institutions of Higher Education." Audrey H. Muller. PhD Dissertation, Boston College, 1973. "Professional Values and Faculty Unionism." John Ralph Pisapia. EdD Dissertation, West Virginia University, 1974. "Acceptance and Rejection of Collective Bargaining at Private Four Year Colleges and Universities." Gordon R. Storholm. PhD Disser­ tation, University of Pennsylvania, 1975. "Collective Bargaining at a State College in Michigan." Linta. PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975. Edward "The Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining on College and Uni­ versity Governance." Frank Robert Kemmerer. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, 1975. "Self-Perceived Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on the Academic Leadership Roles of College and University Administrations." Charles Brewer House, Jr. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. "Faculty Attitudes Towards the Goals and Objectives of College Unions in American Higher Education." Carolyn Maniha Adair. PhD Dissertation, Texas A & M University, 1975. 55 These titles suggest that in recent doctoral studies some attention is being given to the results of the unionization of higher education fac­ ulties, and a limited number of researchers are beginning to examine the goals and motivations of these faculties. The need for more complete research into this issue, based upon actual experience by knowledgeable participants, is necessary before adequate analyses can be made of this phenomenon. Outside the scope of the above sources, there is one outstanding work that treats, at least tangentially, with the question of why facul­ ties choose collective bargaining. That work is Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, by Everett Carl Ladd Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset, 19 prepared for the Carnegie Comnission on Higher Education in 1973. The study has since been refined and has recently been reproduced in serial form in the Chronicle of Higher Education, (See Appendix B) In their concluding observations, the authors isolate deteriorating economics as perhaps the single most compelling cause for the emergence of a faculty union. Faced with declining monetary support, faculty may decide that unions are necessary. As Michigan State University economist Walter Adams, National President of AAUP (1973) noted following the defeat of unionism in an MSU election in October 1972, economic hard times could quickly reverse the aversion of major university faculty: two bad years in the legislature and some disliked administrative decision--no matter how trivial — will eventually put over unionization.' 2q 19 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D. C., 1973. 20 Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, pp. 99-100. 56 In their probe of causes for faculties to choose collective bargaining the author/researchers conclude that: For young, non-tenured academics, there is a generational conflict of interest with senior members, who are often, de facto, their employers until they are voted regular membership (tenure). The efforts to 'regularize' the granting of tenure, to permit those denied a permanency the right to file a grievance, to see the 'record', are in many schools directed against the tenured faculty at least as much as against the administration. 21 The argument that faculty unions might meet some real interests of jun­ ior staff but not of senior professors was made recently (1972) in ex­ plicit terms by President McDowell of the AAUP chapter at Boston Univer­ sity, a private institution, and quoted by Ladd and Lipset: (Unions cannot) offer tenured professors greater job security since the instances of tenured faculty being fired are almost non-existent— the only faculty group a union could really help are the junior, non-tenured members— unions might well lead to a higher percentage of these junior members being continued permanently in employment, but at a substantial price— the watering down of academic standards. 22 With regard to Michigan the authors have this to say about elections for collective bargaining in academe: Michigan has a variety of publicly supported institutions, and these differ considerably in faculty quality, working conditions, and function. They also differ in their res­ ponse to unionization. The most prestigious campus, and a long-time center of research and graduate studies, the University of Michigan, has been the least affected. Union supporters have not felt sufficiently strong even to call for a collective bargaining election. At the second-ranking state school, Michigan State University, which succeeded since World War II in upgrading itself from agricultural 21 Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, p. 99. 22 I b i d . 57 school to major university status, 64 percent of the faculty voted for 'no representation' in an election held in the fall of 1972. Moving one notch down the academic hierarchy to Wayne State University provides an example of a school that opted for collective bar­ gaining, but chose AAUP over AFT. At the 'university college' unit of the state system, Oakland University, a campus with a strong sense that it provides an elite education resembling that of distinguished private un­ dergraduate colleges, AAUP again came out on top. The remaining lower-ranking four year schools, as well as the various two year community colleges, on the other hand, have largely voted to be represented either by the NEA or the AFT. Had the public institu­ tions of the state of Michigan or Rhode Island been linked within a statewide multi-campus system, all of their faculty would probably now be represented by a single collective bargaining agent. 23 On the matter of opinions on faculty unionism, the authors state that: In examining the characteristics of those who are supportive of unionism and collective bargaining, two factors stand out— the first related to aspects of professional standing, the second to political opinions generally. Faculty employed in the lower tier of academe— in terms of scholarly prestige, financial resources, and economic benefits— and those who are in the lower ranks, lack tenure, and who are younger, are much more likely to favor or­ ganized collective action. Not surprisingly, con­ sidering the traditional association in society of support for trade unionism with liberal views, and the historical experience of the AFT, our data show liberal to left professors much more pro-union than their conservative colleagues. Those who perceive themselves on the political left, i.e., have backed liberal candidates, hold liberal attitudes on a variety of community political issues, support com­ pensatory programs for blacks, are favorable to campus activism, support greater power for students within higher education, and want to change the gov­ ernance system of higher education to increase fac­ ulty power, are more likely to endorse collective bargaining and faculty strikes and to view increased unionization as a good thing. 24 23 Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, p. 53. 24 Ibid., p. 11. 58 Class interest is shown to be a significant factor in unionism in higher education in the Ladd-Lipset study as well: 'we are the university' is a valid description of the standing of professors at the top of the academic hier­ archy, but it decidedly does not hold for teachers at many lesser institutions. This is an important reason why the Carnegie Survey data show faculty receptivity to unionism lowest at universities and generally at elite centers of higher education, and strongest at two-year colleges and other schools of low scholarly standing Since the enormous expansion of higher education over the past decade has occurred disproportionately at the lower levels, in institutions where faculty independence, hence professional standing, is tenuous at best, we have identified one component of the increased receptivity to unionism in the academic community. Data on attitudes toward unionism, by individual attainment, are consistent with the class interest hypo­ thesis. Thus, professors of low scholarly achievement give greater backing to the principles of collective bargaining than do their more productive colleagues; untenured professors more than those with tenure; and academics with low salaries are more supportive than their better-rewarded associates. 25 Beginning in January, 1976 and concluding with the May 13, 1976 issue, The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a serialized presentation of the Ladd-Lipset Survey that dealt with the issue of faculty opinion and the growth of faculty unions. This series in The Chronicle deals on a national scale with many of the questions this study will seek to answer with respect to faculty predisposition toward collective bar­ gaining in Michigan.^6 25 Professors, Unions, and American Higher Education, p. 16. 26 The Chronicle of Higher Education is perhaps the most valuable single resource for those who study and write about collective bargain­ ing in higher education. Virtually every dissertation and article cites The Chronicle on important matters such as the scope of bargaining, the definition of bargaining units, bargaining agents, elections, and legal disputes. The Ladd-Lipset Survey was beyond doubt one of the more im­ portant contributions by The Chronicle of the available knowledge to the academic community. 59 In the first installment of their more recent findings, Ladd and Lipset concluded that collective bargaining impacts in areas such as: * Salaries: unionized faculties have gained higher increases * Equalization of salaries: generally both scholars and our respondents agree that lower-paid faculty ranks have benefitted * Tenure: unions have sought to limit the power of those who award tenure. . .unions have increased the attention given to due process * Governance: there has been an inherent shift in power from self-governing academic units such as senates to unions * Adversary relationships: observers argue that faculty union­ ization has increased the sense of adversary relationships between faculty members and administrators When Ladd and Lipset asked faculty members how they viewed the conse­ quences of collective bargaining, they found the view of previous writers to be confirmed that it produces both positive and negative reactions. The survey revealed that: * Seventy-eight percent believed that collective bargaining is likely to bring higher salaries and improved benefits * Fifty-four percent agree that 'individual bargaining for merit increases is bad for college faculty as a group' * nonetheless seventy-eight percent reject the statement that 'the only basis for salary differentiation among faculty in the same rank at a given institution should be age or seniority The authors concluded by observing that if austerity continues in higher education and hence focuses continued attention on economic concerns, then unionization among college and university faculty members may be expected to grow. 27 27 "Faculty Members Note Both Positive and Negative Aspects of Campus Unions," Chronicle of Higher Education, 11, January 26, 1976. 60 In a companion article Ladd and Lipset come up with the somewhat startling conclusion that American faculty members are more disposed to accept collective bargaining than the number of institutions now covered by contracts would indicate, and that the percentages of faculty members favorable to bargaining has been growing steadily. By far the most dra­ matic finding was that when Ladd and Lipset asked faculty how they would vote if a collective bargaining election were held at their institution an amazing 72 percent said they would vote for the agent. Indeed, even when the pollsters asked about the propriety of strikes by faculty members, the respondents indicated support for collective faculty action. 28 There is almost an absolute consensus among scholars and commentators in the field of collective bargaining in higher education that academic unionism is a phenomenon of the community college and publicly supported undergraduate institutions with emphasis on teaching rather than research. Interestingly, the response to the 1975 Ladd-Lipset Survey revealed that while support for collective bargaining remains strongest among the fac­ ulty at these institutions it also remains strongest among the most lib­ eral faculty members, and the most liberal faculty members are associated with high academic status. This paradox uncovered by Ladd and Lipset in their investigations is the 'anomalous situation' wherein unions have had the most support at institutions of lesser status, and according to their findings, "support for faculty unionism is strongest among the most 28 "The Growth of Faculty Unions," The Chronicle of Higher Education 11, January 26, 1976. For results of surveys of faculty attitudes, see Table 2 and Table 3 below. Reprints of the Tables appear in Appendix B. 61 liberal faculty" and the "most liberal faculty members are often employed on conservative campuses." 29 BARGAINING AGENTS In February, 1976 the findings from the 1976 Ladd-Lipset Survey on how the various faculty unions rate with professors was released. were few if any surprises. There The American Association of University Pro­ fessors, with fewer bargaining units was ascertained to have more latent support among faculty members than either of its chief rivals, the Ameri­ can Federation of Teachers (AFT) or the National Education Association (NEQ). A full 28 percent of the respondents said they would vote for AAUP; 18 percent said they would choose the American Federation of Teach­ ers (AFL-CIO); 12 percent favored the NEA; and 14 percent favored an independent union. Another 28 percent would vote for no agent. 30 Experience in Michigan tends to disprove the survey findings with regard to the AAUP's strength. AAUP consistently is named as the choice for collective bargaining, yet runs behind the Michigan Association for Higher Education, NEA's Michigan affiliate, in the actual elections. The AFT has stayed out of higher education elections in Michigan. This has been the case at the following schools: 29 "Faculty Unions Find Greatest Support on Most Conservative Campuses." The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 February 2, 1976. See Table 4 for the survey results of political attitudes of faculty. 30 "How Faculty Unions Rate With Professors, "The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 February 9, 1976. 62 ADRIAN COLLEGE another private liberal arts college where AAUP chose to stay off the ballot and MAHE won in 1975 FERRIS STATE COLLEGE a state-supported four year technical and professional school where AAUP was defeated in the Fall of 1972 and MAHE won a runoff in January, 1973 LAKE SUPERIOR STATE COLLEGE AAUP was the choice of faculty until MAHE agents approached the AAUP lead­ ership and they were convinced that MAHE would provide superior services. MAHE was certified collective bargain­ ing agent in January, 1978. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY where neither agent won in elections in 1972 and 1978 SAGINAW VALLEY STATE COLLEGE AAUP was kept off the ballot by those who previously supported it. MAHE was certified bargaining agent after an election in the Fall of 1971 The obvious explanation of this seeming inconsistency is that faculty members, at least in Michigan private and public schools, are indeed pre­ disposed toward the known quantity. This predisposition is changed after MAHE, the unknown and often negatively stereotyped organization becomes better known to its potential supporters. When it comes to choosing a collective bargaining agent faculty members are not unlike unionists in industry, they tend to seek bargaining agents that have innate strength and power over local associations, guilds, and faltering national organi­ zations. None of this should detract from Ladd and Lipset's findings. The switch from AAUP to NEA is a phenomenon that tends to occur in the heat of election campaigns and has no bearing whatsoever on the credibil­ ity of the following findings as tabulated in the Ladd-Lipset Study and shown as Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 in Appendis B. 63 Some of the stereotypes are true. One such stereotype is that the AFT is more militant than either the NEA or the AAUP. This stereotype is at least partially correct, and the AAUP is certainly the least mili­ tant of the three rivals. To illustrate this point, Ladd and Lipset's survey revealed that "close to half of the NEA's members in college-level affiliates and even larger percentages of the AAUP's members either are opposed to formal collective bargaining, or favor it with some reservations." 31 The survey revealed that over 90 percent of the AAUP members and leaders and 70 percent of the NEA members and leaders describe their associations as a "professional society", a characteristic rejected by 62 percent of the AFT supporters. The following charts show the Ladd- Lipset findings on the images and political orientations of the three rival organizations. These data appear as Table 8 and Table 9 in Appendix B. OTHER RESEARCH ON WHY FACULTIES CHOOSE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING In terms of hard research, Ladd and Lipset have no peers. This is not to say that some other members of the academic community have not had some good insights into the question of why faculty members choose col­ lective bargaining. A few recent dissertations have dealt to some extent with this question. One such effort is Kenneth S. Parr's "A Survey of Faculty Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining at Michigan Private Liberal Arts Colleges. 31 "Militancy of Unionized Faculty Members is Related to the Unions They Belong To," The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13 February 17, 1976. 32 PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. 64 Edwand Linta, an administrator at Ferris State College during and after the successful drive to organize faculty at that school, produced a 1975 dissertation that dealt in a limited way with faculty motivation to organize. 33 The problem with a work such as Linta's is that it is written from the perspective of an administrator who observed but did not participate directly in the process and thus runs the rist of being too subjective. The number and quality of dissertations written in Michigan alone during the past few years is impressive. The first half of the decade of the 1970's will most likely never be paralleled in terms of the num­ ber of dissertations written on faculty bargaining. are representative of the genre. The following titles These particular six works were chosen because of their accessibility at the Michigan State Library, and their relevance, since they all deal in depth with the subject of academic collective bargaining. Francis Adalberto Bernier's 1973 dissertation stated as its purpose ". . . t o provide preliminary information about the faculty union presi­ dential population as it is presently in United States instituions of higher learning by means of describing the president's functions." 34 The primary method used to achieve this end was through the use of a questionnaire. The balance of the work consists mainly of an analysis of secondary sources. 33 "Collective Bargaining at a State College in Michigan." Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975. PhD 34 "The Presidents of the! iculty Collective Bargaining Units in United States Institutions of Higher Education." PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. • 65 Another work designed to provide us with a better understanding of the faculty union phenomenon was Alan Charles Coe's dissertation on the procedures used in collective bargaining by faculty unions in public institutions of higher learning. 35 Some of the purposes of Coe's study were to: * determine the organizational procedures used to prepare for collective bargaining * determine the organizational procedures used during collective bargaining with a predominantly faculty union * determine the relationship between bargaining unit size and the organizational procedures used to pre­ pare for negotiations and during collective bargain­ ing with a predominantly faculty union The Coe research focused mainly on interviews of six administrators from six public four-year institutions that had negotiated a collective bar­ gaining agreement with a faculty union. Among Coe's findings was the interesting fact that only two of the institutions studied had planned extensively prior to negotiations. reacted to union proposals." The other institutions "generally (A product of Coe's study was the develop­ ment of a procedural guide for use by administrators who prepare for negotiations with a faculty union.) Charles B. House Jr did a study on "Self-Perceived Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on the Academic Leadership Roles of College 36 and University Administrators." The House hypothesis is that following the introduction of faculty collective bargaining, changes occur in the decision-making style and function of administrators. 35 "A Study of the Procedures Used in Collective Bargaining with Faculty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities." Phd Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. 36 PhD Dissertation, Michigan Stace University, 1975. 66 House's method was similar to Coe's insofar as a small number of institutions were selected for study, four in House's case, and interviews were conducted with the presidents and chief academic officers. A total of fourteen administrators of various ranks were interviewed and their responses make up the bulk of the material used for House's research. House discovered that the administrators interviewed perceived three levels of effects on their decision-making roles from faculty partici­ pation in academic bargaining: 1) changes 1n the institutions! environment to which they are required to make adjustment 2) the specific adjustments in administrative procedure which the officers are required to make as a result of the bargaining relationship 3) changes in the values and attitudes of the officers which bear upon their administrative styles and personal satisfaction House concludes that collective bargaining may enhance leadership or th t "collective bargaining may drive some leaders. . .out of leadership positions in higher education who were there out of some vision of what the academic community might have been." 37 Another result of collective bargaining in higher education seen by House is: . . a centralization of administrative decision-making and a shift in the locus of final decisions toward the holders of de jure authority. A second result is to encourage a managerial posture oh the part of adminis­ trators. The formal and often adversarial relationship between faculty and administration may interfere with the informal human interactions which many administrators con­ sider essential to their exercise of academic leadership. 38 37 "Self-Perceived Effects," p. 190. 38 Ibid., p. 189. 67 Another 1975 dissertation on an almost identical subject was Gary L. Jones' work entitled "Changes in the Role of the President's Office ir Selected Universities Following Faculty Unionization." 39 The scope of Jones' study was similar to that of his contemporaries. Jones sought to analyze the role of the university president's office at five selected institutions to determine what changes may have occurred as a result of faculty unions. Jones' methodology was also similar to that of the others in that interviews and campus visitations were employed. Some of Jones' major findings were: 1) the financial-management members of the administration have increased frequency of input to the office of the president, while the president's involvement with the academic members remains the same 2) the union's input or influence in educational and insti­ tutional policies consists primarily of recommendations to and consultation with the "administrative family." The union has had little or no influence on these poli­ cies unless as a result of bargining issues 3) since the advent of collective bargaining, faculty union­ ism has reduced the power and authority of the president and his administration in personnel matters 4) collective bargaining does not noticeably increase the normal adversarial relationship between the office of the president and the faculty 5) the primary effect of faculty union upon the office of the president is to reduce its influence and flexibility in personnel matters in general and grievance procedures and retrenchment in particular. This reduction generally results from more explicit personnel policies which cen­ tralize procedures and decentralize authority. 40 39 PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. 40 Jones, Abstract, p. 2. 68 In his summary Jones observed that there was a loss of presidential power with respect to the establishing of salary structures and with respect to the administration's influence on tenure. A side effect of this, according to Jones, is that: The introduction of collective bargaining reduces the power of the president's office to influence the quality of the faculty since faculty salaries, hiring, and tenure are all determined through formalized procedures. 41 Perhaps the most meaningful conclusion in the Jones dissertation is the following: While faculty unionism has reduced the power and authority of the president and his administration in personnel mat­ ters, an increase in the president's authority has resulted in most, if not all, other areas (governance, management, and educational policy) since the advent of collective bargaining, 42 The conclusion that collective bargaining tends to enhance a presi­ dent's power in all matters other than personnel is a fascinating one, and subject to challenge. It is not surprising that the fifteen univer­ sity executive officers were reluctant to admit a loss of power in any area other than the obvious de jure area where the scope of bargaining on "personnel" matters (wages, hours, and conditions of employment) are clearly set forth. In fairness,to the author, he did attempt to learn the union point of view through interviews with three past presidents of the faculty union, and three presidents or chairmen of the university senate. Senate leaders tend either to be administrators or sympathetic to administrators and the expectation is that they would have answered the interviewers' questions much the same as the presidents and their 41 "Changes in the Role of the President's Office," p. 185. 42 Ibid., p. 187. 69 subordinates did. union leaders. Thus of the eighteen interviews only three were with If the ratio were reversed, and fifteen union leaders were interviewed on the same premises, would the results be the same? A related work dealing with community colleges is Curtis Smith Murton Jr's "Role Choice Orientation of Michigan Public Community College Presidents 1n Collective Bargaining: A Study of Conflict Resolu­ tion."^ Murton's work consists primarily of a comparison of the chief executives' performance expectations as perceived by their Board chair­ men and faculty leaders, and as perceived by the presidents themselves. As was the case in the previously cited works of this genre, the questionaire is used in conjunction with primary and secondary materials to support the thesis. Some of Murton's major findings were: 1) general agreement in role choice preferences between all subjects surveyed was indicated 2) results support that many presidents prefer non-adversarial roles during collective bargaining negotiations 3) the revelation of a high incidence of apparent failure on the part of presidents to correctly assess role ex­ pectation conflict between board chairmen and faculty leaders, which poses serious implications. 44 Murton's conclusion with respect to the role choice orientation of Michigan community college presidents is that the hypothesis that "the president's role choice in collective negotiations can be predicted on the basis of his behavioral pre-disposition" is not supported. 45 The 43 PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. 44 "Role Choice Orientation," Abstract. 45 Ibid., p. 106. 70 Murton study does support the idea that presidents, Board chairmen, and faculty leaders do not differ significantly in the expectation they hold for the president's role in collective bargaining between the Board and faculty. The results of Murton's study suggest that understanding of the president's role in collective bargaining should be a subject for more mutual consideration at a place other than the collective bargaining table. To generalize, the results of Murton1s study tend to be inconclu­ sive in most of its aspects. The study is, however, quite emphatic on the point that the presidents who were studied "failed to perceive con­ flict, and the president's role as a link between two levels of the organization, (e.g., governing board and faculty)." 46 The most recent and similar study to this dissertation is Kenneth Stewart Parr's examination of faculty attitudes toward collective bar­ gaining in Michigan's private liberal arts colleges.^ The procedure in Parr's study was to circulate a questionnaire among 330 randomly selected professors from the faculties of twelve private colleges in Michigan. The bulk of the dissertation consists of 31 statistical tables and the author's interpretative analysis of the survey results. Among the more interesting findings of this survey were the conclusions that: 1) those professors who opposed collective bargaining were likely to be more religiously inclined, older, tenured, to have held longer appointments, and to be more moderate or conservative politically than those professors favoring collective bargaining. 46 "Role Change Orientation," p. 119. 47 "A Survey of Faculty Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining at Michigan Private Liberal Arts Colleges." PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. 71 2) neither sex or academis discipline were significantly related to attitudes toward collective bargaining 3) religious colleges (as operationally defined) had small faculty segments who favored collective bargaining 4) professors were more likely to favor collective bargaining if they perceived that their colleges could be paying them better; their influence on policy making was lacking; their administrators were not as sympathetic toward academic freedom as they should be 5) the professors who favored collective bargaining tended to believe they would reap dividends in terms of greater power as well as salaries. 47 While Parr's study dealt mainly with the results of his questionnaire, he did make reference to the fact that three collective bargaining cam­ paigns occurred at private colleges in Michigan subsequent to the gathering of his data. 48 All three of those elections were conducted by the writer of this dissertation. In retrospect, the above conclusions confirm the beliefs held by me and the faculty union supporters I worked with that there was and is a readiness at the traditionally conservative small (often churchrelated) colleges for collective bargaining where faculty hold the perception that their wages and influence in decision making leave 47 "Survey of Faculty Attitudes," Abstract, p. 2. 48 Those campaigns were at Hillsdale, Adrian, and Albion Colleges. At Hillsdale, collective bargaining was defeated in December of 1975, by a margin of eleven votes. At Adrian College the faculty voted to be represented by an affiliate of the Michigan Education Association on . September 12, 1975 by a vote of 40 for the MEA affiliate, 1 for the AAUP, and 18 votes for no union. At Albion College in November of 1973, a run­ off election was held after the MEA affiliate was defeated on the first ballot. The runoff was between AAUP and no agent, and AAUP emerged the loser. The results were 44 votes for AAUP and 54 for no agent. 72 something to be desired. Even though collective bargaining lost in two out of three of these attempts, the union concept was well accepted and the results were a surprise to many observers who believed that collec­ tive bargaining had no chance whatsoever at the more conservative insti­ tutions. With respect to the Hillsdale election, Parr commented: Subsequent to the election at Adrian, the faculty at Hillsdale College petitioned the NLRB to conduct an election for the purposes of organizing for collective bargaining. Again the collective bargaining cause was defeated with 26 votes favoring bargaining and 37 opposing it. Mr. William Owen, a faculty organizer for the Michigan Association of Higher Education, stated in a telephone interview with this writer that the Hillsdale election was especially significant in that he felt the faculty was a particularly conservative one in what is perhaps the most conservative area in the State of Michigan. Mr. Owen's assessment of the results at Hillsdale, in light of the faculty's con­ servative orientation, was that a surprisingly large number of people voted in favor of collective bargain­ ing. He is in frequent touch with the situation at Hillsdale and Albion and indicates that faculty unrest continues. 49 It should be noted that even though the present writer when interviewed by Parr felt that the unrest was continuing at these schools, subsequent checks with faculty leaders evoked the conclusion that the administrations at Hillsdale and Albion mended their previous ways enough to satisfy faculty and to discourage any new attempt to unionize. The outlook for Hillsdale and Albion is not promising for collective bargaining so long as their administrations continue to involve faculty in decision making and so long as they continue to make strong efforts to improve salaries and other fringe benefits. 49 "Survey of Faculty Attitudes," p. 80. 73 SUMMARY From the above it -should be clear that there is a sameness to the doctoral studies and research articles that have been produced on the gen­ eral subject of academic collective bargaining. This quality of sameness is to be seen in the methodology, which invariably employs interviews and/or a questionaire of some sort. This sameness is also to be seen in the bibliographies; the bibliographic material is redundant. It seems as though the scholars and professional researchers are still writing the first article on academic collective bargaining. Another quality that the works reviewed seem to have in common to a disturbing degree is tone. In tone virtually all of the writings (Parr's is an exception) seem to look with disdain on collective bargaining, or else collective bargaining is seen as inevitable. that Parr fbr example says "In view of the data of this study, the continued surplus of per­ sonnel in higher education, and the acute financial stress felt by pri­ vate colleges, collective bargaining will be instituted at the colleges of this study." 50 House in his dissertation observes that most of the persons who have been involved in the public discussion of academic col­ lective bargaining are ones who have become, to some degree, experts on the subject.. 51 House sees these "experts" to be labor attorneys, person­ nel administrators, or scholars and teachers of administration and higher 52 education. House is correct about who the experts are. Those who are 50 "Survey of Faculty Attitudes," Abstract, p. 2. 51 "Self-Perceived Effects," p. 167. 52 Ibid., p. 168. 74 doing the writing and prognosticating about the causes and effects of academic collective bargaining are indeed mainly labor attorneys and col­ lege and university administrators and professors of labor relations and other disciplines related to the field of academic collective bargaining. This input from the pro-management side of the bargaining table may explain the repetitive nature of the lietrature. It is difficult for a writer to be thoroughly objective about a subject when the writer is not the agent of change, but is, in the case of the college and university administrator, the recipient of the change. This pro-management orientation has a tendency to engender literature that is occasionally based on somewhat hysterical reactions to academic collective bargaining. Previously held stereotypes about industrial unions, and resentment over the potential threat to decision making through collective bargaining poses a threat to college and uni­ versity administrators in areas of fiscal and personnel matters that is frequently reflected in the literature on collective bargaining in academe. No reasonable person would expect that the bulk of the literature should emanate from any other quarter than the one mentioned above. Faculty union organizers usually limit their writing to union propaganda. None­ theless, it is a bit ironic that most of the writing is done by persons other than those who are the initiators of faculty unions. The style and methodologies of this dissertation do not vary greatly from the works of the pro-management writers. One difference, and this may be an important difference, is that the perspective of the writer of this dissertation is pro-union, insofar as faculty unions are seen as a respectable vehicle for shared decision-making. 75 Another difference is that the problem of so much secondary data and the consequent repetitiveness may be overcome to a degree in this study, since much of its content will be drawn from persona! field experience as a professional organizer of college and university faculties. CHAPTER III WHY PROFESSORS UNIONIZE ADMINISTRATIVE BEHAVIOR AND POLICY AS A STIMULUS TO FACULTY UNIONS In virtually every organizing drive participated in by the writer of this dissertation, administrative behavior has been a precipitating force in the decision of a faculty to choose collective bargaining. 53 In one of his articles on the question of why college and university faculties choose collective bargaining, William B. Boyd, president of Central Michigan University, wrote that one of the causes for the establishment of collective bargaining units on some campuses derives from what has been termed an inferiority complex that exists in certain sectors of higher education. 54 In developing this notion, Boyd observes that "the feeling /anxiety/ produces punitiveness, rage, and a search for scapegoats." Boyd concluded that "in the face of such sentiments, deans and presidents are apt to be perceived as the viIlians in residence, or at least as acceptable stand-in targets." 55 53 Since 1959, this investigator has been involved in successful organizing drives at the following state-supported colleges and univer­ sities: Central Michigan University 1969; Saginaw Valley State College 1971; Ferris State College 1972; and Lake Superior State College 1977. In addition to these successful organizing efforts, this writer has also participated in several organizing attempts at Michigan's state-supported colleges and universities that resulted in failures; the most notable of these were the Michigan State University elections of 1972 and 1978. 54 William B. Boyd, "Collective Bargaining in Academe: Causes and Consequences." Liberal Education 57 (October 1971): 306-18. 55 Ibid., p. 309. 76 77 In any case, Boyd allows in his article that the very colleges which have had "marginal faculties" have also had their fair share of autocratic administrators. He observes that "perhaps the most fundamental reason for the advent of collective bargaining derives from the general authority crisis which exists in society and on campus." 56 Boyd feels that old traditions no longer hold and there is a sense, on many campuses, that everything is up for grabs and that the old tranquility and good faith are not liekly to return. He cites the decline of executive power, the expansion of middle management, the bureaucratization, the contempt for tradition voiced by radical faculty, the resurgence of governing boards, and the new claims for control by state agencies and legislatures as having converged to produce this "crisis of authority." 57 Another college president who had a bit less cynical view of the collective bargaining process in higher education was Edward J. Bloustein, president of Rutgers University, who referred, tongue in cheek, to aca­ demic collective bargaining as "A Chamber of Horrors."88 Bloustein, who was president of Bennington College for six years prior to coming to Rutgers in 1972, is in an excellent position to make comparisons of governance problems in a small non-union private college with 600 56 Liberal Education 57, p. 311. 57 Ibid. 58 Edward J. Bloustein, "A Chamber of Horrors," in Raymond G. Hewitt, ed., The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Hiqher Education, MA: New England Board of Higher Education, January, 1973.) p. 110. 78 students and a large unionized public university with 37,000 students. Amazingly he concludes that the "governance problems are not very different in these two contexts." 59 With respect to the "chamber of horrors" many of his colleagues perceive collective bargaining to be, Bloustein has this to say: "The chamber of horrors we are told we will enter during a period of unionization turns out to be just like the room we have been living in without unionization. On the whole I am very opti- mistic about the impact faculty unionization has on higher education." 60 Bloustein bases this conclusion on his favorable experience in having to deal with an essentially procedural contract rather than the traditional union agreement that seeks to cover all conditions of employ­ ment. The Rutgers agreement limits itself to the areas of economic conditions of employment and academic due process. Thus the selection, appointment, and promotion of faculty, as well as the development of all aspects of educational policy, are left to the existing structure of university governance. Bloustein's point of view is refreshing and reassuring to those who may be contemplating a union. The only problem with it is that to some, his acceptance of a limited scope of bargaining may infer the notion that academic collective bargaining is only accept­ able within certain limitations. This type of approach could be viewed by union purists as an attempt by management to set arbitrary limitations on the scope of bargaining. Werner A. Baum, president of the University of Rhode Island, has 59 Bloustein, "A Chamber of Horrors," p. 110. 50 Ibid. 79 commented on the effect of unionization on collegial roles. In his address, Baum observed that he had "one big surprise" when "relations between the faculty (at least the union leadership) and the university administration have been improved by collective bargaining."®* In this speech Baum went on to make the fascinating statement that: "in some ways collective bargaining is like psychiatric group therapy; it reveals hidden problems and occasionally leads to mutual understanding if not agreement." He further commented that with respect to the cathartic aspects of collective bargaining, "we are provided with . . .a somewhat refreshing interlude in an otherwise dismal atmosphere." S3 He admits however, that "most college and university presidents, while always seeking to be objective, could not help but be opposed to the introduction of collective bargaining to their campuses." S£ To support this notion, the results of a 1971 study conducted by the Stanford Project on Academic Governance, funded by the Natioaal Ins­ titute of Education, concluded that college and university presidents were not enamored by the collective bargaining concept. In this survey 100 percent of the presidents responded to the questionaire, while only 53 percent of the 17,292 randomly sampled faculty responded. Among the more significant findings on the negative side were these: 61 "A President's Experiences," in The Effects of Collective Bargaining on Higher Education, Raymond G. Hewitt, ed., p. 20. 62 Ibid., p. 21. 63 Ibid. 64 I b id . 80 1) collective bargaining is a system of governance and decision making difficult to reconcile with the collegial image of academic governance. 2) academic senates are unlikely to convert to unions. With specific reference to presidents, the report said they "feel they lose power to unions," while in actuality there is a shift toward greater administrative power. ward from the departments. The report also notes power shifts up­ The Stanford Project also concluded that collective bargaining will realign many of the major power blocks in the traditional academic setting and that greater procedural protection for faculty is seen for unionized faculties.^ The role of the president after the union comes to campus is gen­ erally agreed upon. Most scholarly writers and labor relations prac­ titioners agree that the main officer should remain an independent third party. According to one recent study, in response to the question "what is the appropriate role of the campus head in the process through which his colleagues may share in policy making, particularly when their salaries, benefits, and working conditions are involved?" one half of the administrators responding singled out the need to be his own man.66 Another college president, James Gemmell, President of Clarion State College in Pennsylvania, in his paper, "Collective Bargaining: A View From the Presidency,"67 reviews the historical background and 65 Frank R. Kemerer and J. Victor Baldridge, Unions on Campus, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1975 , p. 11 ff. 66 Clarence R. Hughes, Robert L. Underink and Charles Gordon, eds., Collective Negotiations in Higher Education: A Reader, Carlinville, 111: Blackburn College Press, 1973, p. 111. 67 Academic Collective Bargaining Information Service, 1975. 81 deals concisely with the legal and technical aspects of collegiate faculty unionism. unionize. He also ponders the question of why faculty members He comments that: For the sake of those colleges and universities that have not yet decided the issue of collective bargaining the question of "why unionize?" is a key to the future. For many of us at campuses where faculty have cast the die in favor of collective bargaining, the question con- . tinues to visit us in our dreams.58 As for the specific reasons for faculty unionism, he sees the economic benefits of collective bargaining as one of its more attractive aspects. He cites the 35 percent increase in salaries and benefits negotiated over a three year period at the Pennsylvania State Colleges and Universi­ ties as an example and he refers to the City University of New York bargaining as having produced "stunning gains. On the matter of the range of economic benefits, Gemmell comments that "the possible range of fringes to be negotiated is limited appar­ ently only by the imagination." As an example he cites a section in a contract that provided that each faculty member was entitled to cut one cord of wood on college land for personal use. Gemmell advises his colleagues that the "opportunity for collective bargaining by college faculties may be nearly universal by 1978, and that " . . . every univer­ sity or state system not now involved should begin without delay to build a cadre of trained officials in anticipation of need."7^ 68 Gemmell, "A View From the Presidency," p. 13. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibi d ., p. 18. 82 In his closing comments he laments the introduction of the so-called industrial model into the realm of academic bargaining, which usually results in compromise with no one satisfied. His final statement calls for a new model for collective bargaining, "designed specifically to fit the requirements of higher education.G.emtnell, while obviously not pleased with the presence of a faculty union on his campus, is nonephilosophical about the reality of the situation and from the point of view of this writer he has approached the problem in a rational manner. He sees collective bargaining as an adversarial process but counsels his colleagues that they should, when confronted with a faculty union, endeavor to be "friendly adversaries." The adversarial nature of the alleged industrial model is one of the most consistently cited faults of collective bargaining in an academic setting. Administrators such as Gemmell must sincerely believe that there is a more benign form of collective bargaining that can be evolved or perhaps invented and superimposed on the college and univer­ sity campuses confronted with the prospect of a faculty union. While this writer does not believe such a new model is practical or likely, others have from time to time come up with some rather interesting alternatives. One such person with impeccable credentials in the field is Charles M. Rehmus. 72 71 Gemmell, "A View From the Presidency," p. 21. 72 Charles M. Rehmus is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan and is presently serving as chairman of the Michigan Employment/ ilations Commission, MERC. 83 Rehmus in an article that appeared in 1972 commented that "the range of possibilities for resolving faculty-administration conflicts is some­ what larger than the simple dichotomy between the traditional model and the trade union model." 73 In this article, derived from a speech aimed primarily at college administrators, Rehmus defines all unions as having three distinct characteristics: 1) a fundamental and permanent conflict of interest exists between managers and the managed 2) exclusivity is a fundamental element 3) a trade union primarily regards itself as a service organization for the individual employee, while the traditional professional association or academic governing body is concerned with work standards for the profession generally and for the faculty as a whole. Rehmus reiterates that no matter what an organization may call itself, if these three principles are present, it i_s a union. As an alternative he offers a bilateral decision making model which calls for a grievance process that offers the possibility of review of administrative decisions (by) "qualified and independent neutrals." With the comment, "Some may say, 'all you are really talking about is negotiations without a union,' and so I am," Rehmus defined his position on collective bargaining in higher education.75 Rehmus made this speech in 1972 when collegiate unionism was in its infancy. Gemmell's wish for an alternative to the industrial union model has still not come true. 73 Charles M. Rehmus, "Alternatives to Bargaining and Traditional Governance," in Faculty Power: Collective Bargaining on Campus, Terrence Tice, ed. Institute of Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, MI 1972. 74 Ibid., p. 92. 75 Ibid., pp. 97-98. 84 Today there are more than five hundred campuses where faculty members have chosen collective bargaining and not one of these has devised an alternative to the inherently adversarial nature of the collective bargaining process. Nor does the literature show that traditional govern- ence has ever been replaced with a model such as the one proposed by Rehmus in 1972. In this writer's view there is no such thing as an industrial model for negotiations and another model that will fit the academic community's needs. There is a collective bargaining model, and in Michigan, its terms are defined by the Public Employment Relations Act, (PERA) of 1965. This Act covers all public employees except the state civil service employees who are covered by a constitutional provi­ sion that vests power in the State Civil Service Commission. The Michigan law is modeled on the National Labor Relations Act and makes no distinction with respect to procedures and rights between private and public employees, with the notable exception of the right to strike. The point is that there is no such thing as an industrial model for collective negotiations. There is however a bargaining model, and historically that model has been associated with industrial workers more than with the professoriate. In recent years, that model has come to academe and it has been accepted almost en toto. Modifications will probably occur over the years, but the greatest difference between indus­ trial and academic bargaining will continue to be in terms of the content of the contract, and not in terms of the process. Why professors choose collective bargaining is inextricably related to administrative attitude and administrative attitude unnervingly becomes manifest in administrative behavior. We have reported on the 85 attitude toward collective bargaining of several college president in the preceding discussion. The presidents quoted thus far were cited mainly because they have chosen to publish their views. It may be coincidental that presidents such as Boyd of CMU, Baum, Gemmell, and the others seem to have an enlightened and somewhat egalitarian attitude toward collective bargaining. with moderating statements. Even their negative concepts are tempered The problem with coming to any conclusions on the basis of these writers and speakers on the collegiate bargaining phenomenon is that those presidents who write on the subject are, to a surprising extent, in the minority. Over five hundred college and university administrations have seen faculty unions emerge on their campuses since the advent of collective bargaining during the late sicties. In spite of this massive number, only about two percent of the presidents have written articles or made speeches on the subject. 76 The premise is clear; if only a few college and university heads are speaking and writing on the subject of faculty unionism, those who are not speaking out must have their reasons for remaining silent. Consider the dilemma of the college president who is confronted with the prospect of a faculty union. That president's choces are clear: 1) remain silent and conduct business as usual 2) exercise his legal right to free speech and openly expose the union 76 This figure is a guess, and thus subject to challenge. While two percent is an estimate, it is based on a thorough review of the literature, and is in this investigator's view a reasonably accurate estimate. 86 3) take covert steps to subvert the union 4) make moderate statements showing the advantages of the present system without attacking the union. Of these options, the most efficacious is the latter. Such is usually the observable involvement of most head administrators when a union threat is present. One can only speculate about the extent to which some presidents may attempt to intervene through subversion. 77 In any event, most advice and counsel to college presidents who must face a union threat is generally to stay aloof. Gemmell advises his readers that during the negotiation phase, a trained legal mind should be available for contract negotiations. He also advises that presidents must be willing to delegate substantial responsibility and authority to subordinate university officials. With regard to the presidents involvement during the union drive, he has this to say: The time to act is during the pre-election period when management has the right to convince employees that un­ ionism would not be to their advantage. Management has the right, for example, to express the opinion the (sic) collegiality might be impaired, that erosion of the fac­ ulty senate could occur, and that an adversary relation­ ship would likely develop. Management is also privileged to disseminate facts of a negative nature about unionism.78 77 As an organizer, this writer has observed moves on the part of deans, directors, and chairpersons to use persuasion and, on occasion, intimidation to discourage individuals from supporting a faculty union. At times it has seemed that such tactics were inspired by the president. This kind of observation, of course, cannot be proved, nor can it be dis proved. The fact is, this writer has observed such coercive tactics and it is not difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the president was covertly involved. 78 Gemmell, "A View From the Presidency," pp. 5-6.' 87 Gemmell does caution (rightly) that after the election campaign begins, that is, after the petition is filed and the legal procedures are initiated, the freedom of management to act becomes circumscribed because it is more vulnerable to unfair labor practice charges. It is precisely during this period (the time between the filing of the petition for an election and election day) that many presidents have defeated themselves in their attempt to foreclose on the union threat. A brief summary of a few personal experiences of this writer supports this conclusion. Most recently, a successful year-long drive to union­ ize the faculty at Lake Superior State College was ended when the faculty voted overwhelmingly to accept collective bargaining in January, 1978. 80 Prior to the election the atmosphere at Lake Superior had become charged with insecurity as a result of administrative moves to increase work loads, reassign personnel and perhaps in the process terminate a few faculty members. The already insecure environment at Lake Superior was made even more threatening when the Governor's Efficiency Tast Force recommended that Lake Superior State College be closed as an economy measure. Throughout this critical period, the president of Lake Superior State College, Dr. Kenneth Shoultice, assumed an adversarial stance.to­ wards all who challenged his administrative decisions, including members 80 Michigan Efficiency Task Force Summary and Findings, Oscar A. Lundin, Chairman and President, Lansing, Michigan, 1976 81 See AppendixC for a reprint of Michigan Association for Higher Education memorandum dated December 7, 1976 from the author to the Lake Superior State College Faculty delineating the recommendations of the Task Force as they concerned the future of the college. This threat to the continuing operation of the school was a significant factor in the successful organization of the faculty for collective bargaining. 88 and leaders of the faculty senate. Therefore, when an appeal to support the idea of collective bargaining was made to the faculty by this writer as an alternative to the then current governance system, the response was encouraging. It is at this point in a movement towards faculty un­ ionization that a president's behavior becomes critical. The compulsive individual who is accustomed to building.things and controlling and man­ aging people may find it impossible to take a neutral stance when con­ fronted with the prospect of a faculty union. This was decidedly the case with Kenneth Shoultice after the union petition was filed. Quite likely the legal advice given Dr. Shoultice was to keep a low profile with respect to the union and to conduct business as usual. To the outside observer, Dr. Shoultice may have been doing just that during the critical period after the petition was filed and prior to the election. To the faculty members, the president was anything but aloof. As the organizer at Lake Superior, this writer was privy to virtually every petty confrontation that occurred between the president and a few of the more obvious union leaders. During this period there were verbal confrontations and what might be characterized as name-calling between the president and a few of the union's more flamboyant characters. As a result of this, the faculty became even more convinced that they were in need of something more potent than the faculty senate to deal with the LSSC chief administrator. Faculty members in general had a feeling of respect for their president as a builder and fund raiser. In per­ sonnel matters however, the warm and respectful feelings toward their president held by many faculty members quickly evaporated and were re­ placed with fear and sometimes anger. 89 Further advantage was given to the union when the administration, after the petition was filed, went through a series of administrative changes that had the net effect of revising the status of departmental chairpersons from that of first among peers to that of supervisors. This move became an issue in the conference between the faculty repre­ sentatives and management conducted by the State Employment Relations Commission to determine the composition of the collective bargaining unit. The result of the president's machination with respect to the line-staff structure of the school was to further alienate faculty and when the college insisted on a formal hearing to determine the unit question, that move was perceived by faculty as a delaying tactic, and the union was assured. Another campaign where the president's behavior was a factor in the results was at Ferris State College. Unlike Lake Superior's presi­ dent, Robert Ewigleben, President of Ferris State College, made his crit­ ical mistake prior to the filing of the union petition. In the fall of 1971, shortly after he had become president, Ewigleben made speeches to a local service club and to a meeting of the faculty in which he made the statement that as new president one of his accomplishments would be to prune out the dead wood. This comment was reported in the local press and widely circulated around campus. 82 82 Edward Linta, "Collective Bargaining at a State College in Michigan" (PhD Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975) p. 88. According to Linta, "When the new president took over, he stated at an early faculty meeting that Ferris needed to get rid of the 'dead wood' on campus." Linta, who was a Ferris administrator at the time, interpreted the president's remark as "being made in the context of 90 Shortly after that statement, this investigator was on campus to meet with a small group of campus activists to plan a union strategy. With respect to the "dead wood" comment of the president, it was a cur­ ious fact that those who were in the vanguard of the union movement were anything but "dead wood." In fact, some of the more respected members of the faculty were Involved throughout the campaign. After the petition was filed, President Ewigleben apparently fol­ lowed his legal advice and kept a low profile. Unfortunately, this was not the case with many of his cabinet members. It soon became obvious that the administration of Ferris State College was almost hysterically opposed to the notion of a faculty union. This fear and disdain for a faculty union was transmitted to the union and even though the president used good judgment 1n keeping a personal low profile, he was still tar­ geted by faculty as being behind the (at times) erratic behavior of some of his subordinates. In the case of both Ferris and Lake Superior, it is possible to protest too much about the union. Faculty members when met with extraordinary resistance to their union drives, developed at Ferris and at Lake Superior a sense of desperation. Many of the leaders came to believe that if the union drives failed they might find their jobs in jeopardy. This may not in fact have been the case, but when keeping the high standards of instruction and teacher excellence which had characterized the educational offerings of the college. But some faculty members chose to view this as a threat to their job security. 83 Interview with Professor Philip Stich of Ferris State College. Professor Stich served as president of the faculty union for two twrms, 1974-75 and 1975-76. Prior to that he was active in the organizing drive and in that capacity he was in a position to make accurate judg­ ments about the president's reaction to the union and the quality of the union movement. enough faculty members believe this, the union is assured a victory at the polls. At Ferris, the MEA/NEA affiliate did prevail in a runoff election between the Ferris Faculty Association and No Union, by a vote of 221 to 161. Prior to the runoff the AAUP was eliminated by a vote of 133 AAUP, 143 Neither, and 137 MEA/NEA. The behavior of the president was also to a degree a factor in the unionization movement at Central Michigan University. itional year for the faculty at Central. 1969 was a trans­ On the way out was Judson Faust, a fine gentleman, but one who had worn his welcome thin by his paternalistic style. On the way in during that remarkable year was William Boyd, the president-designate and the author-to-be of several articles on the subject of collective bargaining. quantity to the Central faculty. ive bargaining. Boyd was an unknown Another unknown quantity was collect­ While the concept of collective bargaining was foreign to academe, CMU was the first four-year university in the United States to become unionized. It was not such a foreign concept to many of the faculty members who were former teachers or teachers of teachers. 84 When these faculty members compared their economic progress to that of the unionized teachers around them, the solution to Central's low economic status relative to its sister schools seemed to many to be collective bargaining. The solution was perceived, and the move at Central toward this previously unheard of governance device was made 84 Central Michigan University was formerly a teachers college, and many of the senior faculty members were conversant with the dazz­ ling successes experienced by Michigan's K-12 educators at the bargain­ ing table. 92 with lightening speed. One faculty member who at the time of this dual transition (in pres idents and in governance systems) was James Hayes. Hayes held an impor­ tant position in the Central Administration at the time as a vice presi­ dent for governmental relations. At a later date, Hayes was to return to his faculty post and emerged as president of the faculty union.' In an interview with Professor Hayes on the subject of the president's behavior, the pattern observed at Ferris and at Lake Superior was also apparent at Central, i.e., the president kept a low profile. The curious aspect of this at CMU was that the collective bargaining drive was con­ temporaneous with the transition in presidents and there was uncertainty OC as to who in fact was in charge of things during this period. In the absence of a clearly defined head, the job of opposing the faculty union movement fell to a Board of Trustees member. The faculty was addressed by the Board member, M. Fortino, who is an attorney with labor relations experience. Fortino's presentation, according to Hayes, was fair and as objective as it could be under the circumstances. It nonetheless had the predictable effect and served to stimulate rather than lessen faculty interest in the union movement. And even though President-to-be Boyd did nothing to alienate faculty, enough resentment 85 At the time of Hayes' presidency in 1975, this writer served as Executive Director of the Central Michigan University Faculty Assoc­ iation and in this capacity had ample opportunity to discuss the admin­ istration's role in the evolution of the union at CMU. with faculty m&mb6t-'s who were active in the organization. The discussion here is based on extensive interviews with Professor Hayes and with the union leaders who were closely involved in the events of the time. 93 had built up over the previous administration to assure the union. President Boyd did make a few conciliatory statements prior to the elec­ tion and as president he proved to be able and wise in his dealings with the union. The only unfortunate aspects of Boyd's tenure with respect to his union relations were the continuing efforts of the university's counsel, J. David Kerr, to challenge the legitimacy of the union, and the administration's insistence on handling matters through the faculty senate which were appropriate subjects for the bargaining table. Both of these strategies created alienation of the pro-union faculty members and after the divisiveness of these moves dissipated over a period of five or six years, the union emerged more unified and powerful than it would have had these strategies not been employed. 86 Even at Central, where the new president was more egalitarian than many of his counter­ parts, it was clear that faculty discontent with administrative policy was sufficient to generate and sustain a strong faculty union. At Saginaw Valley State College the president, Sam Marble, took an active role prior to the filing of the petition for a unionization election. According to one of the more politically active professors at SVSC, Dr. David Weaver, the president would attempt to attend meet­ ings called by faculty to discuss their work-related problems. The 86 This conclusion regarding the administration's policies on the faculty senate and on the legitimacy of the union are the writer's opinions. As representative for the faculty during a portion, 1974-75, of this process, this investigator had abundant experiences with these administrative policies and the conclusions, while subject to challenge, are more than mere speculation. 94 president would attend such meetings even when he was not invited and he would not hesitate to campaign actively against the AAUP whenever it became apparent that the AAUP might intervene on behalf of the faculty. Weaver believed that President Marble may not have been ideologically opposed to unions per se, but when unionism became a threat on his campus, he found it easy to oppose the union alternative. 87 After the petition was filed in 1971, the president of Saginaw Valley State College assumed the same low profile as has been observed in his counterparts. The only exception to this was a thinly veiled threat against union supporters which came in the form of a letter to the professor's wives. No such letter was sent to the faculty members and no overt attempts to sway individual faculty members were made. One suspects that there may have been some behind-the-scenes inducements made by administrators to dissuade individual faculty members, but this is speculative and cannot be proved. 88 87 Interview with Professor David Weaver of Saginaw Valley State College. Dr. Weaver emerged as president of the faculty union at SVSC and also served as chief spokesperson for the negotiating team, as well as an officer of the Michigan Association for Higher Education, the higher education component of the Michigan Education Association. 88 During this period, this writer was frequently on campus, where the mood of faculty was hostile toward the president and the Board of Trustees. Specific instances of administrative abuse with respect to reprisals for union activities were rare. Yet one incident that earned suspicion was the removal of one of the union activists from the summer employment teaching roster. This move to deny summer employment was countered with a strong letter of protest and the summer employment was reinstated. 95 The pattern of presidential behavior seems to be well established at the state supported colleges and universities confronted with faculty unions in Michigan. There are, of course, slight deviations in behavior which are attributed to individual personalities and style. These devi­ ations, however, are merely variations on a theme which is for the pres­ ident to lay low during an organizing drive and leave any anti-union statements he may have to his subordinates. The matter of presidential behavior after the union is secured is also increasingly important to examine, since it significantly affects faculty-administration relations in the new academic situation. THE IMPACT OF COLLEGIAL UNIONS ON COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS It is abundantly clear from studies such as the Ladd-Lipset Report that college and university faculty members have come to accept the con­ cept of collective bargaining. The attitude of college and university administrators is less clear. One can make assumptions and one can de­ duce what administrative attitudes may be by observing the behavior of administrators when confronted with a faculty union, but such guesswork needs authentication and the amount of research on the subject is limited at best. One work that does treat the subject is James 0 . Haehn's "A Survey of Faculty and Administrator Attitudes on Collective Bargaining." 89 Since this work wwa done in 1970 several attitude surveys have been pro­ duced making additional data available. The most notable of these are the surveys conducted by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 89 A Report to the Academic Senate, California State Colleges, 1970. 96 (see selected Tables from the Ladd-Lipset Survey in Appendix B.) From Ladd-Lipset and other researchers noted above, it is clear that many college faculty have come to accept the concept of collective bargaining as both applicable and desirable for themselves. The Haehn study concludes that: "Faculty in the California system do not feel that their interests are being adequately represented in the decision making processes of the system, and in reaction to this they want a mechanism (in this case collective bargaining) to help solve the problem." 90 Any report is limited which seeks answers to administrator attitude in a state such as California, where at the time of the report, collective bargaining for the professoriate was not provided for in the law. Even so, the results are interesting and seem consistent with the professional experience of this investigator. The report found that: 1) Thirty-five percent of the administrative respondents said they favor bargaining for faculty. 2) Twenty-one percent were uncertain. 3) Forty-three percent opposed the idea. 4) Among faculty the survey showed that sicty-three percent favored collective bargaining. 91 This report also made an interesting finding about how administrators' perceptions are influenced by their own opinions. When asked how the faculty would vote for bargaining inf an election were held, sixty-three replied that the faculty would vote against it. gap has been well known to union organizers. This kind of perception In fact, campus administrators are more prone to make favorable or neutral comments 90 "A Survey of Faculty and Administrator Attitudes," p. 42. 91 Ibid., p. 32. 97 about collective bargaining when they believe that it will be voted down when an election comes. This has led to some nearly hysterical reactions on the part of many administrators this investigator has dealt with when the administration has been surprised by a pro-union vote. The Haehn Survey puts it this way: "...it appears that the campus admin­ istrators are misreading the extent of faculty discontent and the will­ ingness of the instructors to turn to formal collective bargaining to 92 deal with their problems." Irrespective of the growing number of reports and surveys of faculty and administrator attitude on collective bargaining, one self-evident and immutable fact should be clear; aca­ demic collective bargaining brings about significant changes in power relationships and as such it cannot help but be a threat to administra­ tive power. One of the best documents in support of this belief is the study that came out of the Stanford Project of Academic Governance, a study begun in 1971 funded by the National Institute for Education, which undertook a major research effort to examine the impact of faculty collective bargaining on governance and decision making in higher ed­ ucation.^3 The Stanford Project's findings concluded that "presidents on unionized campuses say that they have lost power to unionized faculty; 92 "A Survey of Faculty and Administrator Attitudes," p. 33. 93 Frank R. Kemerer and J. Victor Baldridge, The Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining On Campus Administrators, The Stanford Project of Academic Governance- [Palo Alto, Calif., 1976). In addition to Kemerer and Baldridge, other investigators were David Curtis, Governor's StateColleae, Illinois, George Paul Ecker, Ohio State University, and Lee Riley, University of California at Los Angeles. 98 all presidents foresee a steady erosion, of presidential administrative capacity by faculty unions." 94 The Stanford Project also concluded that in spite of presidential opinions, other evidence indicates that there is actually a shift toward administrative power, particularly governing board power. The report also notes that a majority of both campus and union presidents foresee a threat from outsiders such as arbitrators and courts. The Stanford Project identified several posi­ tive and negative impacts collective bargaining has on campus adminis­ trators, as well. On the positive side, the report found that the increased flow of information generated by collective bargaining was a help to shared gov­ ernance. Another positive impact at least as far as the Kemerer and Baldridge study was concerned is the constraint brought to bear on ad­ ministrative power through union contracts. Administrative arbitrari­ ness is curtailed and critical decisions, especially in personnel areas, are reached fairly and with a maximum of input from faculty groups. 95 On the negative side, the Stanford Project said that collegiality among administrators and faculty would likely suffer as specialists such as lawyers, labor relations experts, and institutional researchers replace traditional faculty generalists in the administrative ranks. Another concern was that under the influence of external economic and social forces, campuses are likely to be "balkanized" into "veto groups" making them even harder to manage. The report further worried that 94 Kemerer and Baldridge, p. 25. 95 Ibid., p. 26. 99 administrative discretion to respond to campus problems will be increasingly circumscribed by contractual provisions, especially in personnel areas.^ What part should the campus administrator play in the collective bargaining process? For the chief administrator, this question is not subject to debate; the president, in this investigator's experience, never goes to the bargaining table. The physical absence of the president at the table does not however mean that the president's presence is not felt by the parties at the table in other ways. The attitude of the chief administrator toward the union is usually reflected in the demeanor of those he designates to carry out the bargaining process. For example, two worrisome issues at Central Michigan University, both at the table and away from the table were the scope of bargaining and the legal right of the union to represent. Both these issues were inspired by concern on the part of the administration over the union's legitimacy. It should be borne in mind that Central was the first uni­ versity of its kind to be unionized and it therefore should surprise no one that the president and his legal counsel would seek to assert what they believed to be the university's constitutional autonomy. This challenge to the union's right to prepresent on matters other than the most fundamental economic issues lingered for some years at Central. Had the president, and just as important, had the president's legal counsel been more willing to accept the process of collective bargaining, 96 Kemerer and Baldridge, p. 26. 100 the attitude of the university's negotiators would certainly have been 97 more moderate. ’ At Central Michigan University, the administration campaigned to disestablish the union, or at the very least, to emasculate the union's power by seeking to enhance the power of the faculty senate at the union's expense. This kind of action, illustrating as it does the attempt to shift the bases of power, clearly illustrates the impact of academic collective bargaining on collegiality. 98 After the union is certified as collective bargaining agent, it is difficult to ascribe any behavior characteristics to the campus pres­ ident. Even the most compulsive meddlers will remain at least superfic­ ially aloof to the union once it is 1n place. This type of behavior, as noted by Kemerer and Baldridge, engenders the preplacemett in the administrative ranks of generalists by specialists. Kemerer and Bald­ ridge say that "In order to negotiate and administer*contracts sucessfully, the administration is likely to replace traditional facultyrelated generalists with specialists such as lawyers, labor relations experts, and institutional researchers." 99 According to John Gianopolos, a frequent commentator on academic collective bargaining, the college administrator, if at all possible, should remain an independent third party in the negotiating process as required by his position as leader of the faculty and executive of the 97 This researcher was present at the table through negotiations in 1975, the third contract at CMU, and even then, some six years after recognition, the board's chief spokesperson would question the legiti­ macy of the union. 98 For fuller discussion of bargaining's impact on collegiality, see Chapter IV below. 99 The Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining, p. 24. board. Gianopulos believes that: He, the chief administrator, should carry this role through formal collective negotiations, where in most cases with legal advice, he will continue to serve as interpreter between the board and the faculty. His is the responsibility in the negotiating process to pro­ vide information to both teachers and the board, to help clarify issues, and to stimulate both groups to put forth their highest efforts to achieve agreements that are in the best interest of the total educational program. 1 0 0 As may be noted in the previous chapter, (see House) and in this chapter, (see Kemerer and Baldridge) collective bargaining does not diminish the power of the president to manage the institution. With or without un­ ions, central administrations still must make determinations with res­ pect to the major management and budgetary matters. This need to manage in Michigan and elsewhere is mandated usually by the state constitution to the administration through the governing board. The presence of a faculty union need not be a threat to this well established management prerogative. In fact the presence of a faculty union can even enhance the right of managers to manage. This right is usually affirmed in collective bargaining agreements in the management rights clause. Even without such contractualized acknowledgments of the right of a presi­ dent to run the school, the legal precedents and the constitutional mandates still serve to legitimize the power of the president. In the ritual dance that we call collective bargaining union rep­ resentatives are often tempted to be obstreperous toward their adver­ saries on the matter of management rights, yet when negotiations are 100 John Gianopolus, "Collective Bargaining: What Part Should College Presidents Play?" College & University Business (September, 1970) p. 70. 102 concluded the contract will invariably contain a strong management rights clause. Such clauses are usually "traded" for union security clauses, (agency shop provisions) or association rights clauses. The latter generally affirm the right of the association (union) to use school facilities, to have dues deducted from faculty payrolls, and to provide for released time for union officers to conduct union business. If this is a correct premise and it is true that unions do not pose a threat to the power of university and college presidents, then whose power is affected by the presence of a campus union? A glib but prob­ ably correct statement could be that everybody else's power is affected, affected by being either diminished or increased. H. J. Zoffer, Dean of the Graduate School of Business at the Uni­ versity of Pittsburgh put it this way: Collective bargaining has the potential to change the power base and the way in which it is exercised. Coll­ ective bargaining may well be a means whereby those now ' outside the power structure will be able to seize power. Younger faculty would be expected to wield far more pow­ er than is currently the case, and in concert with stu­ dents, a group the more senior faculty identifies less with, a totally new power structure could be developed. 1 0 1 Just as the other writers on the subject have concluded, Zoffer also allows that "what is clear is that higher salaries and lower work loads, more obvious expected results of collective bargaining, will have rel­ atively little real effect on the administrator's role or the future of higher education."10^ 101 H. J. Zoffer, "A College Administrator Looks at Collective Bargaining," Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 26 (3) July-August, 1575, pp. "33-40. 102 I b i d . 103 Power, or the lack of it is at the root of virtually every union drive on college and university campuses. Where power to decide on important academic and personnel matters is not shared by those who have it— administrators— with those who don't— faculty— unions find fertile soil. Studies by academicians to substantiate or refute this conjecture are virtually non-existent. This notion is supported, howfcv ever, in a study done by Charles A. Odewahn and Allan D. Spritzer, associate professors of Manpower and Industrial Relations at the Uni­ versity of Alabama Graduate School of Business. Odewahn and Spritzer conducted in 1975 a very thorough and substantial study on university administrators' attitudes toward collective bargaining. As a result of that study, they came to this conclusion: Although many factors Influence the degree of success in union organizing efforts, the experiences of the respondents to this study suggest that the success of these organizing efforts may be related to the extent of faculty participation in decision-making. For ex­ ample, among administrators of the four-year schools included in this survey, thirty-two percent reported that membership on governing boards included faculty. . Unions successfully achieved recognition in only ten percent of their organizing efforts at these schools. Similarly, in the privately controlled institutions, twenty-five percent of which accorded membership on governing boards to faculty, unions were successfully recognized in twenty*jreroent of t^err organizing eff­ orts. This is in contrast to public institutions, where only six percent of the governing bodies con­ tained faculty representations, and where unions were successful in seventy percent of their organizing efforts. 103 103 Charles A. Odewahn and Allan D. Spritzer. "University Admin­ istrators' Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining: A Comparative Anal­ ysis," Labor Law Journal 27, December, 1976, pp.763-72. 104 Faculty voice in governance is another way of saying faculty power. Faculty power is enhanced by collective bargaining and admini­ strative power is diminished, especially in the pragmatic areas of salary and work load determinations. Where faculty members have some­ thing more than token power, it can be seen from Odewahn and Spritzer that faculty unions are less likely to form. making is no longer a given in academe. Faculty voice in decision In recent years we have seen an unmistakable erosion of the traditional governance moden wherein faculty had a proprietory sense of interest in the institution. This of course was based on the medieval concept of the university, a con­ cept that has endured over the centuries and has only changed to an appreciable extent in the last few decades. The changes cannot all be laid at the door of some new breed of administrators who tend more than their predecessors to arrogate power to themselves, although from the union organizer's perspective it is tempting to come to such conclusions. Such changes are more likely to occur as the result of the evolution of our society from agrarian to technical. Today's colleges and univer­ sities are overwhelmed with paper work generated by government guide­ lines and conditions, required by other funding sources such as foundations, industrial contributors and contractors, alumni, and countless other legal or technical requirements. Another factor in the trend toward change in the management of institutions of higher learning is their size. The elite university, in the European tradi­ tion, has been replaced in America by the state-supported multiversity. Such institutions do indeed require a new breed of administrator. 105 As noted earlier in this chapter, the predisposition of faculty to unionize is influenced by the chief administrator to a great degree. This belief has been repeatedly substantiated by this investigator's organizing experiences, but one individual's experiences do not consti­ tute an adequate premise for such a conclusion. Fortunately, others have come to the same conclusion based on scientific data. Odewahn and Spritzer have also concluded that "the disposition of an institution toward unionism among its faculty is'likely to be influenced by the philosophy and characteristics of its leadership."^ In their study, Odewahn and Spritzer designed questions to deter­ mine administrator attitude toward the legitimacy acceptance and role of faculty unionism in higher education. One such question in their questionaire was: "Collective bargaining has no place in higher educa*io tion." The surveyors stated that agreement with this statement suggest­ ed an attitude that collective bargaining and faculty unionism are not' . legitimate activities. Odewahn and Spritzer found that this denial of legitimacy and the failure to accept the concept of faculty collective bargaining was reinforced by other attitudinal factors such as the be­ lief that faculty unionism has little support either in their institutions or in the community in general. 105 In their advice to adminis­ trators wishing to avoid a faculty union, these researchers have this 104 "University Administrators' Attitudes," p. 776. 105 Ibid., pp. 768 ff. Two Tables from the Odewahn and Spritzer study are of particular relevance to the present discussion and are included in the Appendix. See Appendix C-l. 106 to say: "The success of unionism is less likely if faculty members are given a greater voice in institutional d ecisions."^ SUMMARY In concluding this section, the point needs to be strongly empha­ sized that the chief administrator's attitude is indeed a factor in determining whether a union threat will occur on a given campus. This researcher has observed from first hand experience that faculty members seek help from union organizers when they become disenchanted with their president. This writer's personal experience runs the gamut from see­ ing faculty members embrace unionism out of sheer terror when a mildly psychotic president degenerates into a raging tyrant, to situations where a cool and sophisticated president goes a bit too far in expanding and rewarding his elite central administrative team and somehow forgets to pay enough attention to the needs of his faculty. In summary, the impact of collegial unions on college and univer­ sity administrator attitude is without doubt very slight. The attitudes of administrators toward the need to share in the governance of the institution is of primary importance. Where power is shared, faculty members do not seek unions; where it is not, they do. Once a faculty union is in place, the administrators who already had an innate dislike for unions will most likely exhibit behavior that is anti-union. Such behavior is usually not overt, but is manifest in the attitude and consequent behavior of the chief administrator's subordinates who have the responsibility to deal with the union. 106 "University Administrators Attitudes," p. 769. CHAPTER IV A CASE STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY REJECT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Not all attempts to unionize faculty members in higher education are successful. A notable defeat in the career of this faculty union organizer was the October 23-24 election in 1972 at Michigan State University. Nineteen seventy-one and 1972 were stimulating years for those of us who were involved in the process of bringing collective bargaining to Michigan's college and university campuses. In 1972 Central Michigan University was continuing to receive national attention as a result of its early and seemingly successful experiment with collec­ tive bargaining, and nationally some of the more prestigious schools had recently become involved in academic collective bargaining. 115 115 By January of 1972, contracts were negotiated at: City University of New York, Central Michigan University, New Jersey State Colleges (six campuses), St. John's University, New York, Southeastern Massachusetts University, Oakland University, State University of New York (twenty-six campuses), New York Institute of Technology, and the United States Merchant Marine Academy. In addition to this number of secure unions, a bargaining agent had been chosen and contracts were being negotiated at the following schools: Brooklyn Polytechnic, N.Y., Bryant College, R.I., Long Island University, Boston State College, Lowell State University of Massachusetts, Westfield State University, Fitchburg State College, Salem State College, (all of Massachusetts), and the University of Guam. Petitions were pending at Adel phi College, New York, Manhattan College, New York University, Temple University, Eastern Michigan University, Wayne State University, the University of Hawaii, and Rhode Island College. Files of the Michigan Association for Higher Education, MEA Headquarters, East Lansing, Michigan. 107 108 What better time could there possibly have been to contemplate a move to secure bargaining rights for the faculty at MSU, that prest­ igious Big Ten institution located at the very doorstep of the union's state headquarters.11-^ Logistics are always important in an organiz­ ing drive, and when the target is as massive as Michigan State Univer­ sity, ready access to reproduction and distribution facilities such as those available at the MEA Headquarters is critical. Quite simply, from a budgetary point of view, it made sense to select MSU as a target for organizing, since it was proximate and could be plugged into the exist­ ing communication system of the organization at very little additional cost or effort. MSU did not, however, become an organizing target simply because it was there, or because it was big, or because other faculties at other equally prestigious institutions had embraced collective bargaining. MSU became an organizing target because a few dedicated professors, such as Dr. Wayne Taylor (now deceased) of the university's Math-Science Teaching Center, became fascinated with the concept of collective bar­ gaining for university faculties . 1 1 7 Dr. Taylor was a senior faculty member who failed to fit any of the stereotypes for faculty unionists, 116 The MEA Headquarters, and the Michigan Association for Higher Education, MAHE, are located less than a mile north of the campus. 117 Prior to Dr. Taylor's interest, the faculty of MSU's University College petitioned in 1970 to the Michigan Employee Relations Commission for a bargaining unit for the faculty of University College. The uni-, versity contested this petition, arguing in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge for MERC that all faculty members of the uni­ versity served as one unified faculty, and the university's position was upheld by the commission. Dr. Taylor and his associates filed their petition in February, 1971. 109 insofar as he was secure in his position, relatively well compensated, and somewhat conservative in his personal ideologies. Nonetheless, Dr. Taylor saw collective bargaining as a viable means for dealing with some of the inequities that had evolved at MSU as a result of the uni­ versity's rapid growth and the consequent centralization of decision making by the administration. Thus, in early 1971, Dr. Taylor and about a half dozen other fac­ ulty members from departments across the campus, including Geology, American Thought and Language, Education, and Art established a rela­ tionship with my office for the purpose of exploring the possibility of creating a faculty union at Michigan State University. This begin­ ning was audacious, since there were no burning issues on campus at the time, other than a considerable amount of discontent over the issue of salary disclosure. In addition, the recent attempt to establish a bargaining unit for faculty in University College (the general edu­ cation unit of the university serving undergraduate students) had been defeated, a situation which had a dampening effect upon many who favored collective bargaining. Nonetheless, Dr. Taylor's new-found belief in faculty unions and my predisposition to help organize an institution as prestigious as MSU combined to facilitate a decision to commence with the distribution of union authorization cards at MSU . 1 1 8 118 In Michigan the Public Employees Relations Act requires that a "showing of interest" be determined before the state Employee Rela­ tions Commission will conduct an election to determine if there will be a bargaining agent. no The decision to circulate union authorization cards was made in February of 1971, and on February 18 the Lansing State Journal reported: "MEA Starts MSU Organization Drive." The State Journal article, coupled with a similar announcement in the campus daily, the State News, which appeared the following day, were an important part of the plan to shock faculty into an awareness that they would need to deal with the issue of whether or not MEA's local affiliate, the MSU Faculty Associates, would be their collective bargaining agent. The plan was simple, and at the time it seemed workable. Shortly after the announcement was made that the MEA would be seeking bargaining rights for faculty at MSU, a letter was circulated to all faculty explaining that the MSU Higher Education Association had changed its name to the MSU Faculty Associates, and that the constitu­ tion had been changed to facilitate "campus-wide participation in the governance of the organization." 119 This move was made to overcome a serious negative image problem associated with the old MSU Faculty Association. For many years previous to the attempt to unionize faculty at MSU, the MEA had maintained, since 1949, a non-bargaining affiliate on campus known as the MSU Higher Education Association, with a member­ ship of about thirty faculty members, most of whom were in the College of Education. Only three or four of this group favored 119 Letter to MSU Faculty from Dr. Peter Haines, President, and Edward P. Keller, President-Elect, of the MSU Faculty Associates. The complete text of the letter appears in Appendix D. Ill collective bargaining. Rather than engage in a lengthy program to educate faculty on the pros and cons of collective bargaining, the MSUFA decided simply to launch its campaign to secure bargaining rights for faculty at MSU. After all, others had chosen collective bargaining at equally pres­ tigious schools in New York and elsewhere, so why not here? Having made this decision to unionize the faculty at MSU, and having announced their intentions, the Faculty Associates quickly accelerated the campaign. The actual launching took place on the morning of February 18, 1971 in the Big Ten Room of the Kellogg Center on the MSU campus. The event was a media breakfast, with Terry Herndon, Executive Secretary of the MEA, Dr. Peter G. Haines, President of MSU Faculty Associates, and William R. Owen (this writer) of the Higher Education Office of the MEA. The State Journal reported that "Terry Herndon, Executive Secretary of MEA, told the breakfast group that the MEA's experience in negotiations for school teachers in the past five years has provided experience and resources necessary to extend the process to higher education." 120 Herndon continued with the comment that he and the MEA "were not attempt­ ing to invade MSU as a Messiah . . . to deliver you from whatever level of bondage you might perceive . . . but to gain for the faculty equity in a hostile society." In light of current and expected budget cuts by the legislature, Herndon said "whoever wins (bargaining rights) at this point in time, might lose." 121 120 Dave Hanson, State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, Thursday, February 18, 1971. 121 Loc. cit. 112 The most curious aspect of this staged media event was that the MEA simply and matter-of-factly announced it was going to unionize the faculty at MSU. There were no virulent issues, no jobs at stake, nor was there a huge outcry for better salaries or working conditions pouring forth from the faculty. In net effect there were two issues, the first of which was collec­ tive bargaining itself. At the time, votes on the issue of faculty bargain­ ing rights were to be held soon at Wayne State University and Eastern Michi­ gan University, while Central Michigan University and Oakland University were already organized. In addition, most of the twenty-nine community colleges in Michigan were also organized. stantial, since it dealt with salaries. The second issue was more sub­ Salaries at MSU were simply not keeping pace with the gains made through collective bargaining by K- 1 2 teachers in the public school sector. To accentuate this point, MSUFA planted the following item in the State Journal on February 18, the day their drive to unionize the faculty was announced. PAY A D V A N C E S C O M P A R E D State Journal Capitol Bureau Salary advances by classroom teachers, who are organized, have been greater in recent years than advances to unorganized higher education faculties, according to the following figures from the Michigan Department of Education and the American Association of University Professors. They were provided by MSU Faculty Associates, which is attempting to organize MSU for collective bargaining. Avg. Avg. Avg. MSU Classroom Higher Ed. Faculty Teacher Faculty School Year Salary Pet. Inc. Salary Salary Pet. Inc. 1965-66 $11,312 $ 6,896 $10,844 4.3 1966-67 9.3 11,825 7,535 11,310 1967-68 4.9 12,291 8,238 9.3 11,859 1968-69 9,134 10.9 5.9 12,937 12,556 1 969-70 2.5 13,632 10,045 10.0 13,211 — — 122 State Journal, Lansing, Michigan, February 18, 1971. 113 Also, in an attempt to make salaries, along with collective bargaining per se a campaign issue, MSUFA prepared and distributed nearly 2600 copies of a person-by-person, department-by-department analysis of faculty and administrator salaries. The intent of this distribution was to shock and infuriate faculty members who were not satisfactorily rewarded into acceptance of the union alternative. FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION REACTIONS Meanwhile, activity with respect to the collective bargaining issue was also escalating on another front. On February 16, 1971, the Elected Faculty Council met to discuss the problems and possibil­ ities of collective bargaining by university faculties. As a result of this meeting, 'the Steering Committee of the Faculty Council was asked to provide impartial information on collective bargaining, and in accordance with this request, Dr. Gordon E. Guyer, who was then chairman of the Steering Committee, requested that the Faculty Affairs Committee accept the responsibility for compiling and disseminating the necessary information. This material was compiled by a sub­ committee, and the collection of data was organized in the following manner: (the sub-committee) 1. Drafted a list of questions concerning collective bargaining to be asked of persons at colleges and universities that have already negotiated contracts. These questions were designed to elicit both factual material as to the actual provisions of the contract as well as ideological material relating to the scope of issues considered negotiable. 2. Sent written requests for answers to the same basic questions, with some necessary modification, to Pres­ ident Clifton R. Wharton, Provost John E. Cantlon, 114 and to the chief executive officer of each of the three organizations that have recently expressed interest in organizing the faculty on this campus. Written replies were requested. 3. Conducted open-ended interviews with Michigan State University faculty members knowledgeable about col­ lective bargaining. 4. Contacted the chief academic officer (or his repre­ sentative) of the other Big Ten universities and asked for a report concerning the status of collec­ tive bargaining on their campus at this time. 5. Interviewed by telephone of the House and Senate regarding their opinion university faculties in a limited number of members of the Michigan Legislature of collective bargaining by this state. ^ 3 Essentially this Faculty Affairs Committee document consisted of the questionaire mentioned above which dealt with fundamental questions such as: "What does the Bargaining Unit consist of? Faculty, Department Chairmen, Deans and Assistant Deans? Are there any exclusions?" cause. 12a A few of the questions were not very helpful to the union For example, one question was: "Has there been a strike at your Institution?" Another was: "Has there been an appreciable in­ crease in faculty salaries since collective bargaining was initiated? If so, was it necessary to reduce staff and/or programs?" 125 Even though the answers to these and similar questions, for the most part, were not overtly detrimental to the union cause, the ques- 123 Michigan State University Faculty Affairs Committee, "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining by University Faculties." March 9, 1971. Foreward, pp. 2-3. 124 "An Impartial Review," p. 125 I b i d . , pp. 8 , 14. 6 . 115 tions themselves tended to elicit some of the concerns many professors frequently articulate when discussing the prospects for a faculty union. The set of questions directed to leaders of potential collective bargain­ ing organizations at MSU, (the Faculty Associates and the American Associ­ ation of University Professors) were fairly innocuous. The most helpful questions were those that dealt with faculty salaries; the most damaging were those dealing with union dues and the potential for agency shop. In all there were twelve such questions, to which the Faculty Associates response was terse and to the point. 126 More instructive than the union's response was the reply to the questions asked of the chief administrative officers of Michigan State University. On March 1 and 2, 1971 letters from the Faculty Affairs Sub-committee for the Study of Collective Bargaining were delivered by courier to Clifford R. Wharton, Jr. , President and John E. Cantlon, Provost. There were only a few questions directed to Dr. Wharton and Provost Cantlon. the questions were: Paraphrased 1) Would you expect, as a result of collective bar­ gaining, an appreciable increase in salaries, and would it.be necessary to to reduce staff and/or programs? 2) In addition to salaries, what else would you anticipate to be subject to negotiation? ernance be altered and if so, how? 3) Would academic gov­ 4) What are the major advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining? Dr. Wharton chose not to reply. Instead, Robert Perrin, Vice-president for University Relations, responded 126 "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining by University Fac­ ulties," March, 1971, pp. 21,22, 23, 24, as reprints of committee questions and responses from faculty groups. See Appendix D for complete text of the questions and Faculty Associates response from this document. # 116 on behalf of President Wharton as follows: President Wharton feels it would not be appropriate for him to answer your questions. He feels he must remain neutral and avoid opinions which may be misinterpreted by either those favoring unionization or those opposing 1t* 127 Provost Cantlon responded as follows: Since anything I might say as a personal opinion might be construed as an official university position, I feel I can't respond to your questions at this time.^g The non-responses from President Wharton and Provost Cantlon were instruc­ tive and prophetic, as a result of what was implied, rather than what was said. By implication it was made clear only that they did not choose to comment openly on the matter. Indeed the posture of no comment on the union's activities became the administration's strongest asset as the union campaign evolved. Had the administration assumed an anti-union position during the early stages of the union threat, many faculty members would have been stimulated to oppose such a repressive move, and the union would have gained additional allies. As it were, the administration, through its posture of silence was able to force the Faculty Associates during the early stages of the campaign into a dialogue with pro and anti-union faculty members. This dialogue was devastating to the union cause, since the ad­ versaries became faculty members rather, than administrators. The adminis­ tration, as a result of this "no comment" policy during the early part of the campaign, was able to sit passively on the sidelines while pro and anti­ union faculty members debated the advantages and disadvantages of a union. 127 "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining," p. 25 128 Ibid., p. 25. 117 In retrospect, the MSU administration's decision not to become adver­ sarial in early 1971 was perhaps the most critical decision it made in its dealings with the union threat. If one assumes, as I do, that the adminis­ tration was not overly enthusiastic about the creation of a faculty union, then the natural inclination for the administration would have been to cry out when the union threat first emerged. Such a reaction would have fueled the fires of debate and polarized faculty opinion on the issue of collec­ tive bargaining as an alternative to the existing governance system. Such a debate would have without doubt aided the union's cause. As it was, the union's campaign was mainly based on the need to correct salary inequities and the concomitant need to limit the power and influence of a growing central administration over the lives of faculty members. The Faculty Associates appealed to a sense of justice in faculty members as they repeatedly referred, in their literature, to the arrogation of power to an administrative elite. Such arguments by the Faculty Associates were potentially very powerful. Much of the power of these arguments was lost, however, when the administration did not act arrogantly or flaunt its power. The administration chose to conduct business as usual and this failure to openly engage the union early in the campaign in a debate over the efficacy of collective bargaining was perhaps the single most brilliant campaign strategy employed by the administration at MSU. The aura of silence, while effective, was not absolute. The adminis­ tration did indeed speak out against the union and it did so without making a frontal attack on the union or its leaders. As it investigated the coll­ ective bargaining phenomenon at other colleges and universities, the admin- 118 istration became convinced that at several of the institutions investigated the question of who should be selected collective bargaining agent had been decided by a relatively small group of faculty members. Thus the issue of information about collective bargaining became an important aspect of the campaign. While the administration took no discernable stand, either for or against collective bargaining, it did encourage faculty members to ex­ plore the issues in the belief that an informed electorate would be more likely to vote. As a result of this tacit administration concern for the need of a thorough exploration of the issues, three events happened to help ventilate the union question. These were: 1) the establishment in March, 1971 of the Faculty Affairs Committee's Sub-committee to Study Collective Bargain­ ing and the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining, formed in January, 1972, 2) the establishment of mini-libraries in departments around campus and at the Reference Desk of the main library, 3) the emer­ gence of a group opposing collective bargaining known as the "Concerned Faculty". While none of these activities can be proven to have been ini­ tiated by the administration, those of us who were involved in the campaign on a day-to-day basis were convinced that these activities were inspired, if not conceived, by the administration. Of these three activities, the most effective in defeating the union was the "Concerned Faculty." According to a post-election analysis of the MSU campaign written by G. Gregory Lozier, the Concerned Faculty emerged five weeks before the election under the leadership of "seven faculty members" representing chemistry, psychology, home economics, soil sciences, '1 1 9 communications, art, economics, speech and audiology, and University College. 129 Lozier states that: The group's goal was to organize the "no union" support. The group sought a representative from every department on the campus, and tried to provide spokesmen at all for­ ensic sessions pertaining to the election. Printing and mailing costs and newspaper advertisements were paid for by funds raised directly from faculty donations. A total of $1,875 was collected, of which only $18 remained fol­ lowing the election. Most donations ranged from between $5 and $25. No attempts were made to collect funds from deans, department chairmen, and other administrators. The administration took no active role 1n support of the Concerned Faculty efforts. The emergence of the "Concerned Faculty" just prior to the election was devastating to the union cause. Especially effective was the publi­ cation of a full-page ad in the campus daily listing what appeared to be a vast list of supporters for the concerned faculty's anti-union position. In reality the number of names in the ad were fewer than ten percent of the eligible voters. The impact was not diminished by this fact or the fact that the names were scrambled, with some names appearing twice. To the casual reader the impression was that so many of his or her colleagues had jumped on the anti-union bandwagon that the union cause was doomed. The Faculty Affairs Sub-committee's report on collective bargaining, "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining by University Faculties," (March 9, 1971) and the Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Coll­ ective Bargaining, (January 31, 1972) received a great deal of scrutiny 129 G. Gregory Lozier, "A Classic Vote for No Representation: Michigan State University," Academic Collective Bargaining Information Service, 1818 R. Street, Washington, D.C. n.d. 130 I b i d . , p. 4. 120 from the union leaders* the administration, and a relatively few interested by-standers. From the Faculty Associates perspective, every phrase and comment in these studies that could be construed as potentially beneficial to the union cause was evaluated and analyzed in terms of possible adopt­ ion for use as union propaganda. Unfortunately, the material was rarely useful to the union. The "Impartial Review" was well balanced and sur­ prisingly impartial. The problem with it was that most of the material was bland and innocuous to the extent that it was not good grist for the Fac­ ulty Associates campaign literature mill. Perhaps the Faculty Affairs Committee's "Impartial Review" most com­ pelling pro-union data was the material provided by the MEA's research divivision showing a dramatic growth of more than fifty percent in teachers' salaries since the introduction of collective bargaining in 1965. 131 Even this information and the excellent progress made by faculty at Central Michigan University, MEA's only four-year university bargaining affiliate, was not of any real use to the Faculty Associates. Significant salary improvements as the result of collective bargaining were a given after the first few weeks of the campaign. Virtually everyone agreed that unioniza­ tion would bring about the resolution of many salary inequities. The cor- rolary argument was that the inequities that existed throughout the univer­ sity were the result of the merit system, and were as such, a reflection of one's reward in accordance with one's productivity and acceptance by one's peers. The cliche was quickly circulated about campus that unioni­ zation would have a leveling effect on salaries and the result of this 131 "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining," p. 57. 121 would be to diminish the compensation of the most meritorious and would reward the less productive members of the university community. The Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining was even more objective in its analysis of the collective bargaining di­ lemma facing the university community. This report dealt with such topics as "Bargaining Models for University Faculties," "Procedures for the Sel­ ection of Faculty Bargaining Units," and "General Elements About Collec­ tive Bargaining in Higher Education." In addition to this rather fundamen­ tal introduction to academic collective bargaining topics, the Ad Hoc Com­ mittee's study also dealt with substantive issues such as "Collective Bar­ gaining and Academic Governance," "Grievance and Job Security Under Coll­ ective Bargaining," and the "Impact of Collective Bargaining on Compensation and Correlative Work-Load." The most interesting of these to the union advocates was the section of the committee's report dealing with the impact of faculty unionism on salaries. With respect to the acknowledged problem of inequities, the Ad Hoc Committees' report had this to say: An issue is . . .whether it (the union) would bring a more equitable distribution of the salary fund among colleges, among departments within colleges, among persons at dif­ ferent ranks, and among individuals at the same rank with­ in the same department. It is charged that excessive dis­ parities presently exist in each of these cases.. It is likely that a collective bargaining situation would bring some significant movement in the direction of actual equality of salary within academic ranks. . . .It should be recognized that collective bargaining would probably not bring an immediate or wholesale leveling of s a l a r i e s . ^ 132 Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining, January 13, 1972, pp. 25-26. 122 This reference to the "leveling of salaries" as a result of collective bargaining and the subsequent comment that: On balance, salary determination under collective bargain­ ing would probably include merit and market considerations, but they would most likely be applied in such a way as to create smaller salary differentials than if collective bar­ gaining did not exist, As the campaign progressed, the leveling effect arguments became harmful to the Faculty Associates cause. This harm was not the result of any mal­ icious intent on the part of the Ad Hoc Committee; it was rather the re­ sult of the anti-union propagandists who capitalized on the power of the "leveling" argument and repeated it wherever possible in print and in person. This emphasis on the leveling effect of unions had a magic appeal to the campus elitists of whom there were many since the university's fac­ ulty had 71 percent of its members in the tenure stream and 56 percent, or 1 , 2 0 0 faculty were tenured. 134 The Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining Report did an excellent job of setting forth the differences between the contending organizations, i.e.., the AAUP and the MEA-NEA affiliate, MSU Faculty Assoc­ iates. The AAUP announced in the Spring of 1971 that it would seek signed union authorization cards from a minimum of ten percent of the faculty, so that it could intervene if the Faculty Associates were successful in their attempt to gain thirty percent of the faculty's signatures in order to file for the election as FA had announced it would do in February of 1971. 133 Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee, p. 26. 134 Lozier, "A Classic Vote," p. 5. 123 It was this "me-too" posture the AAUP found itself in that was reflect­ ed rather well in the Ad Hoc Committee's Report. With regard to the AAUP's reluctance to enter the collective bargaining arena, the Report had this to say: Although in the past the AAUP had been against collective bargaining for faculty, even to the extent of opposing the inclusion of professors in the State laws granting bargaining rights to public employees, in the last two years the association has modified its stand and now states that collective bargaining, "properly used" is another means to achieve the association's ends. The selective support of collective bargaining by its affiliates indicates a realistic appraisal of the AAUP's resources, as well as a concern about the appropriate­ ness of collective bargaining . ^ 5 With respect to the NEA-MEA affiliate, Faculty Associates, the Ad Hoc Committee acknowledged that both organizations had modified their views to favor collective bargaining: The MEA-FA has among its objectives the promotion of the goals of the profession in higher education, pro­ motion and improvement of the economic status of mem­ bers, an equitable salary structure, securing an un­ derstanding among the public of the roles and problems of higher education, and securing a faculty share in the determination of educational policy.^g This and the Committee's other comments about the Faculty Associates were fair and to some extent flattering. The impact of these statements, how­ ever, were not great beyond their use by the respective organizations to selectively quote those portions of the report that refelcted well upon the organization seeking faculty approval. The establishment of mini-libraries in strategic locations around 135 Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee, pp. 32-33. 136 Ibid., p. 34. 124 the campus was believed by the leadership of the Faculty Associates to have been inspired by the administration. proved or disproved. This allegation of course cannot be If, however, one accepts the premise that the Faculty Affairs Committee is in some aspects an extension of the administration, then some credence can be given to this point of view. In any event, the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining made the following statement regarding the establishment of mini-libraries: Mini-libraries of relevant and high calibre materials on collective bargaining were established in several locations on campus and faculty members were encouraged to study them for themselves . ^ 7 The faculty response to the Faculty Associates's avowed goal of estab­ lishing a collective bargaining unit is fairly well summarized above in terms of the polarity that evolved between those faculty members who fav­ ored the perpetuation of the status quo and those who wished to overturn it and introduce a new faculty centered governance system in the form of collective bargaining. Another way of viewing the polarity between faculty for and against collective bargaining would be to distinguish between the elitists and the pragmatic idealists. In any event, the faculty were busy ventiliating the subject and the administration was remaining silent--or was it? What seemed to be an official policy of administrative silence on the topic of collective bargaining was to come to an abrupt end during the final few weeks of the campaign. After nearly fifteen months of silence, from February, 1971 through the early summer of 1972, the administration broke 137 Report of Ad Hoc University Committee, Preface, p. ii. 125 its unofficial silence. According to Lozier, "the most critical feature of the election was the public statements issued by the university's provost and president reserved for the few weeks just prior to the election." 138 Lozier observed that: Three aspects of these statements (by Provost Cantlon and President Wharton) were significant. First, although ad­ mitting that they could operate with a faculty union, the president and provost conveyed in these statements their perceptions of the trade-offs between traditional forms of faculty-administration relationships and the collective bargaining process. Second, by not remaining silent during the election campaign, the administration hoped to stifle rumors that it tacitly preferred collective bargaining over traditional forms of faculty-administration relationships. Third, if the statements by the president and provost were to have any impact upon the election, proximity to the date of the actual election was imperative. Accordingly, the administration's public statements were not issued until the final intensive weeks of the election campaign.13g From inside the union the continued silence of the administration was at first seen as an ominous threat to the Faculty Associates' anticipated success on election day. This silence on the part of the University's chief administrators was however soon exploited by the union. As Lozier observed, rumors were indeed circulated by the Faculty Associates. Among these was the rumor that President Wharton really would welcome a union to deal with as an alternative to the complex and inefficient system of rep­ resentation then in existence. The circulation of such rumors by the Fac­ ulty Associates and their friends was not really so perverse as it may seem, since after a while, the strategists for the union began to believe that the president was indeed leaning toward collective bargaining as an alter­ native to the existing governance system. 138 Lozier, p. 6. 139 Ibid. 126 Indeed, the administration had been tinkering with the university's governance system during the period when the election was impending. Begin­ ning in 1971 a move was initiated by the administration to totally revise the university's governance system. The fact that such a revision was con­ temporaneous with the collective bargaining drive is perhaps merely coin­ cidental. Nonetheless, this writer strongly doubts that it was done with­ out some anticipation of the effects of such a move on the drive to union­ ize the faculty. The first move was to revise the academic governance sys­ tem through the establishment of a stronger Faculty Affiars and Faculty Compensation Committee (FAFCC). The members of the FAFCC after the revision were to be elected by the various college faculties and the chairperson was to be elected by university vote. Since the Faculty Affairs and Faculty Compensation Committee would by its charge be dealing with matters routinely handled through the collective bargaining process, this committee represented a very palatable substitute for the collective bargaining alternative to many fencesitters. Unfortunately the FAFCC was by its very nature powerless since it is merely advisory and can in no way reach legally binding contractual agree­ ments as is the case where collective bargaining is present. Nonetheless, the establishment of the FAFCC and the egalitarian method for electing its members dealt a deadly blow to those who were advocating that a faculty union would create a more equitable and effective means for dealing with faculty affairs and compensation. If the establishment of the FAFCC were not enough, the administration had yet another lethal blow waiting for the union advocates in the form of 127 a new grievance procedure which was unveiled in 1972. The new grievance procedure would permit review of most administrative actions, including the non-renewal of probationary faculty members. Another perhaps equally im­ portant aspect of the new grievance procedure was the creation of a Faculty Grievance Officer. The FGO was, according to the new procedure, to be selected on the recommendation of the FAFCC and was to function in ombud­ sman style, independent of the administration. The new grievance procedure was in the process of being implemented during the final months of the collective bargaining campaign. This imple­ mentation process became a problem to the union because it forced the Fac­ ulty Associates to oppose a process that most union sympathizers would fav­ or if the collective bargaining option were not available. In other words, the proposed grievance procedure forced the union to oppose a system it would, had an election not been pending, have favored at least inprinciple. Accordingly, on May 17, 1972 the Faculty Associates circulated the follow­ ing news release setting forth the union's rationale for opposing the pro­ posed grievance procedure: This statement is issued in order to explain why the Michigan State University Faculty Associates (MSUFA) is presenting an alternative to the grievance proced­ ure recommended to the Board by the Academic Council and the Administration. There are several reasons: 1) To date the press has carried very little concerning the discussion of a very important issue, namely the definition of a grievance, in the various faculty governance bodies. 2) Academic council consideration of an alterna­ tive definition of a grievance was very limited. As far as our information goes, the Ad Hoc Committee which drafted the grievance procedures gave no con- 128 sideration to the concept of "just cause" as part of the definition of a grievance. Apparently it gave little or no consideration to an alternative definition using in effect the "just cause" termin­ ology as proposed by one of the college drafters. The "just cause" issue was given a hearing by the Steering Committee but the time pressure was so great in view of the lengthy discussion of another item, "participation by the tenure committee", that there was no opportunity for deliberative consider­ ation at that level. The chairman of the Steering Committee, however, did call the attention of those proposing the amendment to their right to present the amendment at an Elected Faculty Council meeting. This was done but due to certain parliamentary maneuvers, the council member who wanted to introduce the amendment was not able to get consideration for it. He was allowed to make a motion to adopt the amendment in the Academic Council meeting, where with Administrators and students voting as well as the faculty representatives, the amendment was defeated after a short discussion. Just before the vote against the adoption it would result in a cases and thus would the Provost spoke out strongly of the amendment arguing that flood of "frivolous" grievance be too costly to administer. This argument was in contrast with an argument proposed by another university official with an argument to the effect that the unamended lan­ guage would permit appeal of "unjust" cases as abuses of an administrative discretion. There was no opportunity during this part of the dis­ cussion for the proponents of the amendment to ask the Provost for his comparison of the costs of administering the amended language with the estimated costs of not having it. In our judgment the faculty grievance procedures enforced in this transaction have manifestly failed to give deliberative consideration to the most important issue in the whole document: What sort of questions can be brought forward for determination under the procedure? This is supposed to be a faculty proposal to the 129 Administration and to the Board of Trustees. If they think it is a bad idea, they can say so. However, we would not expect— or want— anyone to vote for the am­ endment if they think that, even if it were good for the faculty, it would be bad for the University as a whole; and in the long run those who make this pro­ posal hold themselves to this test. In our judgment the elected Faculty Council and the Ad Hoc Committee have not fulfilled very well their obligations of representing the needs and expectations of the faculty to the administration, rather the ad­ ministration to the faculty. The kind of events described above is a good example of why a substantial part of our faculty have lost confidence in so-called "faculty governance" in part because they perceive these bodies as largely a pat­ rician gerontocracy which pussyfoots in its repre­ sentation to the administration to the extent that its role as faculty advocate has become obsolete. 140 In a burst of objectivity, the MSU News Bulletin, the University's house organ for faculty and administration, carried the following page three article based on the Faculty Associates May 17 news release: MSUFA OPPOSES PROCEDURES The MSU Faculty Associates has announced that it will present an alternative to the proposed faculty grievance procedures that the Board of Trustees is to consider Friday. The MSUFA said it opposes the procedures as they now stand because it is concerned over the absence of "just cause" in the definition of a grievance. The group said in a statement that consideration has not been given to the issue of the sort of questions that can be raised for determination under the procedures. "In our judgment" the statement says, "the Elected Faculty Council and the Ad Hoc Committee (that drafted the pro­ cedures) have not fulfilled very well their obligations of representing the needs and expectations of the faculty to the administration. . ." 140 MSUFA News Release, May 17, 1972. MEA Office of Higher Education. 141 MSU News-Bulletin, May 18, 1972, p. 3. 130 Clearly, the administration was not eager to present the Faculty Assoc­ iates rationale on the metter of the proposed new grievance procedure, otherwise the MSU News-Bulletin might have been expected to carry more than five obscure paragraphs on the subject. Even though the Faculty Associates were somewhat successful in chal­ lenging the proposed new grievance procedure at forensic sessions around the campus, and through editorial comment in the State N e w s the studentrun campus daily, the inevitable effect of the proposed grievance procedure was to offer an acceptable alternative to any grievance system that might be developed through the collective bargaining process. While the administration and faculty leaders who opposed collective bargaining were busy pre-empting the union's moves on issues such as the internal governance of the university, the Faculty Associates were busy during the final weeks of the campaign with an intensive door-knocking, mailbox-stuffing, telephone-jangling election drive. This intensive sat­ uration of the campus during the final weeks of the campaign was, in retro­ spect, a grave tactical error. It was an error mainly because the office calls, and other such contacts with individual faculty members were con­ ducted by members of the Michigan and National Education rather than by faculty members. Association staff The carpetbagger syndrome was present from the very beginning of the campaign, but had been largely overcome un­ til the decision was made internally at the MEA headquarters that what was needed to supplement a perceived insufficiency of faculty volunteers was . a massive infusion of association staff. By the time the staff writers, public relations people, and others 131 arrive on the scene, it may be that the election was already irrevocably lost. Paradoxically, the effect of the presence of the vast resources of the state and national organizations was a clear detriment to the cause of faculty unionism at MSU. The union's opponents were given another issue; this time they were able to claim that the union drive at MSU was the result of the teachers' organization deciding that MSU was a conven­ ient target to organize, then proceeding in accordance with that decision without regard for the opinions of those being organized. The forces to defeat the union in the final stages of the campaign were smug, selfassured and at times possessed of a spirit akin to religious zeal. The great university on the banks of the Red Cedar was under siege by a power­ ful, crass union, and it had to be defeated. And defeated it was. The election was conducted as scheduled on October 23-24, 1972 and collective bargaining at Michigan State University was overwhelmingly defeated by the following vote: NO UNION 1213 MSU FACULTY ASSOCIATES 438 MSU CHAPTER AAUP 280 There were 2540 eligible voters, of which 82% voted in the two day election. SUMMARY The legacy of the unsuccessful attempt to organize the faculty at MSU in 1971-72 was more than a defeated union. In the heat of the 141 Michigan Employee Relations Commission, "Certificate of Election Results," Office of Higher Education, Michigan Education Association, East Lansing, Michigan. 132 campaign, leaders were produced who were interested in continuing their activities even though they knew their task would be difficult. Outstand­ ing among these leaders was Philip Korth, a labor historian in University college, Department of American Thought and Language, and Mary Tomkins and Gladys Beckwith also of American Thought and Language. All were capable and effective strategists during the campaign, and continued to expend their energies and expertise on behalf of the faculty even after the defeat of MSUFA in the union election of 1972. Indeed, Professors Beckwith, Korth, and subsequently John H. Seuhr of the College of Educa­ tion, as officers of the Faculty Associates, carried on the cause of faculty unionism with such vigor that authorization cards were again circulated in 1977. The lessons of the October, 1972 election at MSU were: 1) To succeed, a unionization attempt must be supported by and originated among a representative body of faculty who can influence their colleagues. 2) To succeed a unionization attempt must be responsive to pre-existing issues and those involved in the attempt should not assume that campaign issues can be manufactured. 3) To succeed an attempt to unionize should not rely on paid professional staff and outside organizers to do the routine campaign work such as making office calls, conducting telephone canvasses and the like. CHAPTER V THE 1978 MSU ELECTION A CASE STUDY The decision to recirculate union authorization cards at Michigan State was not, as it may have appeared to some a visceral move. While the 1971-72 campaign had produced a stunning defeat for academic collec­ tive bargaining, that campaign had also produced some extremely sophis­ ticated faculty unibn strategists, who carefully developed and imple­ mented their plans for establishing a faculty union at MSU in 1978. Gladys Beckwith, Bruce Curtis, Philip Korth, John Hildebrand, Eugene Huddleston, John Suehr and Mary Tomkins formed the nucleus of this group. The 1972 attempt to unionize had also stimulated the interest of William Ewens, who joined Phil Korth and Bruce Curtis to form a new nucleus of leaders for the 1977-78 effort. The triumvirate of Curtis, Ewens and Korth divided the labor with Curtis as editor of the Faculty Associates newsletter, and Ewens and Korth along with several other faculty members contributing material. Ewens and Korth were to become the grand strate­ gists for the campaign. John Suehr had also joined the new neucleus and as president of MSUFA in 1977-78 he provided counsel and lent the pres­ tige of his name to the unionizing effort. Ewens and Korth were brilliant strategists. Korth had learned much about the mind of his colleagues with respect to the collective bargain­ ing issue during the previous campaign. Ewens, while not active in the previous campaign, seemed to know instinctively what would or would not 133 134 work as a campaign strategem. Having been scorched at the polls in 1972, the MEA was not particularly eager to engage in another embarassing defeat. Aware of MEA's reluctance, Ewens and Korth conceived a plan for unionizing the faculty and skillfully presented their plan orally and in writing to me and iry superiors at the MEA. We were convinced that there was good reason to once more pursue the goal of securing collective bargaining rights for faculty at MSU. The rationale necessary to get the MEA in a supportive mood for another adventure at MSU emanated mainly from Bill Ewens, in the form of demographic studies, prognostications based on his studies of faculty attitudes, and specific implementation plans augmented by the necessary support data. In the production of such data, Ewens proved to be extremely proficient and his technical competence was admir­ able. Armed with the necessary support data to convince the decision makers at the MEA, and surrounded with an aura of confidence and enthu­ siasm, Bill Ewens and Phil Korth received the committment of the MEA in early March of 1977 to again sponsor an attempt to unionize their coll­ eagues at MSU. This time there were to be differences in the level of the MEA's committment. Logistical support, including reproduction and mailing of literature, access to the MEA computer service, and secretarial assistance would be provided by my office. The MEA would also be willing to fund special requests if in the Association's view they were meritorious. The MEA was not committed to provide additional staff, as it had in the last campaign, to write campaign literature, provide public relations assistance, draft and disseminate opinion polls, and make personal and telephone con­ tacts. Moreover, the National Education Association staff would not 135 participate at all. 142 truly grass-roots. The thrust of the 1977-78 campaign was to be The MEA's involvement was to be low profile so as to avoid the appearance of the campaign being another organizing mission originated by the MEA, as was the case in 1972. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 1978 AND THE 1972 ELECTIONS Perhaps the one most significant difference was mentioned in the above section. That difference was the level of involvement of the National Education Association and the Michigan Education Association. The involvement of the NEA, beyond the assistance provided by its staff person, Barbara Bordwell, was nil. The committment of the MEA during the second attempt to organize the faculty at MSU was as strong as it had been during the previous campaign in terms of moral support, but considerably less than it had previously been in terms of logistical support. This difference in terms of financial assistance from the parent organization to the local was reflected in a memo dated May 30, 1978 to my supervisor at the MEA. In part, the mamo read: One difference between this and the 1972 organizing campaign can be seen in the extent to which staff and fiscal resources were utilized. In the 1972 campaign, staff was used extensively and the results were similar in terms of votes, but radically different in terms of the organizational structure that survived after the ballots were counted. Following the 1978 campaign, 142 Throughout the 1971-72 campaign, the NEA provided full-time staff assistance, funding, and logistical support. The 1977-78 cam­ paign was conducted without such support from the NEA- with the excep­ tion of the help provided by Barbara Bordwell during the final weeks of the campaign. Ms. Bordwell worked directly with Faculty Associates leadership in the get-out-the-vote aspect of the election campaign. 136 we have a strong sense of faculty ownership of the organisation, (Faculty Associates) that is capable of mounting an organizing campaign at will. We have credibility on campus, and given sufficient threat to the senior faculty members, we will see a move to unionism, and we are the incumbent union. If MSU should again seek bargaining rights, the faculty will be able to handle most of the organizing work and we should be able to again provide logistical and consultative service to the faculty organizers. This time at MSU, the trend of the 1972 campaign toward saturation with staff and materials was re­ versed. The only staff used was the Higher Education Organizer on a part time basis and an NEA staffer for the final three weeks on the campaign. 143 Another important difference between the 1978 and the 1972 elec­ tion- was that of the changes that occurred in the governance system at the university. As mentioned above in the analysis of the 1972 campaign, the administration succeeded in establishing a more egali­ tarian grievance procedure wherein the position of Faculty Grievance Officer was established and staffed by a campus personality with wellknown liberal tendencies . * 4 4 The liberal Faculty Grievance Officer had, prior to the 1978 election, vociferously defended collective bargaining as an alternative to the old grievance system; however, upon selection as FGO, Professor Larrowe made a turnabout and publicly opposed coll­ ective bargaining on the eve of the 1978 election. This change of heart 143 Bill Owen, MSU Election Final Report. Inter-office memorandum, Michigan Education Association Headquarters, East Lansing, MI, May 30, 1978. 144 Economics Professor Charles P. Larrowe favored unionization in 1972, yet withheld endorsement of either Faculty Associates or the AAUP, • claiming neither organization was strong enough. As Faculty Grievance Officer, Larrowe switched his support and publicly favored the revised grievance system, with a faculty grievance officer, over the collective bargaining alternative. 137 did not go unnoticed by the increasingly pro-union student newspaper. In a week when the State News editorials were giving strong support to the unionization of faculty, Larrowe, in a satirical column, managed to con­ found those who thought the well-known campus liberal would back the fac­ ulty union movement. An excerpt from the column illustrates the ambiguity of his position, and the assertion that "1 percent of all salaries" would go for union dues was seen by many as very damaging to the union cause. "It's this faculty union," he says. "Some of the boys over in the department say that after all the years of you being pro-union on campus, you sold out to the ad­ ministration. " "What makes 'em say or think that?" I snarls. "It's all those letters in the State News," he says. "They say you're against collective bargaining because you're too cheap to pay 1 percent of your salary in union dues." "What's a union goin’ to do for me?" I asks. "I'm already pullin' down heavy bread." "Isn't that Self-centered for you, Lash?" he asks. "You're sitting there with your tenure and your fatcat FGO salary and all you think about is hanging on to a lousy 1 percent of your salary. What about all the brothers and sisters who're groveling under the heel of the arrogant administrators and their lackeys and straw bosses who call the shots in the "U"?" "Did you think about those folks, Lash, when you told the State News the "U" doesn't need a faculty union?" 144 The debate over the Faculty Grievance Officer's defection was more a symptom of the problem confronting the Faculty Associates than a prob­ in and of itself. Professor Larrowe's apparent disenchantment with collective bargaining notwithstanding, the Faculty Associates needed to deal with the reality of a grievance procedure that was perceived 144 'Lash' Larrowe, "Say It Ain't So, Lash," Editorial Page, State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 22, 1978. 138 by a substantial number of faculty to be capable of serving faculty as well as any grievance procedure that might be incorporated in a collec­ tive bargaining agreement. In retrospect it appears that the administration's moves to lib­ eralize the grievance procedure paid off. In the Welcome Week issue of the State News that appeared in the fall term following the May 24-25 election, the editorial comment on the grievance procedure was : Many who are anti-union insist there are a few problems to be worked out and there are currently accessible channels in which to change the necessary wrongs. These faculty point to the existence of the faculty grievance officer— the stronghold of in-house arbitration. The officer, appointed by the administration, handles all faculty grievances by following the guidelines set up by the 1972 Interim Faculty Grievance Procedure. Although all faculty agree that the current pro­ cedure is inadequate, and are struggling to ini­ tiate a new one, many feel that it can and does serve faculty as well as collective bargaining would. 145 In this same article, the statement was made that a new grievance procedure was being hammered out and that the Faculty Council consid­ ered an improved grievance procedure a major consideration in the Fall of 1978. The student writer correctly observed that "even this limited power is reduced because the provost has ultimate veto power over every council d e c i s i o n . " ^ As the above discussion illustrates, the differences between the 145 Michelle Chambers, "The Union Strikes Out," State News, Welcome Week Edition, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Fall, 1978, p. A 12. 146 Ibid. 139 71-72 and the 77-78 elections, beyond the previously mentioned reduced level of committment of the parent organizations and the establishment of a faculty grievance officer for the university, were virtually nil. The issues in 1972 were salaries and governance, and the issues in 1978 were salaries and governance. Governance was an issue, and Faculty Associates were offering collective bargaining as an alternative to the centralized system of decision-making that had evolved with the rap id growth in the size of the institution and the concurrent and dis­ proportionately large growth in the size of the administrative staff. Salaries were an omnipresent issue. Everyone was aware of the losses suffered by faculty in terms of inflation-eroded buying power and most faculty members were aware of the phenomenal successes of the MEA in achieving salary improvements for K-12 teachers, community col­ lege professors, and to a lesser degree, faculty members at organized state-supported colleges and universities. The question remaining to be answered was whether faculty would be more receptive to the collec­ tive bargaining alternative as a means for dealing with these problems than it was in 1972. THE CAMPAIGN PLAN Professor William Ewens developed several sets of campaign plans all of which were based to a degree on the "Kasten Plan". In his Plans for the Coming Election Campaign, Dated August 9, 1977, Dr. Ewens described the implications of the "Kasten Plan" for the Michigan State University bargaining campaign as follows: Our primary strategy is built upon a targeting system in which we seek to identify and categorize potential 140 faculty voters by the degree of their support for FA, and then concentrate on building up a turnout among persons who we regard as probable supporters instead of building a high overall voter turnout. 147 The Kasten Plan as described by Ewens in his Plans for the Coming El­ ection was excerpted as follows from "The Republicans: Bouncing Back After '76 Defeat," In These Times, July 20-26, 1977, p. 5: (Republican) conservatives are also unrestrained in their enthusiasm for the Kasten plan, a campaign system developed in 1974 by Robert Kasten, who was elected to the House from Wisconsin that year. Many of the elements of the plan had been used by others before Kasten, notably liberal Rep. Robert F. Drinan (D-Mass) in his first House campaign in 1970. Essentially it is a targeting system. Cam­ paign workers seek to identify and categorize potent­ ial voters by the degree of their support, and then concentrate on building up the turnout among people regarded as friendly. There is no effort to build up a high overall turnout. 148 In essence, William Ewens with the advice and counsel and of Philip Korth other faculty members, had developed a detailed grass-roots elec­ tion campaign based on the Kasten Plan for targeting the supporters and potential supporters and ignoring all others insofar as that is possible. To implement this plan a Steering Committee headed by Prof­ essors Ewens, Korth, and Suehr was established and much of the work of the Steering Committee during the early phases of the campaign was to get the organization in place and functioning. In order to accom­ plish the goal of developing an infrastructure engendered and prolif­ erated by the Steering Committee, Ewens provided the Faculty Associates 147 William Ewens, "Plans for the Coming Election Campaign," II Analysis and General Strategies, p. 3. MEA Office of Higher Education. 148 Ibid., Appendix E, p. 15. 141 with the following demographic analyses of the potential voters in the bargaining unit. The first charting appears below: College: The number and proportion of eligible faculty voters by college are listed below. COLLEGE NUMBER PERCENT Agriculture and Natural Resources 236 9.1% Arts and Letters 275 10.6% Business 112 4.3% 66 2.6% Education 254 9.8% Engineering 107 4.1% Human Ecology 87 3.4% Human Medicine 269 10.4% James Madison 12 0.5% Justin Morrill 20 0.8% Lyman Eriggs 29 1.1% Natural Science 476 18.4% Social Science 225 8.7% University College 200 7.7% Urban Development 26 1.0% Libraries 76 2.9% Communication Arts 149 Demographic Analysis of MSU Faculty, Appendix A, Plans for the Spring Election Campaign, MEA Office of Higher Education, East Lansing, Michigan. 142 The Steering Committee was also provided with a list of the eighteen colleges within the university ranked by card signers: COLLEGES RANKED BY PROPORTION OF CARD SIGNERS NUMBER OF CARDS NUMBER IN COLLEGE PERCENTAGE CARD SIGNERS 124 200 62 % 12 58 % 26 46 % 20 45 % 102 275 37 % Libraries 27 76 36 % College of Social Science 64 225 28 % College of Education 59 254 23 % Lyman Briggs College 6 29 21 College of Human Ecology 16 87 18 % College of Natural Science 75 476 16 % College of Business 17 112 15 % College of Communication 9 66 14 % College of Osteopathic Medicine 8 75 11 % College of Engineering 9 107 8 % 17 236 7 % 18 269 7 % 2 40 5 % COLLEGE University College James Madison College College of Urban Development Justin Morrill College College of Arts & Letters College of Agriculture & Natural Resources College of Human Medicine College of Veterinary Medicine 7 12 9 % 150 B. 150 William Ewens, Plans for the Spring Election Campaign, Appendix MEA Office of Higher Education, East Lansing, Michigan. 151 For a complete copy of the campaign plan, see Appendix E. 143 It was from this background information that much of the campaign strategy evolved with respect to the implementation of the Kasten ap­ proach to organization at Michigan State University. For example, the above data about the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the College of Business and Graduate School of Business Administration, the College of Engineering, the Colleges; of Human, Osteopathic, and Vet­ erinary Medicine, would lead the leadership of the Faculty Associates to the inescapable conclusion that if they were to win, the medical schools should be excluded from the bargaining unit, and the other colleges where support was weak or non-existent should be treated with circumspection. The demographic material provided the Steering Committee by Ewens also made it clear that, as suspected, the support for collective bargaining among faculty at MSU continued to be focused in a few places such as the College of Social Science, the residential colleges, and University College. With this information in mind, the Steering Committee proceeded to implement its plan to focus on the supporters and ignore those who 152 The issue of bargaining unit definitions in this dissertation has not been treated in depth because the unit question is itself a topic for a separate dissertation. This study will suffice to say that Faculty Associates recognized the need to delete the Colleges of Medi­ cine from the bargaining unit and tried vigorously to persuade the Michigan Employment Relations Commission that there was not a community of interest between medical college faculties and the rest of the uni­ versity community. These arguments were made to no avail since the outcome of the formal hearings conducted on this matter (and on the ques­ tion of whether department chairpersons should be included in the unit) ' was finally decided in favor of the University. Chairpersons were ex­ cluded, and the faculties from the medical colleges were included in the bargaining unit upon which faculty voted in May, 1978. 144 were hostile and/or non-supportive. This strategy was due in part to the bitter experience the organization had during the 1971-72 campaign with the emergence of adversarial groups such as the "Concerned Faculty" 153 and the "Committee for Maintaining an Excellent University." An important aspect of the plan to communicate with only the supporters of collective bargaining and to ignore and thereby not alienate those who opposed it was the MSU Faculty Associates newsletter. A decision was made early-on in the campaign to use the newsletter in lieu of volunteers augmented by association staff assigned to the task of knocking on doors and calling people on the telephone, as was the case in the 1971-72 campaign. The 1978 campaign was to be discreet and low-profile. The campaign literature was to be thoughtful, polite, and loaded with power­ ful anti-administration material to be consumed mainly by supporters and potential supporters. Those who were indignant about the prospect of a collective bargaining agent coming to campus were to be ignored. Those who were supportive or at least judged to be potentially supportive were to be communicated with through the newsletter and through discreet per­ sonal contacts from leaders of Faculty Associates. The newsletter, under the responsible editorship of Bruce Curtis of the department of American Thought and Language, produced reasoned, well-researched articles in sup­ port of collective bargaining, and was the primary vehicle of communica­ tion during the campaign. 153 The "Concerned Faculty" has been dealt with in an earlier chapter; the "Committee for Maintaining an Excellent University" was a similar group sponsored by Thomas G. Moore and James B. Ramsey of the Department of Economics. This group, like the Concerned Faculty, solicited funds and volunteers to help in presenting the "other side" of the union question. 145 Just as critical as the newsletter content was the method of dis­ tribution. The MEA, upon the recommendation of Ewens developed a four- level mailing list consisting of: LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL I Friends and Known Supporters II Potential Supporters III Hostiles/Opponents IV The Entire University Faculty As a rule, the newsletter would be distributed only to II faculty. Level I and Level Internal union communications and information we wished to be disseminated by word of mouth were distributed solely to Level I supporters. Level III (opponents) were almost universally ignored. Even so it was comforting to know that should we so desire, the organ­ ization had the capability to communicate selectively with the faculty known to be hostile. The Level IV mailing list, including all faculty, was reserved for the distribution of literature and announcements that were non-controversial in nature and were therefore less likely to eli­ cit anti-union responses on the editorial pages of the State News, or to stimulate a hysterical reaction to collective bargaining, as was the case when the Concerned Faculty and the Committee for Maintaining an Excellent University sprang forth in 1971-72. CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES The campaign centered around the following activities as planned by the Steering Committee: I. General Strategies A. Targeting: concentrate efforts on probable and known supporters rather than encourage a high composite voter turnout 146 II. III. B. Goals for Initial Election: (this assumes a runoff election) 1 ) decisively defeat AAUP 2) provoke a runoff election with "no-agent" C. Utilize informal communications networks and personal relationships among faculty members to proliferate supporters and to get them to the polls on election day D. Use the bargaining unit dispute over the inclusion of department heads and the exclusion of the medical colleges as a delaying tactic so that we might expect an election in the Spring of 1978. Do not allow the administration to rush us into a quick election. The Media Campaign A. Goals: seek through media exposure to increase name recognition for Faculty Associates 2) seek to convince faculty that Faculty Associates could actually win the election 3) seek to convince the faculty that we are a competent and powerful organization B. Techniques: 1) mall distribution of newsletter and other pro-FA literature 2 ) participation in local television public interest programs and editorial comment opportunities. Use Chan­ nel II, the public access station 3) design and distribute FA wall posters using our slogan "In Unity There is Strength" 4 ) distribute campaign buttons and bumper stickers to supporters C. Implementation: 1) Newsletter committee 2) Media relations committee 3) Steering committee The People to People Campaign A. Goals: 1) seek to develop a sense of increased committment and feelings of personal ownership of our organization by potential supporters 2 ) build a grass-roots campaign organization utilizing the informal networks and friendship ties which presently exist among faculty B. Techniques: 1) schedule departmental meetings 2 ) encourage special interest group meetings (e.g., women and minorities) 3) schedule gatherings in the homes of supporters 147 3) solicit support from specialists and temporaries and make these individuals feel welcome within the framework of Faculty Associates C. Implementation: IV. Platform, Policies, and Governance A. Major activities: 1) develop and disseminate a Plat­ form Statement for the Faculty Associates (see the Appendix for the final platform of MSUFA) 2) dev­ elop "broadsides" position papers on governance and related issues 3) develop and disseminate Faculty Associates legislative goals B. Implementation: V. 1) Organizing committee 2) Specialists/temporaries committee 3) Steering committee 1) Platform committee 2) Steering committee MSU Board of Trustees A. Major activities: 1 ) initiate personal contacts with each member of the Board of Trustees 2) keeptrustees informed about the Faculty Associates campaign activities 3) seek to neutralize the Board on the issue of coll­ ective bargaining and seek a policy statement from the Board to this effect (this qoal was accomplished in March, 1978) B. Implementation: VI. 1) 2) Trustees committee Steering committee General Campaign Organizational Structure A. Faculty comittees: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6 ) Newsletter committee Media relations committee Organizing committee Specialists/temporaries committee Platform committee Trustees committee B. All committees will report to the Steering committee which will oversee the general operation of the cam­ paign, and will set policy C. MEA Staff assistance: 1) professional staff assist­ ance in development and implementation of campaign strategies 2 ) logistical support from clerical, office, and technical staff 148 All of the above goals were pursued by the Steering Committee with great vigor. Some were utter failures, and others were notable successes. Perhaps the most satisfying of these was the liaison established by the Faculty Associates with the MSU Board of Trustees. The goal of the Steering committee was met as each member of the Board of Trustees was contacted by a delegation of Faculty Associates on an informal basis. The net result of these unofficial meetings was to create a familiarity between the leadership of Faculty Associates and Board members that was at once threatening to the administration and useful to the leaders of Faculty Associates, who ultimately succeeded in getting the Board to pass a resolution declaring official neutrality on the part of the university and its administration throughout the 1978 collective bargaining campaign. Another very successful aspect of the campaign strategy was the Faculty Associates newsletter, kept intentionally simple and unostenta­ tious in design and factual and serious in content, so that it would project an image of a locally produced communication created by faculty for faculty, rather than the slick product of the powerful but nonindigenous MEA. The newsletters, strongly issue-oriented,were produced monthly over a period of approximately two years and kept the faculty unionization movement alive up to the time of the election. A sampling of newsletters are included in Appendix F. THE 1978 ELECTION The goal set in the Fall of 1977 to delay the election until the Spring of 1978 was realized, and the election date was set by the 149 Michigan Employment Relations Commission for May 24-25, 1978. As election day approached, the Steering Committee and others close to the Faculty Associates became increasingly convinced that their goals were close to being realized. Specifically, the strategy to focus on sup­ porters and potential supporters had produced a fine nucleus of union supporters and campaign workers consisting of well over one hundred faculty members from virtually every department of the university. This nucleus group was responsive when called upon for help with the myriad of tasks to be performed, such as stuffing envelopes and distributing literature in the last days of the campaign. Another favorable development was the editorial support for the Faculty Associates coming from the State News. On May 24, the first day of the two-day election, the State News carried a lengthy editorial in support of faculty collective bargaining in general, and Faculty Associates as the agent in particular. The editorial read in part: The burgeoning bureaucracy at this University has of necessity become very top heavy with administrative personnel, both in non-academic and academic areas. This has resulted in a further insulation of profes­ sors from input or control at MSU. While it can be argued that professors are not here to provide input or make decisions but are here instead to provide a service only— to teach, to do research— this then relegates them to the positions of mere employees, with no management responsibili­ ties. If this is the case, there should be no argument that professors not only have the right, but should engage in union activities, if for no other reason than for their own welfare and preservation. If it is instead admitted that professors should have some typically management-level responsibili­ ties, then it should also be admitted that MSU falls woefully short of actualizing this belief: 150 * In the selection of chairpersons for schools and departments, faculty members--even though the posi­ tion is generally chosen from their number— have only an advisory role in the selection. The same holds true for selection of deans of colleges. * Although faculty members have their own council, veto power is held by the provost— this even though all decisions made by Faculty Council must go to Academic Council, which is also chaired by the pro­ vost. * In the area of wages, faculty salaries have in general barely kept pace with inflation since 1972, and in some years have fallen behind. * In the present University grievance procedure, the president is the last step in the internal pro­ cess. Since college deans and chairpersons, against whom many of the grievances are brought, are consid­ ered as much a part of the administration as the president, it seems incongrous that the president be allowed the final word on the matter. 154 Asserting that the "AAUP was dragged in on the coattails of the Faculty Associates" the State News lent its editorial endorsement for bargain­ ing agent to Faculty Associates: The FA has been the group pushing hard for union­ ization, and its affiliation with the Michigan Education Association— with its strong lobby and legislative clout— should add needed strength to the bargaining position of its members. If the FA were to win the election, it would give faculty members the chance to sit with administra­ tors and attempt to work out their disagreements. It may be only a chance, but even that seems better than having only the alternatives the administra­ tion grants them now. 155 154 "Vote Union For a Chance: FA's Deserve the Support," State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 24, l9?8. 155 I b i d . 151 Despite the obvious success of the Faculty Associates strategy to build a central core of supporters, and to contain the no-union activists, and the favorable comment— bordering on admiration— from the State News notwithstanding, the election was held on Wednesday and Thursday, May 24 and 25, 1978, with the following results: POTENTIAL VOTERS 2700 BALLOTS CAST 2006 CHALLENGED BALLOTS 144 SPOILED BALLOTS 3 AAUP 289 MSU FACULTY ASSOCIATES 476 NEITHER 1097 For the second time spanning a period of six years, faculty unionism at Michigan State University had been clearly defeated. The similarity between the 1972 and the 1978 defeats was astonishing, insofar as the votes were nearly identical. 1972 ELECTION RESULTS ELIGIBLE VOTERS MSU FACULTY ASSOCIATES MSU CHAPTER AAUP NEITHER CHALLENGED BALLOTS SPOILED BALLOTS 2460 438 280 1213 85 4 1978 ELECTION RESULTS 2700 476 289 1097 144 3 156 156 Tabulation of Election Results. State of Michigan, Department of Labor, Employment Relations Commission. Case Number R 72 E-170 and Case Number R 77 E-295. 152 SUMMARY In 1972, James Sisung, who was assigned the overall coordination responsibilities for the MSU election during the final two months of the two year campaign made the following remarks about the defeat of unionization: The major components, time, staff, money, and local association leadership were all adequate to the task. The cause of failure resides within the MSU faculty itself. The faculty is not ready to be organized. Discontent with conditions of employment is not suf­ ficient to cause them to alter current circumstances. 157 In 1978, when we were again defeated, the same assessment— i.e., the faculty at MSU were not ready to be organized must be made. In a memo­ randum written by me to the Director of UniServ of the MEA following the 1978 election, I cam to a conclusion similar to Sisung's in 1972 when I wrote: "faculty members fear collective bargaining because many of them believe that equity in wages would cause the 'pie' to be divided too many ways." 158 In 1972 and again in 1978, the faculty at Michigan State University were simply not ready to be organized.While this is the conclusion one would make from a dispassionate reading of the above election results, such a conclusion, while essentially true, would not be entirely correct for the following reasons listed in my Final Election Report: Approximately one out of every four faculty members 157 James Sisung, MSU Election Campaign: Final Report. Interoffice Memo to Ray Randels, Director of UniServ, MEA Headquarters, October 26, 1972. 158 William R. Owen, MSU Election: Final Report. Interoffice Memo to Ray Randels, Director of UniServ, MEA Headquarters, May 30, 1978. 153 at MSU favors MEA-NEA as their choice for a collect­ ive bargaining agent. Approximately four out of every ten faculty members at MSU favor collective bargaining over the present system with either the Faculty Associates or the AAUP as their agent. Faculty Associates ran a clean and competent campaign and gained credibility on campus as a responsible or­ ganization able to deal with the issues. A corps of Associates workers exists on campus that exceeds one hundred faculty members spread over vir­ tually every department on campus. Faculty Associates won the endorsement of the State News . Faculty Associates emerged from the election with an intact organization with a supporter list of over five hundred persons. ^ 5 9 It is difficult for me to say how much of these post election comments are rationalizations of a bitter defeat. It is perhaps inevitable that a certain amount of bravado will creep into such reports. Perhaps a more objective assessment of what the situation was regarding faculty unionism after the 1978 defeat was given by the editors of the State News: The faculty vote turning down collective bargaining came as no surprise to campus watchers. It remains however, a disappointment, particularly to the por­ tion of the faculty— the non-tenured— who stood to benefit most. The major argument pursued by the anti-group was that unionization would lead to mediocrity. We fail to see how raising salary levels to a rate competitive with other institutions to attract 159 William R. Owen, MSU Election: Final Report. East Lansing, Michigan. May 30, 1978. MEA Headquarters, 154 the best possible faculty in any way threatens aca­ demic quality. Further, the solidarity and security that collective bargaining would offer an otherwise fragmented, apathetic faculty could serve only to improve the atmosphere and attitude in the University community. The charge that unionization would somehow threaten academic freedom, again, is a shallow one. It seems that whenever the potential for change— good or bad— arises, the old school faculty members leap to their feet in defense of their as yet untouched academic freedom. The right of a scholar to pursue any and all avenues of exploration is a basic one that can and must not be disputed. Union representatives seek only to protect, not endanger, that right by offering the individual professor safeguards against unilateral administrative action that could circum­ vent that freedom with ease. The situations that gave rise to unionization at­ tempts at MSU still exist. The grievance procedure for faculty complaints is still inadequate because the final step in the grievance process is with the president of the University. One can hardly expect the president to be fair when adjudicating a dispute between an administrator and a professor. Faculty pay scales at MSU still rank among the bot­ tom of the Big Ten, and the tenure ranks continue to consist mostly of white males despite elaborate paper-work affirmative action. But the union was defeated. It is likely the same two groups will try again next year, but the out­ look appears no brighter than this year, six years after the ill-fated 1972 attempt. Perhaps too many MSU faculty members see themselves as servants of society, chained to an Ivory Tower. Or perhaps they are simply apathetic. We hope those few not suffering under this illusion will keep trying, In any event, it is fair to say that at Michigan State University, 160 "Union Rejection a Disappointment," State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. June 1, 1978. 155 faculty unionism is beaten, but not dead. A solid 25 to 40 percent of the faculty do in fact favor some form of collective bargaining over the present governance system and we can expect that as soon as a threat to the faculty's security develops, or a crisis erupts, that the procollective bargaining forces will be mobilized, and the gates of MSU will again be seiged. CHAPTER VI FERRIS FACULTY CHOOSES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING A CASE STUDY While collective bargaining at Michigan State University was in the process of being soundly defeated in 1972, the faculty at Ferris State College voted to accept collective bargaining. This chapter will attempt to probe the reasons for the Ferris faculty's decision to accept collective bargaining and contrast these reasons with the motivation for the faculty at MSU to reject collective bargaining. This writer believes this dissertation would not be complete if it did not examine the events which evolved at Ferris concurrent with the MSU faculty's decision. To a lesser extent, this chapter will also attempt to contrast the 1978 MSU rejection of collective bargaining with the decision in 1978 of the Ferris Faculty to retain the MEA's local affiliate as their bargaining agent. Much of the background to Ferris State College's faculty decision to choose collective bargaining was given in the portion of this dissertation that dealth with the behavior of Ferris' president, Dr. Robert Ewiglben. In chapter three, it was stated that the presi­ dent's behavior was a factor in stimulating a number of the college's faculty to seek assistance from this writer in developing a strategy that would result in the creation of a faculty union. The specific inci­ dent that precipitated this decision was the new president's statement at an early faculty meeting that "Ferris needed to get rid of the dead wood on campus." This impolitic statement by the newly 156 157 appointed president at Ferris struck terror into the hearts of many of the faculty. 162 The typical Ferris faculty member was more vulnerable than most of the faculty at Michigan State to such a move, since at Ferris the majority of the faculty did not have terminal degrees. Normally this would have not posed a problem to those teaching on creden­ tials below the terminal degree for their discipline. two was not, however, a normal year. Nineteen seventy- The 1972 recession was having its impact on academic circles, and the marketplace was glutted with wellcredentialed personnel in virtually every discipline. Thus, when the new president came on board in what was already a threatening environment and made his statement about getting rid of "dead wood," even the most meritorious members of the faculty felt threatened. Unlike MSU, Ferris had absolutely no semblance of an organization on which to build a pro-union cadre; not one person out of a staff of well over four hundred faculty members was a regular member' of the MEA, the NEA, or the higher education affiliate of these organizations, the Michigan Association for Higher Education, MAHE. From an organizing perspective, this was a mixed blessing, since no lingering negative stereotypes needed to be overcome as was the case with the old Faculty Association at MSU. In contrast, at Ferris there was a complete absence of any kind of organizational structure on which to build. This meant that the MEA needed to start with an entirely new organi­ zation, a necessity that proved in the long term to be beneficial. 162 For more detail about the faculty mood, see Linta, "Collective Bargaining at a State College in Michigan," p. 88. 158 After several preliminary meetings with interested faculty members, a decision to seek bargaining rights for the faculty at Ferris State College was made in March of 1972. In order to implement this decision, a local chapter of the MEA's higher education component, the Michigan Association for Higher Education, was established and interim officers were elected. Once this was accomplished, union authorization cards were circulated. Unlike MSU, Ferris's circulation of union authoriza­ tion cards was done without fanfare. The cards were simply hand carried by faculty members and later mailed to those colleagues not personally contacted. The thirty percent return of signed cards needed to petition the Employee Relations Commission were quickly obtained and the petition was duly filed. One striking similarity between the environment at Ferris and at Michigan State University was the existence of a moribund AAUP. At Ferris, the AAUP chapter consisted of approximately one hundred members, most of whom were not interested in collective bargaining. Early in the campaign contact was made with the leadership of the Ferris AAUP and for a brief time an alliance between the two organizations was op­ erational. Once the State Conference of the AAUP and the national office became aware of this preemptive move, the alliance that was put together in haste fell apart, and the AAUP filed an intervenor's petition as it had at MSU and proceeded to oppose the Faculty Association in its quest to become bargaining agent. In retrospect, the decision of AAUP to oppose the MEA affiliate was most helpful to the Faculty Association because many of those who would have voted for No Union voted for AAUP, splitting the No vote, and enabled the Faculty Association to win in a run-off election. 159 THE CAMPAIGN STRATEGY At Ferris the issues were more clear-cut than they were at MSU, where salaries were an issue for some and the burgeoning administration was an issue for others. At Ferris the primary issue was job security. Other issues nearly as great in importance were the need for a more meaningful faculty voice in academic governance, the need for salary adjustments for nearly everyone, and the need to reduce the stifling workload through the reduction of class sizes. Ferris State College is an institution with unique educational programs, offering curricula in a variety of subjects ranging from the health sciences, to business administration, with a large component of vocational programs, such as automotive mechanics and cosmetology. This diversity of programs made the task of giving these issues relevance nearly impossible. After several probes, the leadership of the Ferris Faculty Association decided that there would be essentially two campaigns; a person-to-person campaign would deal with the bread and butter issues, such as class-size and salaries and a paper campaign would focus on developing a positive image for the union and on emphasizing governance issues. The decision to emphasize the governance issue on a campus- wide basis was made because it was perceived by the leadership of the Faculty Association that if the FA were to win it needed to overcome its image problem, and it could best do this by demonstrating its ability to provide a governance model that would provide for equitable involvement of faculty representatives from the diverse departments of the institu­ tion. Toward this end, the following union governance model was developed by a faculty member and disseminated to all faculty. 160 A VOICE IN ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE The FSC/FA believes that university and college collective bargaining must concern itself with: . the professional status of the faculty, . the continuing progress of individual faculty members in their professional field, and . the attainment of the educational objectives with which they are charged. Each of these concerns requires a voice in academic governance. This, in turn, requires the specification of faculty issues and an organi­ zation to equitably resolve them. ISSUES OF ACADEMIC GOVERNANCE First, we believe issues of academic governance "fall into five broad categories. These are: . procedures for faculty representation in academic governance, . educational policies, such as admission standards, curriculum, academic freedoms, . working conditions, such as appointments, promotion, tenure, grievance procedures, course assignments and work loads, . economic issues, including funding adequate to a high grade institution of higher education, allocation of available resources throughout all budgetary categories, and . public issues, such as the relationship between government agencies and institutions of higher education, and activity by the faculty in social concerns." 161 Second, we ask each faculty member to examine and specify these categories. In short, what do you believe most important to yourself, your department and the college? Ask yourself: . What procedures now exist that give me a voice in facilities utilization, expansion, or development, etc.? . What inf!uence do I have on educational policies of admission standards, curriculum, grading standards, etc.? . What control do I exercise over my working conditions — appointments, promotion, tenure, grievance proce­ dures, course assignments, etc.? . What voice do I have j[n the economic issues of the college — allocation of resources, salary, fringe benefits, etc.? . What power do I exert on public issues — the centralization of educational authority in the state legislature, etc.? ORGANIZATIONAL ENDS AND RESPONSIBILITY The FSC/FA believes that the definition and equitable resolution of issues will result in: . administrative accountabi1ity, . faculty participation in issues of academic governance. To insure these ends, a tentative organizational structure for the negotiating unit has been developed. This contains three basic levels: Chief FSC/FA Negotiator MEA Negotiating Assistance Team FSC/FA Negotiating Team MEA Support Statt Negotiating Committee Each level will be charged with the basic responsibilities and authority contained in the attachments. We ask that you examine these, and we welcome your criticism. FSC/FA C h ief N eg otia to r MEA Support S ta ff HEA N eg o tia tin g A ssista n c e Team P r o fe ssio n a l N eg o tia to r Legal Counsel Research General Ed. FCS/FA N eg o tia tin g Team Member Departmental Commi t t e e Members P u b lic R ela tio n s Teacher Ed/ Student S e r v ic e s FSC/FA N e g o tia tin g Team Member H ealth S c ien ce Teacher Ed. A rts R egistered L obbyists B usiness FSC/FA N eg o tia tin g Team Member Departmental Commi t t e e Members Departmental Committee Members Pharmacy C le r ic a l T echnical Student S e r v ic e s: Library C ounseling Student Personnel 162 Pharmacy/HS&A FSC/FA N e g o tia tin g Team Member FSC/FA N eg o tia tin g Team Member Budget A n alyst 163 Chief FSC/FA Negotiator . Serve as chief spokesman at negotiating sessions. . Maintain liaison with MEA Negotiating Team and Support Services, as required. Coordinate Negotiating Team Members on issues of academic governance. . Resolve Negotiating Team disputes. . Submit results for ratification. FSC/FA Negotiating Team Member . Coordinate departmental and school issues of academic governance. Insure equitable voice in negotiation of issues. . Resolve disputes according to established priority. Negotiate mandatory and concession items. I Negotiating Committee Member Determine specific issues of academic governance. . Recommend priority of issues. . Confer with appropriate personnel to insure equitable departmental and/or school representation. . Submit recommendations to appropriate negotiating team member. 163 163 "Voice in Academic Governance," FSC Faculty Association Courier September, 1972. Michigan Education Association Files. 164 This piece of campaign literature is a good example of the material designed and distributed at Ferris to ameliorate the negative perceptions many faculty members held of the Faculty Association. A considerable number of the faculty considered the FA to be a creation of the K-12 MEA and hence not competent to represent the interests of higher educa­ tion personnel. This strategy of Issue-oriented literature coupled with the many beer and pizza parties and other quasi-social events staged by the Faculty Association leadership proved to be a winning combination. In the election itself, the AAUP had the advantage due to its incumbency, but it failed to generate enough support beyond its membership to survive the first ballot. The MEA affiliate, with no members other than a few token joiners and no grass-roots organization, was able on October 19, 1972 to narrowly defeat the AAUP and thus to force a run-off election between the Faculty Association and No Union. The October 19, 1972 election results were: A A U P . . . . . . . . 133 FSC FA. . . . . . . . 137 Challenged . . . 11 Spoiled ...... 0 No Union .. . .143 TOTAL 424 (93% of faculty) A run-off election was conducted on January 17, 1973 and results were: F S C F A . . . . . . . . 221 No Union .. . .161 Challenged . . . 0 Spoiled ...... 0 (58%) (42%) TOTAL.... (87%offaculty) 382 164 Michigan Education Association Files , East Lansing, Michigan. 165 WHY UNIONISM WAS ACCEPTED AT FERRIS Factors contributing to the MEA victory at Ferris State College were: 1) a determined nucleus of faculty leaders, 2) a moribund and inept AAUP, 3) a blustering and accident-prone administration, and 4) a faculty that did not have a condescending or elitist attitude toward academic unionism. Of these factors, 1t is impossible to say which contributed the most to the union victory at Ferris in January, 1973. Certainly the determination of the Faculty Association leadership was one predictor of the outcome, but the Ferris leadership was no more determined than the leaders of the union movement at Michigan State. A blundering and indecisive AAUP local also helped siphon off some of the potential no votes on the first ballot; this, however, was also the case at MSU. This leaves the administration's behavior and the attitude of faculty toward collective bargaining as the two most prob­ able differences between the failure at MSU and the success at Ferris. In the preceding chapter considerable attention was given to the cool and sophisticated way in which the MSU administration conducted itself during the 1972 and 1978 attempts to unionize the faculty. Circum­ spection in dealing with the union was a very apparent aspect of the temperament of most of the MSU administrators. At Ferris, the presi­ dent also maintained an official silence; unfortunately his subordinates did not. For example, the faculty of Ferris's Technical and Applied Arts School was called to a mandatory meeting by Eugene Bychinsky, then Dean of the division, for the purpose of discussing the collective 166 bargaining issue just prior to the October 19 election. Upon the advice of several faculty members, Richard Adams, MEA senior legislative agent at that time, and I were also in attendance. Perhaps we were naive, but Richard Adams and I both fully expected to have an opportunity to present our side of the issue to this large, and in terms of the elec­ tion, extremely important group. When introduced to the audience by a sympathetic faculty member, we elicited an angry response from the Dean who tried to force us from the meeting and, failing this, finally per­ mitted us to stay so long as we did not speak. This arbitrary action on the part of the Dean may have been technically legitimate; nonethe­ less, it had the effect of alienating virtually everyone in the room. The stifling of the union spokespersons at this meeting was character­ istic of the behavior of many of the administrators at Ferris through­ out the course of the election campaign. Many examples were cited to me of administrative behavior that was intimidating to union supporters. All election campaigns generate such complaints, most of which cannot be documented sufficiently to make unfair labor practice charges. Somehow, Ferris, and for that matter Saginaw Valley and other schools where unionism succeeded seemed to generate more reports of administra­ tor misbehavior than was the case at schools where unionism was de­ feated.*®® 165 The most notable exception to this observation in my personal experience was Hillsdale College where coercion and intimidation were used very effectively by administrators and a few members of the board of trustees. At Hillsdale the union filed its petition with more than enough signatures to assure victory, yet was defeated after a hard-fought and at times vicious anti-union campaign was conducted by the adminis­ tration and certain board members. 167 Of all these factors, the most important one, faculty elitism, is also the most difficult to document. Earlier chapters of this disser­ tation provide some insight into faculty attitudes and faculty status as determinants of how an individual may vote in a collective bargain­ ing election. While it is possible to make some educated guesses on the basis of these responses, it is not possible to deduce with any certainty a conclusion that certain faculty members who hold elitist attitudes are less susceptible to the appeal of faculty unions than are those faculty members who do not have an elitist attitude. To this writer's knowledge, no instrument has been developed to date that can accurately distinguish who is elitist and who is not. Therefore, we will have to continue to make educated guesses based on the premise that the more prestigious institutions engender a sense of elitism in their faculties and the more ordinary institutions do not. THE UNION IS- THREATENED AT FERRIS Another parallel between MSU and Ferris aside from the fact that both schools were confronted with union votes in the Fall of 1972 was the fact that both Ferris and MSU faculty members had a second oppor­ tunity to vote on collective bargaining in 1978. At Ferris in 1972, the narrow victory by just four votes of the Faculty Association over the AAUP left a deep wound that would not heal for a few of the AAUP's leaders who expected that they would win the collective bargaining election. This group of AAUP dissidents, encouraged by another faction who opposed the Faculty Association on the grounds that the "agency shop" provisions of its contracts were inappropriate sought in 1976 to have the Ferris State College Faculty Association disaffiliate from the Michigan and National Education Associations and essentially the same group sought again in the early Spring of 1978 to secure enough authorization cards to effectuate a state-supervised decertification election. In October of 1976 a petition was circulated among the Ferris fac­ ulty which read in part: We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Ferris State College Faculty Association, through its Executive Board, to hold an election for the purpose of amending the Charter of the Ferris State College Faculty Associ­ ation and to adopt the following proposal. (This pro­ posal is authorized under Article XVI: Amendments.) Proposed that the FSC Faculty Association will disaffil­ iate with the Michigan Education Association and the National Education Association with the intent of be­ coming an independent local representative of the Ferris State College Faculty. 166 Approximately fifty faculty members out of the four hundred members of the Faculty Association signed this petition thus putting before the membership changes in the Faculty Association's charter which purported to disaffiliate the local from the MEA/NEA. A brief and bitter war of memos and newsletters ensued, and the Faculty Association, in accor­ dance with its own constitution, held the election which would have deleted all reference to the Michigan Association for Higher Education, the Michigan Education Association, and the National Education Assoc­ iation in December of 1976. The forces to disestablish the MEA/NEA affiliate at Ferris took a severe beating in the balloting. The vote 166 "Petition to the Executive Board of the Ferris State College Faculty Association," October 18, 1976. Michigan Education Association Headquarters Files, East Lansing, Michigan. was 98 for the disaffiliation and 204 aqainst. This, however, was not the last of the anti-Faculty Association threats at Ferris. In late February and early March of 1978, Professor Edward Schurr, one of the most persistent die-hard AAUP leaders tried once more to unseat the incumbent union. This time the technique was to seek decertification of the incumbent agent through a state-super­ vised election. This is possible under Michigan law during an "open window" period 90 to 150 days prior to the expiration of a union con­ tract if cards totalling at least 30 percent of the eligible voters are signed and a petition is submitted to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission during this period. 1fi7 By late March of 1978, Mr. Schurr had held at least two meetings wherein he tried to explain his decertification attempt. On the ques­ tion of faculty support for this threat to disestablish the Faculty Association, the FSC Courier, the Association's newsletter, reported: Mr. Schurr also indicated during the meeting that he would not file a petition for an election unless 50% of the faculty signed cards so that he would not foul up negotiations. Now he informs me that if he gets 30% (the minimum required) he will file a petition! He should be held to the commitment he made. Don't be duped into signing a card. If you have signed a card saying the AAUP is your representative, you can rescind your signature. Send a letter or tell Ed Schurr in person that you want your card back. 168 The attempt by Professor Schurr and a few of his associates to replace 167 General Rules and Regulations, 1968 Annual Administrative Code Supplement, State of Michigan Department of Labor, Employment Relations Commission. R423.441, Petitions for Elections, Rule 41. 168 Ronald Jacoby, "The Facts About Ed Schurr's AAUP Card Campaign, FSC Courier, March 23, 1978. Michigan Education Association Files. 170 the incumbent MEA affiliate with the AAUP failed miserably. The stated goal of filing a petition to decertify the Faculty Association with 50% or more of the faculty behind the petition was aborted and a desperate attempt was made to secure the minimum requirement for such a petition of 30% of the faculty. This goal was never reached even though Schurr's group filed a petition alleging to have the necessary 30% only to have the petition administratively dismissed by the Employment Relations Commission for lacking sufficient showing of interest from the faculty. Thus ended the AAUP's attempt to vindicate its 1972 loss. SUMMARY It should be noted here that aside from the temporal similarities, i.e., both MSU and Ferris State College faculty members did express their feelings about collective bargaining in the Fall of 1972 and the Spring of 1978, there are few commonalities between the Fessis State College and Michigan State University faculties' approach to academic collective bargaining. AtSerris, collective bargaining was contem­ plated and finally accepted as a result of what was perceived by a sub­ stantial number of faculty members to be a clear and present threat to their job security. At Michigan State University academic collec­ tive bargaining was a concept that was imposed upon the faculty from without by the MEA. To be sure, there was significant internal sup­ port for a faculty union from a few visionaries such as Dr. Wayne Taylor and others, but the fact remains that MSU was selected by the MEA as an organizing target. Ferris was also considered to be a potential organizing target, but no serious attempt was made to establish a 171 a collective bargaining unit at Ferris until a number of faculty felt threatened enough to make contact with the MEA and request assistance in planning a union strategy. Finally, it should be noted that the 1976 attempt to disaffiliate the Ferris local from its parent organi­ zations and the 1978 attempt to decertify the Faculty Association and replace it with the AAUP were not anti-union moves; they were clearly pro-union. They were, however, anti-MEA and thus jurisdictional dis­ putes rather than pro and anti union debates 169 While the 1976 and 1978 attempts to unseat the MEA were pro union and anti-MEA, they were supported and encouraged by a few antiunion individuals who were opposed to the concept of an agency shop which was supported by both the AAUP and the MEA. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This dissertation is not distinguished by its subject matter. have traveled this road before. Others None, however, have done this type of study from the perspective of a union organizer, and that is an important distinction. If the academic community is to truly understand why facul­ ties unionize, the subject should be examined from the inside. To know how faculties form unions is to know how to deal with a union threat if one seeks to defeat unionism. More importantly though to know how and why faculty unions are formed is to know how to anticipate and to deal with faculty needs and expectations in a changed and changing academic environment. Faculty unionism is merely symptomatic of these changes and is not a great agent of change in and of itself. Understanding the causes of these symptoms should be helpful to administrators who sincerely wish to deal effectively with their faculty members whether in the context of a newly formed faculty union, or in the context of the brief hiatus that usually follows the defeat of a unionizing attempt before the next peti­ tion for another election is held. This dissertation has sought to be instructive to college administrators who desire knowledge of the forces that motivate faculty members to seek to establish alternative forms of academic governance, especially as governance systems relate to the establishment of faculty working conditions. Those administrators who pay heed to the messages in this dissertation should profit with improved personnel relations, irrespective of their feelings about the union issued. 172 173 Those who do not pay heed can expect to see not only a faculty union in their future, but they can expect a militant faculty union. This dissertation has sought to explore the reasons why professors in Michigan's state-supported baccalaureate institutions have so vigorously sought to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the present time all of Michigan state-supported colleges and universities are unionized, with the exception of: Grand Valley State Colleges Michigan State University Michigan Technological University University of Michigan (three campuses) (Ann Arbor, Flint, Dearborn) With the exception of the University of Michigan and its two brahches, at least one attempt has been made to unionize each of the above institutions within the past few years. Currently unionized institutions with their bargaining agents are: Eastern Michigan University AAUP Northern Michigan University AAUP Western Michigan University AAUP Oakland University AAUP Wayne State University AAUP Central Michigan University MEA-MAHE Ferris State College MEA-MAHE Lake Superior State College MEA-MAHE Saginaw Valley State College MEA-MAHE In addition to these state supported baccalaureate institutions, twenty-six of Michigan's twenty-nine community colleges are involved in some form of 174 collective bargaining and eighteen of these are represented by the Michigan Association for Higher Education, the Michigan Education Association affil­ iate for its higher education bargaining units. In the private sector, the following higher education institutions are represented for the purposes of collective bargaining: Adrian College MEA-MAHE Baker Junior College of Business MEA-MAHE Detroit College of Business MEA-MAHE Detroit Institute of Technology MEA-MAHE Kendall School of Design MEA-MAHE University of Detroit MEA-MAHE This dissertation in its exploration of the reasons why faculty members choose collective bargaining made no startling new discoveries. Instead, considerable empirical knowledge was accumulated, based upon a careful review of the literature, and the use of accepted investigative techniques, with the emphasis on field studies and a questionnaire. The field studies were centered mainly around the writer's personal experience as a union organizer. This study concludes that faculty members are likely to form unions where the following conditions exist: The central administration is authoritarian, insular, and insensitive to the concerns of faculty. The campus governance system does not adequately provide for due process and third party mediation or arbitration is not provided. Faculty are not meaningfully involved in decision-making and implementation. Salaries and other economic benefits have lagged behind reasonable expectations. 175 The expectation for tenure is diminished, or those with tenure are threatened by unilateral and arbitrary actions with respect to workload or other conditions of employment. These conclusions were supported by the questionnaire results, and essentially proven when the most ripe organizing target, as determined by the questionnaire results, Lake Superior State College, was indeed union­ ized while this dissertation was being researched. The above conclusions were also supported, if not proven, at Michigan State University, where the questionnaire results were ignored, an election was held, and the union attempt was defeated. CONCLUSION Thorsten Veblen wrote in 1918 that "the staff is the university." It is the persistence of this concept among many concerned faculty at institutions of higher learning that is at the heart of the faculty union movement in 1979. The essential precariousness of a faculty's professional status and economic security is not new. Veblen gives a sense of the conditions in higher education in the early part of the century as he describes negotiations: in the individual bargaining by which the rate of pay is determined, the directorate may easily be tempted to seek an economic way out by offering a low rate of pay coupled with a higher academic rang . . . and so also, the tenure of office is somewhat precarious, more so than the documents would seem to indicate. This applies with greater force to the lower grades than to the higher. 170 More than sixty years after Veblen wrote these words, we find the very 170 Thorston Veblen, The Higher Education in America (1918), Stanford Academic Reprints, 1954, pp. 162-63. 176 today's faculty members not seek unionism? His analysis uncovers an attitude which is not entirely dead even today: Professors refuse to join unions or engage in collective bargaining because of a feeling prevalent among them that their salaries are not in the nature of wages, and that there would be a species of moral obliquity in overtly so dealing with the m a t t e r . ^ Many professors still view the union concept, and collective bargaining, as a working class phenomenon, and resist academic unionization even when it is in their own best interests. Rather than revealing any new truth, the literature reviewed in this dissertation reinforced what this writer suspected, namely that satisfied faculty members in a secure economic environment do not seek the union alternative. The professoriate does not have a natural pre- del iction toward unionism. College and university professors seek to unionize only when they are angry or threatened, or both. This study established that collective bargaining will flourish when the adminis­ tration loses touch with faculty, and faculty become disenchanted with their governance system. Professors do not unionize for higher wages and better working conditions. The data collected from the questionn­ aires revealed that there is little correlation between one's wages and one'e preference for collective bargaining. The need for due pro­ cess, especially as it relates to tenure and academic freedom, and for. a meaningful voice in policy determination and implementation are much more likely to stimulate interest in collective bargaining than are the 171 V e b l e n , p. 168. 177 traditional motivations for workers to seek union representation. Administrative elitism may be at the very root of most union move­ ments on Michigan's college and university campuses. In a Change mag­ azine article, John Silber, President of Boston University was quoted as saying "There is nothing wrong with elitism. . .as long as intelli­ gence is better than stupidity and knowledge is better than ignorance, 172 educational institutions must be run by elites." In response to Silber, John Ryor, President of the National Education Association ob173 served "That attitude itself is arrogant." In a recent statistical study by Peter Feuilie and James Blandin of faculty attitudinal militan cy toward the employment relationship the conclusion was made that: dissatisfaction with economic rewards emerged third in predictive importance and dissatisfaction with campus administration and its handling of faculty problems emerged f i r s t . ^ The literature is pregnant with warnings to the effect that admin­ istrations and individual administrators who arrogate power to them­ selves run the risk of a contravening force building up to oppose that power. The best way for an administration to assure a faculty union in its future is to adopt the notion that the use of centralized power is the most efficient way to run a university. On centralized power, an article by Allan 0 Pfinister quoted Paul Dressel's statement that: 172 John Silber, in "Three UnionLeaders Future," Change, March, 1977, p. 31. TalkAbout theAcademic 173 John Ryor, Loc. cit. p. 31. 174 James Blandin and Peter Feuilie,"UniversityFaculty and Atti­ tudinal Militancy Toward the Employment Relationship," Socioloay of Education, 49 (April, 1976) p. 144. 178 Collective bargaining upsets the role of middle management. Faculty salary and load differences can be maintained when department college and university middle managers make decisions about wages, hours, and working conditions. When such decisions are made by the entire faculty and by direct faculty ne­ gotiations with the board, it is doubt ful that freedom to maintain reasoned imbalances will remain.jyg The desire of many middle managers to be unrestrained in their decision making power is perceived as a threat by many faculty members, and when threatened with a loss of power with respect to decisions about wages, hours, and working conditions, even a complacent faculty can be per­ suaded that a union may be in their best interest. The notion that faculty input should not be. a part of the decision making process is volatile. If this study established nothing else it should make the point that administrations that do not involve their faculties in decision making can expect a faculty union. It should again be emphasized that the role of the chief administrator is perhaps the single most impor­ tant factor in determining whether a faculty union threat will occur on a given campus. Faculty members seek help from union organizers when they become disenchanted with their president. The ability of a college or university president to share his power as he governs his institution is of primary importance. Where power is shared, faculty members do not seek unions; where it is not, they do. 175 Paul Dressel as quoted in Allan 0. Pfinster, "Collective Bar­ gaining and Decision Making in the Four-Year College: Emerging Patterns of a Decade." North Central Association Quarterly, (Winter) 1977, Vol. 51, No. 3, p. 312. 179 If the climate is right and a union is established, then new power relationships will come into play. If the union is successful, a new locus of legitimatized pov/er will emerge. It can also be expected that once a union is established a new power struggle will commence within the union, and ultimately the union will form its own oligarchy to deal with the administration's oligarchy. The polarization of power between these two adversarial forces will be complete and a new form of campus governance will take shape. In some cases the union will become the primary governance vehicle of the institution. An already moribund senate may die, and an already threatened administration becomes more threatened and everyone on campus to some degree may become affected by the dynamics of the bargaining process. The presence of a faculty union however does not necessarily por­ tend the end of rational campus governance. In most cases, the pre­ sence of a faculty union simply means that a new form of bilateral de­ cision making has been introduced, that a new form of collegial deci­ sion making has been introduced, and that all of the parties involved can participate in fashioning a new governance document known as a collective bargaining agreement. Dramatic changes in the campus governance system do not always occur when a faculty union is formed. In some cases the presence of a faculty union has resulted in practically no change in campus govern­ ance. Occasionally the reaction to a faculty union will be a little interest during its formative stages and again at contract time; other­ wise the union will be ignored by the majority of the faculty. In most cases, the presence of a faculty union simply means that a new system 180 of decision making has been introduced and that the parties involved can be more secure when a responsible collective bargaining agreement is ratified. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Social scientists may choose to probe the reasons why professors are motivated to contemplate a system of governance that seems contrary to the accepted methods of campus governance. Many of the finer nuances of this seemingly atypical behavior need to be more fully explored. Indeed there may be reasons for the phenomenon of academic collective bargaining of which we are not aware. This type of research, however, will be of more value in dealing with the finite causes for a faculty decision for collective bargaining. The more generalized reasons for a faculty to accept collective bargaining are rather clear and addi­ tional research would be welcome, but not essential. Meaningful further study should be conducted to determine which union models work and which do not in order to help identify the most appropriate system for academic governance. Innovation is clearly lacking in most academic collective bargaining settings. Generally, the system adopted locally is a composite system spawned during the expediency of the moment. Traces of industrial unions are present in some campus unions, while others more nearly approximate the legitimi­ zation of the faculty handbook. More study is needed to determine a viable system for academic collective bargaining that would be uniquely adaptable to higher education. Another area recommended for further study is in the private 181 sector. While there was some mention in this dissertation of organizing activities in the private sector, the subject was essentially undeveloped in this study. In reviewing the literature, it is also quite evident that most of the research currently available has been done by public sector personnel about public sector unions. Therefore, the following additional areas are recommended as subjects for future study: 1) A profile of college presidents at unionized and at non-union­ ized colleges and universities. Such a profile should attempt to iso­ late the personal characteristics and managerial styles and philosophies of the presidents studied to determine if these behavioral criteria were factors in either forestalling or bringing about a faculty union. 2) An analysis of union contracts to determine if academic coll­ ective bargaining is bringing about a new common law in higher education. 3) A study of faculty union leaders to determine their motivation for seeking to establish and participate in faculty unions. 4) An analysis of the differences and similarities between faculty unions to determine the probability of ultimate merger or continued jurisdictional battles. EPILOGUE WHY PROFESSORS UNIONIZE THE EFFECTS OF FACULTY UNIONISM ON COLLEGIALITY As stated in the last chapter, where power is shared, faculty members do not seek unions; where it is not, they do. Because collegi- ality is, in academic circles, a word with special meaning, this chapter will deal with the question: Will faculty unions destroy collegiality? Specifically, this chapter will deal with the emotion-laden concept of collegiality as it relates to the academic senate, the central adminis­ tration, department chairpersons, and the informal hierarchy of faculty elders and opinion leaders that exist outside the framework of formal­ ized campus governance. The question then of whether faculty unions will destroy collegiality must be carefully considered if we are to understand something of how the concept of collegiality relates to a faculty's decision to seek union representation. Therefore, this chapter will attempt to provide some insight into what actually happens to the concept and practice of collegiality once a union is established. By now this writer's bias in favor of the collective bargaining process should be apparent. As a professional organizer of college and university faculties for the Michigan and National Education Associations I write from the premise that faculty unions are an appropriate alter­ native to the more traditional governance systems. Even so, I have at times been painfully aware of the chaos created among faculty members when unionism invades the otherwise complacent if not apathetic groves 182 183 of academe. In n\y organizing activities one of the questions most frequently raised, beyond the usual concerns related to the economic impact of faculty unionism is: What will the union do to collegiality? There are many spontaneous responses union organizers and pro­ union faculty members can and do give to this sort of question that seem to soothe concerned colleagues. For example, from the union ad­ vocate's perspective, collegiality is not destroyed or even mitigated by the establishment of a faculty union. Instead, the unionist is likely to respond somewhat glibly that collegiality will not be des­ troyed by faculty unions; on the contrary, the organizer or union ad­ vocate will claim that the orderly process of bargaining collectively for all matters affecting wages, hours, and conditions of employment will bring a new awareness and dignity to faculty— the by-product of which is an improved and more meaningful level of collegiality. Is such a response the product of a union organizer's fantasies, or does the controlled adversarial process characteristic of collective bargaining bring a new dimension to the traditional concept of collegi­ al ity? Admittedly, there can be no simple answer to such a debatable question— and to some extent, the aforementioned writer's bias may also enter into the contemplation of the question. Examples of the kinds of thinking I have encountered on the questions of whether faculty unions diminish or improve collegiality range from the extreme position that unions are merely replacing one form of oligarchical rule with another to that which holds that unions are by their very nature bound to im­ prove on the ancient and at times autocratic governance systems more familiar to academics. 184 In reality, neither extreme is quite accurate. Few of the generalizations hold relative to union or traditional governance models, since unions and institutions of higher learning themselves vary widely in their individual characteristics. Even the most democratically con­ ceived union can be taken over by irresponsible leaders and the most enlightened administration can degenerate into an insensitive and insular oligarchy. What then is the impact of faculty unionization on collegiality? First, a word about the concept of collegiality is needed to clarify any impact faculty unions may have on the concept. To put it simply, absolute and unmitigated collegiality is more myth than reality. Collegiality does exist in a sense in some departments where there is a pleasant ambiance which is typically the product of colleagues who respect one another and find their environment to be generally conducive to their scholarly pursuits. Such a sense of well being and collegiality is, I submit, always an accident of favorable circumstances, and is not the product of a superior governance system or the legacy of an enlightened administration. How then can a faculty union destroy what did not exist in the first place? Some degree of collegiality in its simplest form does exist in every department of every university. It merely cannot be adequately measured or defined as a deliberately estab­ lished policy or condition; it isalways relative to some other pre­ existing condition. In the minds of some, the destruction of collegiality means the introduction of an adversarial process into an atmosphere where there was once peace and harmony. Others will think of the destruction or 185 mitigation of collegiality as the natural consequence of an uprooting of the old governance system and still others believe intuitively that colleagues within a university cannot happily coexist within the pur­ view of a union contract. THE SENATE One way to determine if collective bargaining will have a signi­ ficant impact on university governance is to examine what has happened to the Faculty Senate where collective bargaining is well established. For example, the Central Michigan University contract, which is a suc­ cessor agreement that expired in July, 1977 provided: That with respect to Tenure policies (reappointment and dismissal of tenured faculty) and with respect to depart­ mental workload and scheduling the University "Governance Process" will prevail. 107 This provision effectively limited the scope of the grievance procedure and simultaneously elevated the Senate to a higher level of effective­ ness than it enjoyed prior to the adoption of a collective bargaining agreement. violations. As a consequence, grievances could only be based on contract The Senate retained its traditional role in all other matters and nothing of substance in the governance area was changed as a result of collective bargaining. The CMU experience notwithstanding, it is inevitable that the role of the Faculty Sena't will change where collective bargaining is 107 1974-77 Agreement, Central Michigan University and Central Michigan Faculty Association, "Letter of Agreement, Faculty Personnel Policy Section of the Faculty Handbook," p. ii. T86 present. The emergence of a faculty union may indeed by a symptom of a declining senate, or to express it another way, a faculty decision to unionize may be a statement by the faculty that it recognizes that decision-making power has centralized into the hands of a few senior faculty members and an administrative elite. To some degree, the Senate's power and the power locus of individual faculty leaders is altered whenever the union makes its appearance. Mainly, unions evolve as a means for faculty to deal with centralized power in the hands of administrators. College and university faculties also form unions because of their too often justified fear of the power of legislatures, controlling boards, student activists, alumni groups, concerned citi­ zens, et_. al_. who pose a threat to their traditional decision-making roles as faculty members. Frequently in organizing campaigns, opponents to unionization will vainly posture over the issue of mediocrity. The claim is often made that the presence of a faculty union will have a leveling effect and that excellence will be replaced by a mundane and stifling egalitarian­ ism. Those with the most to lose— that nouveau riche class, the cen­ tral administrations--will claim that unions are a device used by margi­ nal faculty members to better their own lot at the expense of others. This type of rhetoric has a magic appeal to many who justifiably believe in their own superiority and to others who are motivated by less noble drives, such as those of lesser standing who seek to identify with the former. Also, an occasional faculty member is activated who believes that his or her statements in defense of the status quo and in opposi­ tion to union mediocrity will elevate his or her standing with the 187 administration. Hence a new role for some academic senators may become that of union fighter. Surely such a role has appealed tomore than one superannuated would-be superstar who has heretofore languished in the Senate debating endless "governance" issues while his or her col­ leagues dozed off into oblivion. Clarification is needed at this point about where the power really lies in traditional governance model.No archetype can be found that clearly reflects a uniform role for the academic senate. Institutions can easily be classified as research, teaching technical, liberal arts, or as whatever type is determined by the program emphasis of the institution. Governance systems cannot be as neatly defined. senates have a measure of power; others have none. Some If a universal quality of senates can be identified, it is that all senates are advisory to the president, and are therefore less powerful than many academic senators would have us believe, and are, by their very nature, less powerful than faculty unions that have power far beyond the tradi­ tional advisory role of faculty senates. Therefore, whenever a senate and a faculty union coexist, the true nature of both bodies must ultimately emerge: vs. negotiating unions. i_.,e., advisory senate Prior to the introduction of a faculty union, a faculty senate could indeed have a modicum of real power if the past practice of the administration was to honor the senate's advisories to any substantial degree. Moreover, a senate could continue to exercise considerable power after the union's presence in governance matters, so long as the union leadership did not aspire to bargain over issues debated in the senate. In fact, many administrators recognized early 188 on in the faculty union movement that if the senate were encouraged and perpetuated after unionism came to campus, much of the union's clout could be mitigated. A clever administration team or president can be very effective in eroding a union's power by simply elevating the senate's role through frequent formal and informal consultations on matters that should appropriately be dealt with by the faculty union. In practice, this kind of tactic is not advisable because the union possesses a good deal of latent power which will become mobilized if the union's leadership perceives that its power is being systematically eroded by the senate's incursions into matters that are the traditional respon­ sibility of the union. For a time, it is possible for a senate and a union to coexist in this manner. governance vehicles will fail. the fittest tend to survive. In time one or the other of these As is the case in the animal kingdom, William B. Boyd, of CMU, observed that ". . . the sorry state of university governance is more apt to be a cause than a victim of collective bargaining." 1 08 Academe has produced few such objective leaders who are willing to admit that there may be weaknesses in the governance of their institutions. To the extent that faculty senates are advisory bodies with little real decision-making power, the foie of the senate will be unchanged 108 William B. Boyd, "The Impact of Collective Bargaining on University Governance," in Campus Employment Relations: Reading and Resources. Terrence N. Tice, ed. Institute of Continuing Legal Educa­ tion, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975. 189 where a faculty union is present. I concede that in some rare instances a powerful senate may retain some of its decision-making tradition (senates have no legitimate power* only advisory) even in the presence of a faculty union. It is, however, unrealistic to expect that academic governance will ever return to that idealistic time in the misty past when the true proprietors of the institutions were that faculty. Cen­ tralized power brought with it a weak, ceremonial senate structure that need not change should a faculty union ascend, since the presence of such a body makes little difference anyway in terms of real power. Bill Ewens, an officer of the MSU Faculty Associates, an MEA/NEA affiliated group aspiring to union status at Michigan State University, wrote in an MSUFA newsletter: Groups with unequal power cannot deliberate democratically on matters of fundamental importance. Given the complex structure of a 'megaversity', collective bargaining pro­ vides the basis for effective faculty participation in the decision-making process.. 109 The presence of an effective union with essentially equal power with the administration does not preclude the existence of a ceremonial senate. The union's presence may, however, assure the early demise of an already moribund senate. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Change is inevitable wherever collective bargaining is introduced. My experience has been consistent over nearly a decade of college and 109 William Ewens, "So Long, Mr. Chips: Facing Up to Emerging Realities of Managerial Control At Michigan State University," Michigan State University Faculty Associates Letter, May, 1977. 190 university organizing drives with respect to the early changes implemented by administrations when a union threat emerges. The anticipated change— the inevitable change--is always present when a faculty group succeeds in its drive to secure bargaining rights. The predicted change does not occur very rapidly. Generally all that is discernible wh 6 n authorization cards are circulated is an ominous silence from the president's office on down, to but not including, departmental chairpersons. of shock. This initial silence is, I believe, a symptom During these early stages of a union drive, the administration will no doubt meet covertly to determine how to deal with the union drive. In these early deliberations, an attempt will be made to determine who or what motivated the union drive. Was it the handiwork of an outside agitator (such as myself), the product of a disgruntled faculty member who was not (or should not have been) promoted, or was it inspired by the same faculty gadfly who was leading the student protests during the Viet Nam demonstrations? Or was it the natural consequence of those familiar external problems such as declining enrollments, financial exigencies, a sour legislature, and public apathy? Seldom, if ever, have I observed tangible evidence that a president has blamed himself of his immediate colleagues for the sudden appearance of a faculty union. This early quiescence is very often short-lived. After the labor relations lawyers have been consulted and the gray area of what manage­ ment may or may not do to combat the union are spelled out, most presi­ dents will surface and commence to deal with the union within what they perceive to be the legally safe parameters. In the dealings, individual 191 differences are important since they vary greatly from president to president. While it may not be wise to generalize, the following generalizations seem appropriate. Generalization #1: Presidents of large colleges and universities (10,000 Full Year Equated Students) almost always choose not to become personally involved. A hands-off, no-comment policy is adopted and adhered to in the early stages of the campaign. Generalization #2: Presidents of smaller colleges and universities and developing institutions (1,000 to 10,000 Full Year Equated Students) tend to be more personally involved in their dealings with the union. The seeming aloofness of the administrators in the larger institutions can be traced to such factors as diffused responsibilities, i.e., personnel matters and labor relations are usually handled by appropriate administrators. More affluent institutions are also more likely to get sound legal advise and are, therefore, less likely to unknowingly commit an unfair labor practice early in the union drive. Less apparent, but in my view more important, is the personality differ­ ence I have observed between presidents and lesser administrators of affluent universities and the style of the entrepreneurial managers who seem to be attracted to being chief administrators at the less prosperous schools. My experience has been to observe that after the cards are circulated and the petition is filed, the small college or university president will emerge from his initial silence with great vigor. For example, I was recently involved in two organizing drives, one at a major state-supported university and the other at a small, 192 developing, state-supported college, both in Michigan. The president of the megaversity maintained his decorum by remaining aloof from the union activities. In contrast, the president of the developing school, after about a month-long silence, moved agressively to restructure his administration so as to affect, from his point of view, favorably, the composition of the bargaining unit, and thereby, the election results. The same president openly opposed the union to many faculty members and in some cases ran risk of being charged with potential unfair labor practices by closeting himself with union leaders and dressing them down for their "disloyalty."**® The "hands-off" or covert method of opposing the union is always more effective. At Michigan State University the attempt to unionize that institution was effectively derailed in part by the administration's covert method of dealing with the union. The president did not har­ angue the union; anti-union comments were made by the president and his top aides, but they were always circumspect in choosing the time and place for such remarks. The overt anti-union activities were left to groups such as the so-called "Concerned Faculty". This group, while not created or sponsored by the administration, was nonetheless an effective agent in defeating the union. It should be noted that at no time did the administration at MSU come close to the commission of an unfair labor practice as a result of the activities of the "Concerned 110 Such behavior has been one of the best assets an organizer could desire. In our cloisters, we often comment that the best organ­ izers are aggressive anti-union presidents. The president here referred to is Kenneth Shoultice of Lake Superior State College. 193 Faculty." Most of the anti-union rhetoric was espoused by colleagues, and not by administrators who had the most to lose if the union drive were successful. However, no matter which group is responsible for the opposition to the unionizing of a campus, the issue of collegiality is invariably a key part of their anti-union rhetoric. Dire threats of loss of the "traditional collegiality" of the campus, no matter how moribund, are uniformly broadcast across each campus. Once an administration recov­ ers from the initial shock of a union drive, the union organizers can expect to meet heavy resistance of this kind. The only differences in the patterns of resistance are that in major institutions, opposition is generally covert, while reaaining overt at smaller schools. Yet, should this resistance be insufficient to stop the unionism ation of the campus, most administrators resign themselves to the fact that the union is a reality and that it must be dealt with forthrightly. Difficulties in dealing with unions have invariably been in less pres­ tigious institutions where less sophisticated administrators come to be involved in the decision-making process. It has been rny experience in fact that most administrators have been quite decent to deal with after a union is in place. The faculty union, after all, merely a form of collegiality, codified and contractual. THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON From the union organizer's point of view, a first consideration is whether or not the department chairpersons should be included in the bargaining unit. This decision is critical for several unrelated reasons, the most important of which is how inclusion or exclusion of the department chairperson will affect the bargaining election. Two forces usually come to play relative to the inclusion-exclusion questdon the administration usually seeks to have chairpersons removed from the bargaining unit, and faculty (but no means always) seek to include the chairpersons. The administration reasons that they will become even more alien­ ated from an already disillusioned faculty if they lose their first line administrators to the union. Another concern administrators have is that the union will centralize more power in the hands of faculty and the result will be the demise of collegiality and the emergence of a new, industrial-type management role for central administrators. This new management role is particularly onerous when the last link— the chairperson— is pre-empted by the union. It is somewhat ironic that faculty and administrators both covet the department chairpersons for the same reason; i.e., the chairperson is seen as the important link between an otherwise polarized body. The loss of the chairperson to administration creates a new management role for an individual who is seen essentially as first among peers. Whether the department chair­ person's role is simply lead teacher or second or first line administra­ tor, that individual is still seen as a peer by faculty. Indeed, in many institutions the department chairperson is elected by his colleagues. Even in those institutions where chairs are ap­ pointed, the tendency is to rotate the appointment. Duties, of course, vary according to the size of the department or division, and to the complexity of the academic speciality. Some duties however are fairly 195 uniform for all chairpersons. These duties include making recommenda­ tions for hiring and retaining personnel, making performance evaluations, scheduling classes, ordering materials, and staying within the budget allocation for the administrative unit. These duties do not constitute adequate grounds for removal from the bargaining unit within the mean­ ing of the National Labor Relations Act, or within the meaning of the local and state laws that are patterned after the NLRA.*** Another concern administrators have relative to the department chairperson is that once a collective bargaining agreement is in place, it must be properly administered. The department chairperson is then seen as the implementor of the agreement. Faculty evaluations and the handling of grievances are seen as tasks that can best be handled at the department level. The inclusion of the chairperson in the bar­ gaining unit, to administrators who reason thusly, would be unthinkable. Another administrative consideration is faculty morale. Gerald D. Welch, a community college negotiator for management, has said: . . .the chairman's attitude toward the agreement is important. If he has a negative attitude toward the contract and is sloppy in enforcing the provisions, it will have a detrimental effect on faculty morale and result in poor administration of the division. 1 1 2 This enlightened point of view confirms that a properly implemented 111 NLRA provides that supervisors to be excluded must make effective recommendations with respect to hiring and retention. In most departments such decisions have traditionally been made by con­ census and have not been the exclusive province of the chairperson. 112 Gerald D. Welch, "Role of the Department'iChairman in Coll­ ective Bargaining," The Community and Junior College Journal .44 (Dec/Jan 1974): p. 31. 196 union agreement can result in improved faculty morale. Also to be considered regarding the chairperson's role in the bar­ gaining unit is the size of the institution and whether the department chairperson is elected or appointed. A better case for exclusion can obviously be made where department chairpersons are appointed by the administration, and where the size of the academic unit precludes much, if any, teaching. In addition to the above, there are some practical consideration on both sides of the issue that in no way relate to eff« ective administration or the nurturing of collegiality. Too often the issue of inclusion or exclusion of departmental chairpersons is debated because one side or the other sees an advantage in their position rela­ tive to winning the collective bargaining election. If the union's leadership feels that a strong pitch for collegiality extended to chairpersons will win votes, then the union without doubt will fight to the finish for inclusion. If the administration feels that there are enough "no" votes among chairpersons to defeat the union, the administration will agree to their inclusion. If the administra­ tion’ feels the union has erred in its judgment of faculty attitude with respect to inclusion or exclusion, then the administration, bent on defeating the union, will assume what it perceives to be the most pop­ ular view, and on and on it goes. The issue becomes winning, and collegiality is out the window. The issue of department chairpersons is perhaps the most sensitive matter faculty members must deal with in determining who should or who should not be represented by a faculty union. The chairperson is the most vital link in the administrative chain and the loss of this link 197 to a faculty union is difficult for some administrations to accept. From the union's point of view, the issue of chairperson is also an important one. For example, the recent drive to organize faculty at MSU was a protracted one until the issue of department chairpersons, along with the bargaining status of the medical schools, was resolved. In a missive to faculty at MSU, Philip A. Korth, past president of the MSU Faculty Associates said, with respect to department chairpersons: In our view, the chairperson should be the representative of the faculty to the administration. The most active, imaginative, and skilled faculty should fill the position. In many units the chairperson is now functioning in such a role because he/she has been selected by the faculty. In other units, chairpersons are clearly creatures of the administration, appointed by and beholden to it in fact as well as form. 113 Given the importance of the chairperson's role to both faculty and to administrations, resolution of this issue is a pivotal one for those who would engage in collective bargaining at the college or university level. THE FACULTY HIERARCHY To the question, do faculty unions engender new hierarchical systems, the answer is indisputably: union. yes, a new hierarchy is created by the Where there was once a more or less omnipotent administration, there will exist, after the union is certified, a new group who will also have some claim to power. The potential for changes in the previous campus governance systems is significant as a result. In a paper examining 113 Philip A. Korth, Letter from MSU Faculty Associates, March 15, 1 977. 198 the issue of campus power, John D. Lindquist and Robert T. Blackburn allow that "power accumulates as its sources accumulate." 114 They confirm through scientific methodology what is readily ODservable-, namely that there exists at the center of things on m an y university campuses an "administratively dominated oligarchy." It has been m y experience that many faculties in Michigan are painfully aware o f their dominance by an oligarchic administrative power elite. Given this awareness, the tendency is for faculty to become less satisfied with existing governance systems. A few more alienated faculty may even seek alternate ways to deal with an administration that has accrued to itself what is perceived to be an inordinate amount of power. Given a crisis, such as a threatened reduction in force due to financial exigencies, in the context of increased faculty frustration over their loss of power to administrators, we should not be surprised to see faculties at traditionally conservative institutions turn to unionism. SUMMARY In relatively good times most faculty members are content to leave governance matters to their colleagues. The senators tend to do their thing, the administration its, and the academic specialist does what he or she is most comfortable with— teaching, research, guidance, public service, or consulting. The latent resentment that may have been brewing 114 John D. Lindquist and Robert T. Blackburn, "Middlegrove: The Locus of Campus Power at a State University," AAUP Bulletin 60 (Winter 1974): 367-78. 199 over a discrepancy between faculty and administrators' salaries or over the proliferation of administrators while faculty ranks are reduced through normal attrition usualoy remains latent until the crisis either happens or is made to happen. Whether the crisis is clear and present or whether it is more or less manufactured by the pro-union forces, the results are the same. The dynamics that portend a shift in power relationships now comes into play. In short order, authorization cards are circulated, a bargaining unit is defined, campaigns are launched for and against the union, an election is scheduled— and if the union is successful— a new locus of legitimized power emerges. Once the union is established, a new power struggle may commence within the union. Ultimately, the union will form its own oligarchy to deal with the administration's oligarchy. The polarization of power between these two adversarial groups is complete and a new form of governance takes shape. The above is perhaps an overly simplistic view of what actually happens on campuses when faculty unions are formed. There are many variations to the above scenario, each of which should be examined in depth in order to get a more accurate picture of what happens when a union emerges. It has been my experience that in some cases the presence of a faculty union has resulted in practically no change in campus governance. The union created little interest during its formative stages, a bit more at contract ratification time; otherwise the union was largely ignored by the majority of the faculty members. the opposite extreme is also a part of my experience. Of course, The union in some cases has become the primary governance vehicle of the institution. 200 An already moribund senate dies, a militant faculty group gains real power through its union, a threatened administration become more threatened, and everyone on campus becomes involved to some degree in the dynamics of the bargaining process. Happily, neither extreme is typical. In most cases, the presence of a union simply means that a new system of bilateral decision-making has been introduced— a new collegiality, if you will— and all parties involved can participate in shaping a responsible collective bargaining agreement. A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bernier, Francis Adalberto. "The Presidents of the Faculty Collective Bargaining Units in the United States Institutions of Higher Education." Fh.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Boyd, William B. "Collective Bargaining in Academe: Causes and Consequences." Liberal Education 57 (October, 1971): 306-18. Carr, Robert K. and Daniel K. Van Eyck. Collective Bargaining Comes to the Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1973. Central Michigan University and Central Michigan Faculty Association. Agreement, 1974-1977. Michigan Education, Office of Higher Education^ East Lansing, Michigan. Chambers, Michelle. "The Union Strikes Out." State News. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Welcome Week Edition (Fall, 1978): A 12. Coe, Alan Charles. "A Study of the Procedures Used in Collective Bargaining With Faculty Unions in Public Colleges and Universities." Ph.D. Dis­ sertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Cote, William E. "Michigan State University Faculty Rejects Unions." Change 5, no. 1 (February, 1973): 28-30. Duryea, E. D., Robert S. Fisk and Associates. Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1973. Ewens, William L. "So Long, Mr. Chips: Facing Up to Emerging Realities of Managerial Control at MSU." Michigan State University Faculty Assoc­ iates Letter. May, 1977. Feuville, Peter and James Blandin. "University Faculty and Attitudinal Militancy Toward the Employment Relationship." Sociology of Education 49 (April, 1976): 139-45. Garbarino, Joseph W. with Bill Aussieker. Faculty Bargaining: Change and Conflict. A Report Prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975. 201 202 Garbarino, Joseph W., David E. Feller and Mathew W. Finkin. Faculty Bar­ gaining in Public Higher Education. The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1977. Gemmel, James. Collective Bargaining: A View from the Presidency. Aca­ demic Collective Bargaining Information Service. Washington, D.C., 1975. General Rules and Regulations. 1968 Annual Administrative Code Supplement. State of Michigan: Department of Labor, Employment Relations Comm­ ission, 1968. Gianopulos, John. "Collective Bargainings What Part Should College Pres­ idents Play?" Colleqe and University Business 49 (September 1970): 71-72, 102. Haehn, James 0. "A Survey of Faculty and Administrator Attitudes on Coll­ ective Bargaining." A Report to the Academic Senate. California State Colleges, n.p., 1970. Hanson, Dave. News Item, The State Journal, Lansing, Michigan. 18, 1971. February Helper, J. C. "Timetable for a Takeover."Journal of Higher Education 42 (February, 1971): 103-15. Hewitt, Raymond G. The Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on Higher Education. Proceedings of a Conference Held in Boston, 1973. Wellesley, Massachusetts: New England Board of Higher Education, 1973. House, Charles B. "Self-Perceived Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on the Academic Leadership Roles of College and University Administra­ tors." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Hughes, Clarence R., Robert L. Underbrink and Charles 0. Gordon, eds. Collective Negotiations in Higher Education: A Reader. Carlinville, 111.: Blackburn College Press, 1973. Jacoby, Ronald. "The Facts About Ed Schurr'sAAUP Card Campaign." FSC Courier (Ferris State College, Big Rapids, Michigan) March 23, 1978. Michigan Education Association: Office of Higher Education. East Lansing, Michigan. Jones, Gary L. "Changes in the Role of the President's Office in Selected Universities Following Faculty Unionization." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Kemmerer, Frank R. and J. Victor Baldridge. The Impact of Faculty Collective Bargaining on Campus Administrators. Stanford Project bn Academic Governance. Palo Alto, California, February, 1976. 203 Kemerer, Frank R. and J. Victor Baldridge. cisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1975. Unions on Campus. San Fran­ Korth, Philip A. Correspondence with Faculty at Michigan State University. Michigan Education Association: Office of Higher Education. East Lansing, Michigan. Labor Relations in Higher Education. Practicing Law Institute, New York, New Y o r k , 1973. (no author) Ladd, Everett Carl, Jr. and Seymour Martin Lipset. Professors, Unions, and Higher Education. Domestic Affairs Study No. 16. Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . The Ladd-Lipset Survey, 1977. Social Science Data Center: University of Connecticut; Storrs, Connecticut. Larrowe, C. Patrick. "Say It Ain't So, Lash." State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. May 22, 1978. Lindquist, John D. and Robert T. Blackburn. "Middlegrove: The Locus of Campus Power at a State University." AAUP Bulletin 60 (Winter, 1974): 367-78. Linta, Edward. "Collective Bargaing at a State College in Michigan." Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975. Ph.D. Lozier, G. Gregory. A "Classic" Vote for No Representation: Michigan State University. Washington, D.C.: Academic Collective Bargaining Infor­ mation Service, n.d. Lussier, Virginia L. Albion College (Michigan) Votes "No Agent": A Case Study. Special Report # 7. Washington D.CTl Academic Collective Bargaining Information Service, 1974. Michigan Education Association. Memoranda, Press Releases, Correspondence, and Miscellaneous Papers from the Office of Higher Education. MEA Headquarters, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University Faculty Affairs Committee. "An Impartial Review of Collective Bargaining by University Faculties." Special Report: Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan I "Report of the Ad Hoc University Committee on Collective Bargaining." January 13, 1972. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. MSU Mews Bulletin. May Michigan. 18, 1972. Michigan State University, East Lansing, 204 Murton, Curtis Smith, Jr. "Role Choice Orientation of Michigan Public Community College Presidents in Collective Bargaining: A Study of Conflict Resolution." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Odewahn, Charles A. and Allen D. Spritzer. "Administrators' Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining: A Comparative Analysis." Labor Law Journal 27 (December, 1976): 763-72. Parr, Kenneth S. "A Survey of Faculty Attitudes Towards Collective Bargain­ ing at Michigan Private Liberal Arts Colleges." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Pfinster, Allan 0. "Collective Bargaining and Decision Making in the Four Year College: Emerging Patterns of a Decade." North Central Associ­ ation Quarterly 51, no. 3 (Winter, 1977): 312. Rhodes, A. Lewis, "Some Characteristics of Faculty Union Memberships and Their Implication." Social Problems 24 (April, 1977): 463-68. Shoup, C. A. "A Study of Faculty Collective Bargaining in Michigan Commun­ ity Colleges." Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. "Three Union Leaders Talk About the Academic Future." 31. (no author) Change (March, 1977): Tice, Terrence N., ed. with Grace Holmes. Faculty Power: Collective Bar­ gaining on Campus. Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor Michigan, 1972. Tice, Terrence N., ed. Faculty Bargaining in the Seventies. Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Campus Employment Relations: Readings and Resources. Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1975. Veblen, Thorsten. The Higher Education in America (1918). Stanford Aca­ demic Reprints. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1954. "Voice in Academic Governance." FSC Courier (September, 1972). Ferris State College Faculty Association. MEA Office of Higher Education. Welch, Gerald D. "Role of the Department Chairman in Collective Bargaining." The Community and Junior College Journal 44 (Dec./Jan. 1974): 31. Zoffer, H. J. "A College Administrator Looks at Collective Bargaining." Journal of the College and University Personnel Association 26, no. 3 (July/August, 1975): 33-40. APPENDICES APPENDIX A >05 M ICHIGAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Box 673, E ast Lansing, Michigan D ecem ber 1976 Research SURVEY O F STATUS AND OPINIONS O F FACULTY IN MICHIGAN PUBLIC H IG H ER EDUCATION Please answ er th e follow ing q u estio n s in term s o f y o u r ow n personal o p in io n , experience, an d ju d g m en t. In th e rep o rtin g o f th e data no reference will be m ade to you o r y o u r d e p a rtm e n t; th e sam ple o f w hich you are a p art is large enough to yield o n ly grouped d ata . How w ould you describe the degree of academ ic freedom afforded faculty m em bers in the insritutiori which em ploys you? Check ONE. ;D 2D 2D Much freedom —all th at m ost faculty mem bers would w ant or expect Fair degree of freedom —a general feeling o f freedom , b u t there are som e'im portant restraints Little freedom —a general feeling o f restraint; an u n ­ com fortable situation 6. Indicate the e x te n t to w hich faculty m em bers in y o u r institution are given the o p p o rtu n ity to be represented in the developm ent of policy a n d /o r in the im plem en­ tation o f policy in each o f the following areas. Check ONE colum n for each item . Policy area In yo ur opinion are the due process procedures for assuring faculty at y o u r in stitu tio n ju st treatm en t in salary, welfare, and academic m atters adequate or do they need im prove­ m ent? Check ONE. -□ Major im provem ents arc needed Som e im provem ents are needed Curren t procedures are adequate N o opinion Which one o f the following arrangem ents w ould you choose for representing y o u r interests in in stitu tio n al decisions re­ lated to working conditions, salaries, an d academ ic freedom ? Check ONE. *□ 4. Individual faculty negotiating fo r themselves (no group representation) Faculty Senate (group representation w ithout form al agreement) Faculty union bargaining a co n tract Have y o u been formally evaluated during the past two years for p ro m o tio n , tenure, salary advancem ent, etc.? Ye No If Yes, in y o u r opinion were you treated fairly in this evaluation? Yes - □ No How w ould you describe your personal m orale as a faculty m em ber and the morale o f other faculty m em bers you know ? Check ONE item in each colum n. My m orale is: Very high Fairly high Fairly low Very low T he m orale o f o th e r faculty seems to b e : 2D 4D T oo much faculty represen tation POLICY DEVELOPMENT A ddition or deletion of courses ............ A ddition or deletion of p r o g r a m s ........................... Tenure provisions . . . . . . Prom otion standards ... S tu d en t c h e a tin g ................ Faculty evaluation . . . . . Faculty leaves o f absence . Criteria for stu d e n t ad m iss io n ............... .. A thletic p ro g ra m ................ Faculty perform ance standards .................... Criteria for faculty censure or dism issal .................... Criteria for selection of new fa c u lty ........................ Criteria for selection of campus-level adm inis­ trators ................................ Faculty salary schedule provisions . . . . ................. Faculty l o a d ........................ ^□ 2 jO 2U 2D *□ Too little faculty represen­ tation n ^□ *□ ia ->□ 2o -*□ 2□ Jn ^□ 2 □ 2D 3n '□ ^0 POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Selection of departm ent chairm an ...................... G ranting o f t e n u r e ............. ^0 G ranting o f faculty p ro ­ m otions ..................... {a Selection o f new faculty .. -*□ Selection o f campus-level a d m in is tr a to rs ................. Decisions affecting longrange plans o f the institution ........................ Decisions to censure or dis­ miss a faculty m em ber . . . Selection of college p r e s id e n t............................. Selection of academ ic dean Faculty represen tation about right 2D 2a ->□ 2D 2n ^0 *□ 3a **0 22a ,° 3a Indicate y o u r agreem ent o r disagreem ent w ith follow ing statem ents. Check ONE colum n for m ent. Strong T end to iy aeree agree In its policy deliberations the governing body o f this in stitu ­ tion believes it considers the 2D 2D b est interests o f faculty . . . . . Actions o f the in stitu tio n gov­ erning body dem onstrate co n ­ cern for the interests of faculty each o f the each sta te­ T end Strong to dis­ ly dis­ agree agree 2D 4o 2D ■»D 2D 2D 2D Jo Faculty on this cam pus are willing to actively support the available due process pro­ cedures for any colleague . . . 20 20 •»D A faculty m em ber whose re­ quest for tenure is being denied should receive from the tenure com m ittee a w ritten statem ent of reasons for the denial ........................... T he affected faculty m em ber should have access to a formal process to appeal the decision of a tenure com m ittee to an im partial third party ............ ln 2D 2D J Q Keenly interested in the welfare o f college and university personnel Mildly interested in the welfare o f college and university personnel •^O N ot interested in the welfare of college and university personnel No opinion 20 -□ “□ ’□ Prom otes desirable legislation Prom otes undesirable legislation Does little to prom ote any type o f legislation No opinion d. On the w hole, the MEA: ia 2D 2D { □ Is too m uch like a labor union ‘ G Is n o t enough like a labor union J G Maintains a good balance betw een professional activities and labor union-type activities * 0 No opinion 2D 10. ]o Faculty should engage in col­ lective action if necessary* to p ro tect the due process rights o f all faculty ................................ 20 2D •*D Collective bargaining by faculty m em bers has no place in a college or university ............... 2D 2D •*D JD Which o f the following best describes your opinion about the am ount of emphasis MEA should give to providing services to faculty in higher education? Check ONE. More emphasis - □ Present emphasis is about right J G Less emphasis Undecided 11. Do you know o f a person in your in stitu tio n who during the past tw o vears was denied tenure b u t w ho in your opinion should have been given tenure? Indicate the effect of each o f the following conditions upon your decision to support a local organization in its efforts to represent the interests of you and your col­ leagues. Check ONE colum n for each item . Nega­ Positive tive effect effect -GNo If Yes, indicate below, the m ajor conditions which may have c o n trib u te d to the denial o f tenure. Check ALL th at apply. 2U ;Q 2o 1» an organization I respect * □ It an organization 1 do n o t respect J D Is an organization ab o u t which 1 hold no definite feeling one way or the o th er 4D 2D *□ a. On the whole the MEA: c. With regard to state legislation for higher education, the MEA: 2D Yes Please indicate y o u r personal opinion o f the Michigan E ducation Association by checking ONE item in each of the fotlowing groups. b. The MEA is an organization th a t is: ;D Tenure in higher education is becom ing meaningless . . . . . . Faculty on this cam pus are given full and tim ely inform a­ tion about institutional p o l­ icies on term s and conditions o f em ploym ent, com pensa­ tion, e tc ........................................ 9. A bundant supply o f qualified applicants “ Q u o ta" o f faculty in the division already had tenure status Merits o f th e person were n o t fully known Personal or political considerations Future o f in stitu tio n 's program in doubt O th er:___________________________________________ Aggressive a ttitu d e tow ard the adm iniitration ........................ Cooperative attitu d e tow ard the adm inistration ................... 2D 2D No effect 2D 2D 2D 2D Affiliation w ith NEA/MEA . . A ffiliation with the AAUP A ffiliation with AFT ............ 2D 2D 2Q 2D 20 2D 2D 2D 2D Independent, no affiliation . . .. 'O 2D 2D 207 12. Lisied below are services which state and national organiza­ tions o f faculty in higher education could render to their m em bers. Please indicate the degree o f im portance you wouJd attach to each. Check ONE colum n for each item . M inor im p o r Provide sta ff for faculty engaged in collective b a rg a in in g ^□ 2D 2 Mar­ ginal, some im ­ Satis- prove­ fac­ m ent tory needed Little or no im por­ tance 3o Sabbatical leave policies ........................ Availability o f travel funds .............................. R etirem ent provisions □ 2□ 2 D Unsatis­ factory** much im­ prove­ m ent needed No opin­ ion 2D *n ■*D 2D 2D 2d 2D ■*o -*D •#D 2D 2D 2D 2D 20 Life insurance . . . . . . . . Health in s u ra n c e ............ 2D 2D 2D 2D Represent faculty interests in legislative and governm ental groups deliberating policies affecting faculty ............................. ^O 20 2 D C onduct training program s for faculty a d v o c a te s............................. ^O 2 D 2 d Salary*, sum m er session . P rom otion policies 2D 2D 20 4a 4D D S tudent/faculty ratio . . . ; D Teaching m aterials and equipm ent .................... 2 D Standards for notice of nonreappointm ent .2 n Class sixe ........................ . 2 n Long term disability in s u r a n c e ............ ........... .21"! 2D 2D ■»D 2D 2D 4o 2d 2D 2D 2D 4a 4a 2D 2D 4a -D 2D 4a 2D 20 2d 2D 4a 4q Provide assistance in developing faculty-run public relations campaigns ........................................ Conduct an d dissem inate re­ search on m atters effecting faculty welfare ............................. Establish m inim um standards for conditions of em ploym ent. e.g.. salaries* load, jo b security . . . Provide consultants to assist faculty in reviewing em ploy­ m ent conditions to determ ine ............................. their adequacy 13. ^ CD Indicate your personal opinions about the adequacy of the follow ing provisions for vou at your institution. Check ONE colum n for each item . □ □ □ □ Provide legal assistance in pro ­ tecting the right of due process. . . ^O 15. □ Provide personal benefits* such as insurance and investm ent services* at low c o s t 3 Parking fa c ilitie s ............ Faculty evaluation . . . . Salary, academic vear . . *□ G ^O ^G 2d 2 D 2d 2D 2 2 2 2 D D 2D Procedures for reduction ........................ -2 D in force Secretarial assistance and office f a c ilitie s ............... . 2 n Personal leave policies . . . 2Q D 2D -’ D ■fa 4Q 2D 20 JD 2D 4a If a faculty organization were providing the services you have lisied above as being o f m ajor and m inor im portance, to w hat ex te n t do you th in k you may be interested in becom ing a m em ber? ^D 2q 2Q Strongly interested in joining it Mildly interested in joining it N ot interested in joining it Undecided or indifferent a b o u t m em bership 17. In your opinion, are wom en discrim inated against, treated equitably, or given preferential treatm ent in y o u r cam pus' practices for faculty selection, salaries, and prom otion? Check ONE colum n for each item . 14 . Do y ou believe th at faculty m em bers in higher education should ever strike? Check ONE. 2D -O 2D ^D Yes, faculty m em bers should strike the same as em ployees in o th er occupations Yes, b u t only under extrem e conditions and after all o th er m eant have failed No, faculty m em bers should never strike Undecided Discrim i­ nated against Selection Salary .......... . . . ............... ... P ro m o tio n .......... . . . . T reated equitably T reated preferen. dally 2Q 2O 2D fa 2D 2D 2D 2D 208 IS. Lifted below are national organizations whose local and state affiliates currently represent the interests of faculty m em bers in institutions o f higher education. If you were to choose an organization for y o u r cam pus to represent yo u r interests, would you select an affiliate of the NEA, the AAUP, or the AFT? *0 -□ 3D **□ 6. a. Num ber of class sections you teach: b. Average num ber of hours o f class laboratory teaching p e r w eek: I I I hours NEA affiliate (N ational E ducation Association) .AAUP affiliate (American Association of University Professors) AFT affiliate (Am erican F ederation o f Teachers) None of these c. T otal students in all o f y o u r classes: 1. What is your sex? 2. What is your age? i 3. What is your current faculty rank or title? Check ONE. 1D ;G fQ 1G * G Female ^O 1□ i years 7. -□ 3D 5G G raduate students I l f ! U ndergraduate students ( i l l e. What other duties are credited tow ard y o u r teaching assignment? Check no m ore than TH REE. The following questions pertain to your professional or personal status. Y our answers to these questions are essential to validating the sample. I f i l l d. Num ber of students you are currently serving as an official individual counselor or advisor? STATUS QUESTIONS Male If you are teaching full tim e, w hat is y o u r teaching assignm ent this term (sem ester, trim ester, or quarter)? Professor Associate professor Assistant professor Instructor L ecturer O ther (e.g., distinguished professor); What kind o f appointm ent d o yo u have? *0 8. Directing practice teachers Directing theses Special leaching assignment C om m ittee assignment D epartm ent head Coaching Adm inistering a special program O th e r : _____________________________________ Tenure N ontenure T enure n o t applicable to m y position How m any years o f full-tim e teaching experience are you com pleting, including the current year (1976-77)? T otal years in institutions o f higher education l I T otal years o f teaching a t elem entary or secondary ievd l 1 I 4. In which o f the following types of assignments are you em ployed? 7G -G 30 *’ 0 5G '□ 5. Full-time teaching Professional support staff Full-time adm inistration Part-tim e teaching and part-tim e adm inistration On sabbatical leave On o th e r leave O ther: _______________________________________ Is yo ur teaching assignm ent directed prim arily to teacher education? Yes “ O No 9. 10. What is y o u r principal teaching discipline in y o u r present position? (e.g., history*, English, biology, education) ■— What is your total incom e from academically or p ro ­ fessionally related pursuits for the current academic year, i x „ from the opening of school in fall 1976 to the close o f school in spring or sum m er o f 1977? C om plete the blank which corresponds to the length o f yo u r basic contract. jO t 20 S i R eturn to : Michigan E ducation Association Box 673 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 674 1 ( 1 1 1 1 I I i I for 9-10 m onths t for 11-12 m onths I APPENDIX B 209 TABLE I Collective bargaining preferences and the effects of unionization Would vola lo r Rimi Bargaining results in higher salaries ....................... Individual salary bargaining is bad ......................... Within rank, salary differentiation should be based on age or seniority ..................................... Unionization benefits junior faculty most ................ Unionization improves opportunities (or women __ Unionization makes it more difficult to deny tenure Non-tenured need protection of a faculty organization .................................................. Bargaining substitutes seniority for merit and lowers tenure standards ................................. Bargaining results in overemphasis on rules ......... Bargaining reduces collegiality between administration and faculty .......... ........................ Academic self-government is ineffective ................. Unions protect faculty against arbitrary administrative,action .......................................... Student representatives should be allowed to take part in bargaining .......... ............................ faculty A.F.T. H.EJL A.A.U.P. Othor No ogant 76% 54% 94% 68% 88% 66% 83% 51% 81% 66% 48% 39% 22% 56% 57% 64% 39% 48% 76% 67% 30% 50% 69% 72% 14% 62% 57% 62% 27% 54% 57% 66% 14% 60% 37% 58% 45% 74% 64% 43% 46% 17% 58% 62% 27% 34% 44% 50% 60% 62% 60% 61% 81% 85% 69% 64% 43% 80% 60% 73% 69% 66% 72% 56% 89% . 51% 83% 94% 88% 87% 85% 67% 23% 32% 25% 22% 19% 15% 1 .1 The L a d d - L i p s e t So ur ce: Survey. The C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 11, January 26, 19 7 6. 210 TABLE 2 O bjective fa c to rs an d o p in io n s on colir a n d unionization e b arg ain in g Do nol igtM that collective bargaining haa no place on campua S c h o o l «YP* University .............................................................................. 61% 4-year institution ............................................. 2-year institution ................................................................ 76% 72% Tier o f s c h o o l High ..................................................... Middle ................................................................................... 67% Low ................................................................................ 73% B asic In stitu tio n al ss la ry 535,000 and m ore ......................................................... 530.000-34,999 ............................................ 525.000-29,999 .................................................................. 520.000-24,999 .................................................................. 517.000-19,999 .................................................................. 514.000-16,999 .................................................................. 512.000-13.999 .................................................................. 510.000-11,999 ................................................................. 5 7,000- 9,999 ................................................................... L ess than 57,000* ............................................................ * Too law cases lor reliable estimate. Favor a bargaining agent 61% 75% 81% 65% 64% 65% 80% 48% 52% 56% 68% 60% 73% 76% 80% 60% — H ours p e r w eek of te a c h in g 4 or less .............................................................................. 59% 5-8 .......................................................................................... 68% 9 and m ore ......................................................................... 73% 40% 52% 64% 74% 75% 75% 74% 79% 75% 56% 70% 77% P u b lic a tio n s In la st tw o y e a rs 5 Bnd m ore ........................................................................ 61% 1-4 None ................................................................................ 70% 65% 71% 70% 75% Principal activity R esearch .............................................................................. 57% Teaching ............................................................................ 72% Administration ............................................................... 54% 52% 76% 54% Age 60-99 ..................................................................................... 50-59 ..................................................................................... 40-49 ..................................................................................... 30-39 .........................................................................‘.......... 20-29 ..................................................................................... 57% 61% 71% 74% 83% 69% 69% 75% 72% 79% 62% 70% 74% 76% 69% 71% 74% 76% Rank Professor 'A ssociate Assistant Instructor S o ur ce : .............................................................................. professor ........................................................... prolessor ........................................................... .............................................................................. The L a d d - L i p s e t Survey The C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 11, January 2 6 , 197 6. ?n TABLE 3 Faculty a ttitu d e s and o p in io n s on collective bargaining a n d un io n izatio n Do not agree that cotlactlva bargaining a has no placa on campus S ch o larly co m p e titio n la d e s tru c tiv e to an Intellectu al e n v iro n m e n t Strongly ag ree .............................................. ......................... Agree with reservations D isagree with reservations ....................... D isagree strongly ....................................... .. B ase sa la ry In c re a s e s o n m erit Strongly ag re e .............................................. Agree with reservations ............................. D isagree with reservalions ....................... D isagree strongly ......................................... 81% 74% 71% 64% ......... 79% 61% 68% 77% 81% B ase sela ry d iffe re n c e s solely. on a g e o r sen io rity Slrongly ag ree .............................................. Agree with reservations ............................ D isagree with reservations ....................... D isagiee slrongly ......................................... ......... ....... ......... ....... 73% 77% 73% 64% 81% 83% 76% 66% B ase te n u re o n m o a t d e m a n d in g n atio n al sta n d a rd s Slrongly agree ............................................... Agree with reservations ............................. D isagree with reservalions ....................... D isagree strongly ........................................ ....... ....... ....... ....... 62% 69% 77% 75% 66% 73% 77% 80% ....... 71% ....... 72% ....... 65% 75% 73% 66% 66% T eochlng e ffe c tiv e n e ss—not p u b licatio n s— sh o u ld be p rim ary criterio n to r faculty p ro m o tio n Strongly agree ............................................. . Agree wilh reservations .............................. Disagree with reservations ........................ D isagree strongly .......................................... Source: Favor a bargaining agent ......... 66% • The Ladd L i p s e t Survey The C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 11, January 26, 1976. 212 TABLE A Political b eh av io r a n d facu lty unionism Ftver coliKllvt barpilnlng Would voftt for i union LJbersllsm-eonservatlsm Most liberal fifth ........................................... 89% Most conservative fifth ................................ 49% 88% 55% Party sentiment Strong Democrat ....................................1... 83% Strong Republican ............................. 48% 85% 45% 1972 vote for President Leftist third party .......................................... 87% McGovern ............... M........ 78% Nixon ............................................................. 53% 90% 80% 59% Took part in anti-war demonstration Often . . . „ ...................................... From time to time ....................... Rarely ............................................................ 75% Never :.... 62% 93% 87% • 93% 85% 76% 67% . A ttitu d es to w ard a c a d e m e a n d unionism Favor collective bargaining Attlludoa Would voto for a union “if you were to begin your career again, would you be a professor?” Definitely y e s ............................................... 66% ’ Definitely no.................................................. 80% 70% 78% "Is your institution a good place for you?'! Very good............... 64% Fairly good................................................... 73% 84% Not g o o d ........................ 67% 76% 84% Satisfaction at another school More ...................................................... 63% Equal............................. 68% L ess............................................................... 77% 67% 71% 78% D iscipline a n d a ttitu d e s tow ard u n io n ism an d p olitics . .Favor OUclplln* eoHactlva bargaining Social sciences..................... ....... 79% Humanities............................ ....... 77% Physical sciences................. ....... 66% Bioloaical sciences.............. ........61% Education............................... ....... 74% Business................................ ....... 65% Engineering .................. ....... 53% Agriculture............................. ....... 34% Medicine................................ ....... 50% Law.................................... . ..... 46% Source: . Would vola tor an agont U bm l 78% 80% 72% 63% 82% 63% 57% 29% 41% 46% 79% 77% 59% 55% 58% 32% 34% 25% 53% 53% The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14, February 2, 1976. ?1 3 TABLE 5 Profile of support for collective bargaining alternatives No A-A.U.P. N.E.A. A.F.T. Otbar apanl 12% 11% 25% 12% 35% 9% 35% 17% 21% 6% 9% 23% 8% 18% 30% 9% 14% 20% 39% 25% 19% 13% 3% 20% 7% 15% 5% 26% 38% 12% 13% 12% 7% 13% 19% 20% 9% 9% 25% 11% 25% 18% 26% 12% 43% 14% 13% 14% 7% 23% 18% 15% 18% 17% 11% 11% 17% 24% 26% 29% 31% 8% 13% 3% 8% 21% 4% 12% 14% 8% 46% 24% 48% 9% 9% 9% 18% 7% 14% 22% 23% 11% 44% 9% 30% 14% 23% 18% 23% 15% 8% 5% 21% 16% 11% 16% 12% 8% 25% 30% 12% 13% 7% .12% 7% 21% 9% 12% 7% 4% 3% 25% 23% 17% 19% 21% 11% 5% 0% 1% 2% 12% 15% 13% 6% 13% 17% 20% 16% 8% 8% 21% 20% 28% 37% 28% 37% 43% 54% 59% 71% 8% 11% 12% 15% 12% 32% 24% 15% 15% 7% 13% 13% 13% 14% 16% 12% 18% 26% 34% 45% 11% 13% 15% 0% 28% 14% 8% 48% 15% 13% 11% 14% 15% 30% 55% 24% 10% 14% 29% 14% 15% 16% 15% 35% The Ladd-Lipset Survey The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12, February 9* 1976. 7% 5% 18% Source: Tier Highest ........................................ .... 34% Middle .......................................... .... 40% Lowest ........................................ .... 19% Type of school University .................................... .... 38% 4-year institution ........................ .... 35% 2-year institution ..................... .... 9% Public o r private Public ....................................... .... 25% Private ......................................... .... 47% Salary Below $12,000 .......................... .... 42% $12,000-16,999 ......................... . .... 31% $17,000-24,999 ........................... .... 23% S25.000 or more ........................ .... 28% Rank Instructor ..................................... .... 21% Assistant professor ................... .... 31% Associate professor ....... .......... ..... 31% Professor .................................... ..... 27% Principal Activity Administration ................................. 26% Teaching .............. ........................ .... 28% Research ..................................... .... 37% Hours per week of teaching ' 4 or less w...................... ............. ... 30% 5-B ........................ .................... :.. ... 37% 9-12 ................................... •........... ... 32% 13 or more ................................... ... 18% Published in last 2 years None .............................................. ... 23% 1-4 ................................................. ... 33% 5 or more ....... ;...............'........... ... 39% Teaching field Social sciences ............................ ... 27% Humanities ................................... ... 35% Physical sciences .... .................. ... 30% Biological sciences ..................... ... 30% Education ...................................... ... 27% Business ....................................... ... 22% Engineering ................................. ... 20% Law ................................................ ... 23% Medicine ....................................... ... 28% Agriculture .................................... ... 16% LIberalism-conservatism scale Most liberal .................................. ... 35% -Somewhat liberal ........................ ... 34% Middle ........................................... ... 34% Somewhat conservative ............. ... 22% Most conservative ...: ................. ... 19% Party sentim ent Strong Democrat ......................... ... 30% Independent ................................. ... 30% Strong Republican ...................... ... 12% Other party ................................... ... 14% Minority treatm ent scale Strongly for remedial action ...... ... 31% Slrongly against remedial action .. 22% 214 TABLE 6 Electoral choices in a future collective bargaining election Bargaining election opt Iona Faculty mem ber* at schools which have not All (acuity member* had a n alaetlon 28% A.A.U.P......................................... A.F.T. ......................................................18% N.E.A. .................................................... 12% Other agents* ............................ 14% No agent .................................... 28% 31% 18% 8% 13% 29% 'O thar agents largely Include independent unafliliated local (acuity associations and affiliates ol stale civil service groups Faculty images of the three bargaining agents Imagaa Militant group Unprofessional Elitist .............. Radical .......... Conservative Undemocratic Source: A.A.U.P. 87% 9% ‘ 47% 15% 5% 48% 6% 49% 49% A.F.T. N.E.A. 24% 67%79% 56% 39% 6% 40% 9% , 23% 59% 19% 89% 38% 17% 10% 9% 40% 17% The Ladd Lipset Survey The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12, February 9, 1976. 215 TABLE 7 ■ Relationship between institutional status and political Ideology and preference for different bargaining alternatives A..A.U.P. N.EJk. A.F.T. High tier Liberal .............................................. . Middle .............................................. . Conservative ................................... . Middle tier Liberal .............................................. . Middle ............................ ................. . Conservative ....... ........................... . Low tier Liberal ........................................ . Middle .............................................. . Conservative .................................... t apant 40% 37% 26% 5% 7% 7% 19% 12% 10% 14% 3% - 9% 23% 32% 55% 48% 42% 29% 6% 5% 5% 19% 5% ‘ 5% 9% 9% 9% 18% 39% 52% 21% 30% 15% 15% 20% 20% 39% 23% 17% 15% 14% 19% 9% 16% 29% A.A.U.P. N.E.A. A.F.T. Other ■pant 13% 26% 36% 25% 14% 21% 29% 36% 4% 11% 31% 54% 18% 14% 34% 23% 39% 32% 19% 10% 27% 39% 25% 9% 32% 33% 24% 11% 46% 35% 13% 6% 24% 37% 26% 13% 27% 35% 24% 15% \ Attitudes toward strikes Professionalism m eans faculty should not engage in strikes and picketing Strongly agree ......... .................. Agree with reservalions .............. Disagree with reservalions ____ Strongly disagree ....................... Bargaining requires a willingness to strike when im passe reached Strongly agree ............................. Agree with reservations .............. Disagree with reservations ........ Strongly disagree ....................... Since they do not produce results, faculty should not engage In strikes and picketing Strongly agree ............................. Agree with reservations .......... Disagree with reservations ........ Strongly disagree ....................... S o ur ce : Othar No » 9% 28% 43% 19% 11% 25% 30% 33% The L a d d - L i p s e t Survey The C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 2% 18% 32% 48% 12, 14% 29%. 33% 24% 24% 33% 32% 1.1% February $ , 1976. 216 TABLE 8 Differences in Professors’ Groups Im ages o f t h e th re e o rg a n iz a tio n s A.A.U.P. N.E.A. A.F.T. Members Meeting Attendere 69% . 20% 7% 70% . 15% 8% 69% 15% 9% 45% 7% 37% 43% 7% 38% 39% 47% 7% 4% 40% 7% 2% 37% 3% 2% 40% 3% 2% 52% 30% 12% 59% 30% 14% 58% 36% 7% 52% 30% 7% 50% 32% 5% 3% 3% 48% 0% 3% 48% 5% 9% 38% 6% 8% 36% 4% 7% 33% Im ages Members Meeting Attend era Officer* Members Meeting Attendere Officers "Militant Group” A.F.T................................. N.E.A. ....... ‘ ................... a .A.u .p ............................. 69% 15% 5% 74% 15% 4% 77% 15% 6% 69% 23% 11% 71% 33% 4% 71% 34% 4% “ Conservative” A.F.T. ............................ N.E.A. ............................ A.A.U.P............. ............... 10% 54% 61% 6% 71% 75% 6% 70% 78% 10% 9% 34% 39% 56% • 65% 12% 39% 69% "Radical" A.F.T................................. N.E.A. ............................ A.A.U.P............................ 23% 6% 4% 20% 10% 3% 14% 8% 4% 46% 11% 7% 45% 8% 5% "Too much politicized" A.F.T................................. N.E.A. ............................ A.A.U.P............................ 32% 33% 15% 25% 42% 14% 20% 43% 11% ' 64% 37% 16% "Elitist” A.F .X. .................... . N.E.A. ............................ A.A.U.P............................ 4% 13% 64% 1% 4% 74% 1% 4% 70% 6% 8% 52% Source: (38% 8% Officers The Ladd-Lipset Survey The Chronicle of Higher Education, 13» February 17, 1976. 217 TABLE 9 Political o rie n ta tio n s A.F.T. * A.A.U.P. N.E.A. MMllog Attend*,* Officers M embers Meeting Attendere Officers Members Meeting Attenders Officers 1972 vote 2% Lett-third party ....... McGovern ..............'---- 76% Nixon ............................ . 22% 7% 77% 21% 3% 82% 15% 0% 56% 44% 0% 47% 53% 0% 47% 53% 0% 73% 27% 1% 82% 18% 1% 83% 16% Party identification Democrat ...................... Independent ................. Republican .................. 36% 57% 6% 42% 49% 9% 49% 46% 6% 26% 60% 15% 28% 54% 17% 33% 46% 21% 36% 55% 9% 39% 50% 11% 45% 43% 12% Liberalismconservatism scale Most liberal quintile .... . 29% Most conservative quintile ..................... 15% 38% 52%- 12% 12% 10% 23% 34% 40% 17% 7% 23% 30% 35% 16% 8% 7% Im ages Source: Members The L a d d - L i p s e t Survey The C h r o n i c l e o f H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 13, February 17, 197 6. APPENDIX C 218 M ich igan A s s o c ia tio n for H igher Education P. O. Box 673, Bast Lansing, Michigan 48823 — 5 1 7/3 3 2 * 6 5 5 1 MEMO President: C. R obert Sccrist 248 Arcadia Blvd. Battle Creek 49017 616/965*3931 Past President: Rod Chase 288S9 Salem Road Farmington 48024 313/476-9400 TO: Lake Superior State College Faculty FROM: Bill Owen, Higher Education Consultant DATE: December 7, 1976 Vice President. Four-Year Schools; Paul Spegnuolo 604 Cherry Big Raprds 49307 616/796-9971 Vice President. Two-Year Schools: David Dierking 212 Partridge Pt. Aloena 49707 517/356-9021 Secretary-Treasurer: Ted Webber 212 N orth Oneida Tecumseh 49266 313/242-7300 Board Member At Large: Seundra Florek 46855 Joy Road Plym outh 48170 313/591*6400 Board Member At Large: CaMtton •Wally” Smith 2411 Roaeltwn Walled Lake 48088 313/342*1000 RE: Recommendations of the Michigan Efficiency Task Force The Michigan Efficiency Task Force is a nonprofit corporation formed at the request of the Governor and the Legislature. The work of the Efficiency Task Force represented a major effort on the part of private sector executives to find ways for reducing government expenditures. One of the recommendations made by the Task Force should be of specific Interest to the staff at Lake Superior State College. The recommendation reads as follows: "40. Evaluate the feasibility of closing the college if Kincheloe Air Force Base is shut down unless overriding public considerations dictate otherwise. Unemployment in the area around Lake Superior State College is 282 and expected to grow with the impend­ ing closing of the air force base. A significant migration from the area is anticipated with a subse­ quent withdrawal of approximately 150 full-time stu­ dents from the college. Legislation Council Chairperson: Jane Campbell 7725 N. 42nd St. Augusta 49012 517/787-0800 The revenue loss will amount to $425,000. This poten­ tial decrease in student population is particularly significant since Lake Superior is already the smallest state college in Michigan. MEA Staff Consultant: William R. Owen 1-800-292-1934 If the air force base is closed, the feasibility of continuing college operations should be examined. At present, annual state aid to Lake Superior averages $400 per student higher than at other state colleges. 219 Therefore, transferring an estimated 2,000 enroll­ ments to the other schools would provide an annual cost avoidance of $800,000. In addition, the proposed construction of a new vocational-technical building should be held in abeyance until a final decision is made. The one-time cost avoidance would amount to more than $7.3-million— approximately half to be spent in fiscal 1977. If this proposal is not imple­ mented, the following recommendations should be put into effect to improve operations at the college." Also of potential interest to Lake Superior State College Faculty are the two opening paragraphs of the Task Force's Recommendations for Lake Superior State College: "1. The college has two major schools— one for science and technology and one for arts and sciences— which offer 60 types of instructional programs leading to degrees. The fiscal 1977 budget request amounts to $5.2-million of which $3.8-million is state funds. The combined enrollment is 2,200 full-time equivalent stu­ dents. There are approximately 500 full- and parttime employees." "2. Like other state colleges, Lake Superior is facing increased competition for new students. The possible closing of Kincheloe Air Force Base will add to the enrollment problem and reduce revenues by an estimated $425,000 per year. Business operations in the college are w eak and a number of systems require improvement." It is not the intent of this memo to create an air of crisis where no crisis exists. Nonetheless, it would, in my view, be maladroit of faculty to simply ignore such recommendation. The words of the Chairman and President of the Task Force, Oscar A. Lundin, should be heeded by all parties who are potentially affected by the Efficiency Task Force's Recommendations. In his letter of November addressed to Governor Milliken, Mr. Lundin concludes that: "The ultimate success of our efforts will be gauged by the extent to which proposals are implemented...." At least as far as Lake Superior State College is concerned; hope that the Task Force does not enjoy "ultimate success." W R 0 :es let us APPENDIX C-l 220 A dm inistrator C haracteristics a n d Union Activity Some organising activity Adm inistrator Characteristic # % N o organising activity 7c # Length of Institutional Service* ' Less than four years Five to nine years Ten to fourteen years Fifteen years and above 37 27 5 14 44.5 32.4 6.0 17.1 46 44 24 30 31.8 30.5 16.8 20.9 13 29 26 15 15.7 34.9 31.3 18.1 52 43 29 21 35.9 29.7 20.0 14.4 64 27 77.1 32.5 106 22 72.1 14.9 46 55.4 61 41.5 22 26.5 37 25.2 25 30.1 47 31.9 38 45.8 46 31.3 15 19 18.1 22.9 17 32 11.6 21.8 37 10 1) 7 i7 45.1 12.2 13.4 8.5 20.7 48 11 28 10 48 33.1 7.6 19.3 6.9 33.1 Number of Institutions Servedb One Two Three Four or more Previous Experience* Teaching— 4 year college Teaching—2 year college Teaching—Elementary or Secondary A dm inistrator—Public School A dm inistrator—other than education Research—College or University Research—other than education Other Academic Field of Study* Education Science Social Science H istory O ther 221 A d m in is tra to r A ttitu d e s a n d U nion A ctivity O n estio n S o m e o rgan izin g a c tiv ity C o llective bargain in g h as n o p la ce in h igh er education SA A D SD M o o rgan izin g a c tiv ity # '7o 9 20 45 9 10.8 24.1 54.2 10.8 24 55 60 5 16.7 38.2 41.7 3.5 22 53 7 1 26.5 63.9 8.4 1.2 18 74 34 17 12.6 51.7 23.8 11.9 12 SO 18 1 14.8 61.7 22.2 1.2 30 101 13 0 20.8 70.1 9.0 0.0 2 32 41 8 2.4 38.6 49.4 U.ri 37 100 5 0 26.1 70.4 3.5 X* 10.816 .02 21.454 .001 9.873 .02 93.566 .001 F a c u lty m em b ers sh o u ld be a llo w ed to jo in u n ions if th e y desire SA A D SD 3. In g en eral, co m m u n ity su p p o r t fo r [acu ity u nionism is poor SA A D SD 4. In general, fa cu lty su p p o r t f o r fa c u lty unionism is p o o r a t th is in stitu tio n SA A D SD S o m e o rgan izin g a c tiv ity 0 .0 M o o rgan izin g actitn ty # 7° # 7o 10 35 34 2 12.3 43.2 41.9 2.5 17 96 27 5 11.7 662 18.6 3.4 9 29 40 6 10.7 34.5 47.5 7.2 7 41 75 23 4.8 28.1 51.4 15.8 12 S3 19 0 14.3 63.1. 22.6 0.0 33 93 17 3 22.6 63.7 11.7 2.1 X* 5. I f fa cu lty m em b ers a re g iv e n a g r e a te r voice in in stitu tio n a l d ecision s, fa cu lty un ionism is le s s lik e ly to su cceed SA A D SD 24.887 .001 6. F a c u lty m em b ers sh ou ld h a ve a m a jo r ity voice in th e a p p o in tm en t of n e w fa c u lty m em bers SA A D SD 6.693 .10 7.711 .001 7. F a c u lty m em b ers sh ou ld h ave a m a jo r ity voice in se ttin g academ ic sta n d a rd s and m en ts SA A D SD requ ire­ APPENDIX D 222 MSU'FACULTY ASSOCIATFS February 2 6 , 1971 Dear Colleague: Many of you have asked about the Michigan State University Faculty Associates and the nature of the group seeking to represent you. At the outset may we state that only the name and dynamics are new. The organization has existed on campus since 1949. Its name was recently changed from the MSU/Higher Education Association to the MSU/Faculty Associates and the constitution has been changed to facilitate campus-wide participation in the governance of the organization. The objectives of MSU/FA are contained in ARTICLE III of the Constitution: 1. To promote the goals of the teaching profession in higher education. 2. To secure understanding of the roles, programs, and problems of all higher education. 3. To promote and improve the professional and economic status of the members of the organization. 4. To seek improvement of all the educational programs of the various colleges within Michigan State University. 5. To share in. the determination of educational policy and practices. While a small organization in terms of membership, it is supported by substantial resources, both personnel and financial, of the MEA and NEA. The MSU/FA determined some months ago that the faculty of MSU perceived that the best method of achieving their professional objectives was through negotiations with the Board of Trustees; negotiations as defined by the law of the State of Michigan. The current effort is designed to determine whether the faculty does in fact wish to discuss, on a formal basis, its ambitions and concerns with the Board of Trustees. Without a negotiating agent which is recognized by the State of Michigan as the sole bargaining representative for faculty, there is no requirement for the Board to do more than listen to faculty. At the present time there is nothing to prevent them from ignoring requests or recommendations. The members of MSU/FA believe that their organization is best equipped to effectively negotiate with the Board of Trustees. We are simply asking you to indicate whether you concur in our objectives as stated above and in our ability to fulfill these stated objectives. The functions of the organization can only be determined by the members of the faculty, The salary schedule, working conditions and ancillary conditions specified by members of the Association, are all determined by the faculty through negotiation with the Board of Trustees. You recently received an authorization card. You are asked to sign and return it. Your signature will not be viewed by any member of administration or faculty at any level. Your signature does not require membership in any organization. Your signa­ ture does not impose any obligation on how, or even whether, you vote in the election. Your signature indicates only that you want the right to decide at the appropriate time ^nCTyely, Dr. Peter G. Haines, President MSU Faculty Associates Mr. Edward P. .Keller, President-Elect MSI) Faculty Associates 223 M S U /F A C U L T Y A SSO C IA TES • P o s t O ffice B ox 673 • E a s t L a n sin g 48823 M arch 9, 1971 D r. Sandra A . W ard en , C h a irm a n F a c u lty A ff a ir s C o m m itte e M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s ity E a s t L a n sin g , M ic h ig a n 48823 D e a r D r. W arden: D r. H a in es h a s a sk e d m e a s c h a ir m a n o f th e M S U /F a c u lty A s s o c ia t e s C o o rd in a tin g C o m m itte e fo r C o lle c tiv e N e g o tia tio n s to r e sp o n d t o y o u r le t t e r and q u e s tio n n a ir e o f F e b r u a r y 25, 1971. At th e o u ts e t, I w ould lik e to c o m m e n t that th e in t e r e s t in th e is s u e of fa c u lty u n io n iz a tio n sh ow n by th e F a c u lty A ffa ir s C o m m itte e and it s S u b -c o m m itte e on C o lle c tiv e B a r g a in in g is v ie w e d w ith fa v o r by th e M S U /F A . Y ou w ill a p p r e c ia te th e fa c t that w h ile w e a r e e a g e r to r e sp o n d t o y o u r q u e s tio n n a ir e , it is not p o s s ib le at th is tim e to p r o v id e y o u r c o m m itte e w ith fu ll and u n e q u iv o c a l a n s w e r s to e v e r y q u e stio n . We a r e ta k in g th e p o s itio n th at m a n y of th e q u e s tio n s p o s e d by y o u r grou p m u s t be a n s w e r e d e it h e r by fa c u lty th rou gh d e m o c r a tic p r o c e d u r e s or by th e M ich ig a n E m p lo y ­ m en t R e la tio n s C o m m is s io n . S p e c if ic a lly , q u e stio n n u m b er one d e a ls w ith th e s tr u c tu r e of th e b a r g a in in g u n it. W hile w e m ay m ak e r e c o m m e n d a tio n s r e la t iv e to the d e fin itio n of a b a r g a in in g unit, th e fin a l d e c is io n w ill be m ade by M ER C . It is our in te n tio n , h o w e v e r , to s e e k b ro a d r e p r e s e n ta tio n . H e r e w ith a r e o u r , th e M S U /F a c u lty A s s o c i a t e s , r e s p o n s e s to q u e s tio n s tw o th r o u g h tw e lv e : 2) H ow w ould th e r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of the b a r g a in in g unit be s e le c te d ? B y e le c t io n . 3) Who w ould m ak e th e d e c is io n s c o n c e r n in g c r i t e r ia for s a la r y in c r e m e n ts ? The fa c u lty . 4) W ould y o u a n tic ip a te an a p p r e c ia b le in c r e a s e in fa c u lty s a l a r i e s ? If s o , w h e r e w ou ld y o u a n tic ip a te th e m o n ey w ou ld c o m e fr o m ? 224 D r. Sandra W arden M arch 9, 1 971 P age Two Y e s . We a n tic ip a te th at s o m e of th e m on ey w ou ld c o m e fr o m a r e a lig n m e n t of U n iv e r s ity p r i o r i t ie s . 5) What p r o v is io n s w ould be m ade fo r m e r it i n c r e a s e s ? The m e r it s y s t e m w ou ld be p r e s e r v e d and en h a n ced . (A p r o to ty p ic s y s t e m e x i s t s in th e C ity U n iv e r s ity of N ew Y ork c o n tr a c t and in the C e n tr a l M ich ig a n U n iv e r s ity a g r e e m e n t .) 6) W hich o f th e fo llo w in g f a c t o r s w ould be su b je c t to n e g o tia tio n ? a . T e n u re e . H ir in g and F ir in g b. W orking c o n d itio n s f. F a c u lty load c . C la s s s i z e g . F r in g e b e n e fits d. P r o m o tio n h. O ther (p le a s e sp e c ify ) We a n tic ip a te th a t a ll of th e a r e a s w h ich y o u h a v e e n u m e r a te d w ou ld be su b je c t to n eg o tia tio n ; h o w e v e r , th e n e g o tia tio n p r i o r i t ie s w ould be d e te r m in e d by fa c u lty and w ould not be lim ite d to the s e v e n a r e a s c ite d in y o u r q u e s tio n n a ir e . 7) What w ou ld th e an n u al d u e s b e ? C u r r e n tly , L o c a l $ 2 S tate $82 N a tio n a l $25 8) What p e r c e n ta g e of th e s e d u e s w ould be u se d by th e lo c a l o r g a n iz a tio n ? It i s a n tic ip a te d th at d u rin g th e p e r io d of a d ju stm e n t to the b a r g a in in g p r o c e s s that th e M EA and NEA w ould in v e s t r e s o u r c e s fa r in e x c e s s of r e v e n u e s r e a liz e d th ro u g h m e m ­ b e r s h ip d u e s . 9) W ould a l l of th e fa c u lty pay d u e s ? N o. 225 Dr. Sandra Warden March 9, 1971 Page Three 10) Would academic governance be altered; and if so, how? Academic governance would be enhanced through raising the level of faculty participation and dignifying that parti­ cipation with a truly co-equal voice as provided for under the terms of the Michigan Public Employment Relations Act. 11) List the major advantages of collective bargaining. Improved relations between faculty and administration through the orderly process of collective negotiations on matters relating to faculty compensation, welfare, and participation in decision making as it relates to the governance of the University. 12) List the major disadvantages of collective bargaining. None. Again, we wish to thank you for your interest in this vital campus-wide issue. Sincerely, / James Trow, Chairman Coordinating Committee IV SU/Faculty Associates \ j / r :jb 226 SECTION IIB QUESTIONS ASKED AND RESPONSES OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PROCEDURE: A covering letter and a list of questions were sent to: Clifford R. Wharton, Jr., President, MSU John E. Cantlon, Provost, MSU The letters were dated March 2, 1971, and March 1, 1971, respectively. They were delivered by courier on those same dates. LETTER: Dr. ________________ : The Steering committee of the Faculty has requested that the University Faculty Affairs Committee prepare for immediate distribution to the MSU faculty an impartial review of collective bargaining by university faculties. In an effort to obtain adequate information for our review we are seeking the assistance of several organizations and individuals both on and off campus. We are particularly interested in providing a variety of perspectives on this issue and would value any insight you could provide. We would appreciate direct, concise answers to the attached questions as they pertain to the present situation at MSU. We will greatly appreciate your cooperation in supplying us this specific information along with any o£her input that would help us achieve our goal of a comprehensive review. The deadline for completion of our report requires that we receive your reply by March 5, 1971. Your reply will be included in our report to the steering committee for distribu­ tion to the faculty. Thank you. Sincerely, Sandra A. Warden, Chairman, Faculty Affairs Committee William Hinze, Subcommittee for the study of collective bargaining Stanley Ries, Subcommittee for the study of collective bargaining QUESTIONS: 1. in the event that the MSU faculty should organize for collective bargaining: a. Would you anticipate an appreciable increase in faculty salaries? If so, where would you anticipate the money would come from? Would it be necessary to reduce staff and/or programs? APPENDIX E The following Master Plan for the 1978 unionization drive at Michigan State University is the work of Dr. William L. Ewens who granted permission for its inclusion here. ELECTION CAMPAIGN PLANS Table of Contents PURPOSE 229 ANALYSIS AND GENERAL STRATEGIES 230 1. Election Timetable 2. Election Goals 3. Nature of the Faculty Members in the Bargaining Unit 4. ' Degree of MSUFA Support 5. Our Opponents: AAUP, University Administration, Anti-Union Faculty 6 . General Election Strategies 230 230 231 232 BASIC CAMPAIGN TASKS 244 1. 2. 244 248 Activities on Election Days Major Campaign Tasks 234 238 CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION 249 THE VOTER CANVASS 253 2 1. Goal s . Major Tasks 3. Timetable of Events 253 253 258 THE VOTER TURNOUT CAMPAIGN 259 2 1 . Goal . Major Tasks 3. Timetable of Events 259 259 263 THE NEWSLETTER 264 2 1. Goal . Major Tasks 3. Timetable of Events 264 264 266 THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN 267 1 . Goals . Basic Tasks 3. Timetable of Events 267 267 273 2 227 228 IX. RESEARCH 275 1. Goals 2. Major Tasks 3. Time Table of Events 275 275 276 X. DEALING WITH TRUSTEES 277 1. Goals 2. Major Tasks 3. Timetable of Events 277 277 277 XI. CALENDAR OF EVENTS APPENDICES: 278 A. Votes Needed by MSUFA to Win the Election. 283 B. General Demographics: 284-285 MSU Faculty. C. Faculty and MSUFA Card Signers by College. 286 D. MSUFA Card Signers by 287-291 Academic Unit. E. MSUFA Key Supporters. F. Demographics: G. MSUFA Voting Quotas byCollege. 292 Anti-UnionFaculty in the 1972 Election. 293-295 296 I. PURPOSE In this notebook are outlined a general set of strategies and plans for winning the faculty collective bargaining election at MSU this year. Of course, these plans will have to be revised on an ongoing basis as the campaign progresses, but by developing a general written plan, it is hoped that we can gain a better overview of the total campaign effort and thus more effectively utilize our limited resources. 229 II. ANALYSIS AND GENERAL STRATEGIES Below are described some of the general assumptions and ideas underlying the specific campaign plans dealt with in the following sections of this notebook. 1. Election Timetable: These plans are formulated on the basis of a proposed election of about May 1, 1978. Of course, the exact date of the election is not entirely within our control, but to the degree possible we should try to regulate the formal hearings and other relevant events with this general election date in mind. Our plans are thus for a 17 Week Campaign beginning as of January 1, 1978. 2. Election Goals: Appendix A presents information concerning the number of votes needed under varying conditions to win this election. Assuming a three-way ballot (MSUFA, AAUP, and No Agent), our goals in the initial election are (a) to defeat AAUP and (b) to provoke a run-off election with "No Agent". This means that "No Agent" must receive less than 50 percent of the vote. (In the 1972 election about results were 60 percent for "No 82 percent of the MSU faculty voted. The Agent", 22percent for MSUFA and 14 per­ cent for AAUP.) As Appendix A shows, if we assume that AAUP receives at least 16 percent of the vote in this initial election (which seems to be a reasonable assumption given current conditions), then MSUFA must receive at least 35 percent of the votes cast (onlyslightly more than one-third) provoke a run-off election. in order to Assuming that 80 percent of eligible faculty 230 231 members actually vote, this means that we must obtain either about 600 or 710 votes depending on whether the medical colleges are included in the bargaining unit. In a run-off election, our goal is to create the broadest possible alliance of pro-collective-bargaining faculty and defeat "No Agent". Our goal then becomes that of either winning the election outright (the pre­ ferred outcome) or at least coming close enough to winning that a victory is assured in the next go-around. 3. Nature of the Faculty Members in the Bargaining Unit; As Appendix B demonstrates, the typical faculty member at MSU is white, male, tenured (with about 40 percent being Full Professors), and a full­ time employee who has earned a Ph.D. Degree. In particular, there are very few non-white faculty members (less than 7 percent) although the symbolic importance of support from non-white faculty is important. Also, less than one-quarter of the bargaining unit is female, although again the support of women is critical to the success of our campaign. The importance of these demographic figures, however, is to emphasize that to win this election, we must be able to appeal to a majority of the voters in the present bargain­ ing unit. Thus, while attempting to appeal to special groups in the campaigh, we must not neglect the real majority of faculty in our unitwhite, male, tenured, full-time Ph.D. faculty members. The conservative nature of MSU's faculty is also illustrated by the fact that almost half of the faculty members in the present unit work in professional, vocational, and technically oriented colleges where the atmospheres are generally anti-union and hostile to collective bargaining (Colleges of Agriculture, Business, Engineering, Human Medicine, 232 Natural Science, Osteopathic Medicine, Veterinary Medicine). C) (See Appendix There is also pervasive attitude of "academic elitism" among many faculty members at MSU which during the campaign will undoubtedly be exploited by both AAUP and the anti-union "Concerned Faculty" in attempting to defeat our organizing effort. 4. Degree of MSUFA Support: In the Authorization Card Campaign, MSUFA obtained the necessary 30 percent authorization cards (around 725 "good" cards submitted to MERC). Appendices C through E present some relevant data concerning these sup­ porters. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of this card support, for instance, came from six colleges (University College, Arts and Letters, Residential Colleges, Urban Development, Social Science, and Non-College Faculty) which represents only slightly more than two-fifths (43 percent) of the total faculty within the University. On the basis of the data presented in Appendix C, the various colleges within the University can perhaps be divided into four general groups ranked according to the degree of faculty support for MSUFA. Category I. Supportive Colleges: University Colleges Residential Colleges Urban Development In these colleges the general atmosphere is pro-collectivebargaining and favorable to MSUFA. There are numerous MSUFA supporters, several key contacts, and few anti-union "Concerned Faculty" or AAUP supporters in these colleges. 54-65 percent of the faculty in these colleges signed MSUFA Authorization Cards. Faculty in these colleges represent about 13 percent of the total MSU faculty. 233 Faculty in these colleges represent 27 percent of all MSUFA Authorization Card signers. Category II. Mixed-Supportive Colleges: Arts and Letters Social Science Non-College Science Education In these colleges, there is significant MSUFA support but the general atmosphere is somewhat less supportive and there is considerably more opposition. 31-39 percent of the faculty in these colleges signed MSUFA Authorization Cards. Faculty in these colleges represent about 40 percent of the total MSU faculty. Faculty in these colleges represent 47 percent of all MSUFA Authorization Card signers. Category III. Mixed-Hostile Colleges: Human Ecology Natural Science Communication Arts In these colleges, there are pockets of MSUFA support but the dominant atmosphere is hostile. Social support net­ works do exist but they tend to be localized within parti­ cular friendship cliques and within certain departments or units (e.g., there is considerable MSUFA support within the School of Nursing and the Science and Math Teaching Center which are units within the generally hostile College of Natural Science). 17-25 percent of the faculty in these colleges signed MSUFA Authorization Cards. Faculty in these colleges represent about 25 percent of the total MSU faculty. Faculty in these colleges represent 18 percent of all MSUFA Authorization Card signers. Category IV. Hostile Colleges: Engineering Business Agriculture 234 In these colleges, there are some individual supporters of MSUFA (usually politically liberals and/or persons with grievances against their departments) but few pockets of general support and no generally supportive departments or units. 7-16 percent of the faculty in these colleges signed MSUFA Authorization Cards. Faculty in these colleges represent about 22 percent of the total MSU faculty. Faculty in these colleges represent 7 percent of all MSUFA Authorization Card signers. Data concerning the number and proportion of card signers by department and academic unit are presented in Appendix D. The College of Arts and Letters, for instance, is listed above as being in the "mixed-supportive" category. But these data show that individual departments in this college vary widely with regard to the propostion of card signers— from the Art Department with 93 percent card signers to the Theatre Department with only 8 percent card signers. Similar variations can also be noted in colleges in the "mixed-hostile" category as well. The names and departments of MSUFA Key Supporters are presented in Appendix E. These are persons who have repeatedly signed Authorization Cards, have paid MEA dues, have agreed to publically endorse collective bargaining in newspaper advertisements, and/or have actually taken an active role in our election campaign. 5. Our Opponents: AAUP, University Administration, and Anti-Union Faculty: Below are presented a brief analysis and summary comments about our three chief opponents in this election campaign: AAUP: The local AAUP is ambivalent toward collective gargaining— some members favor it, some vigorously oppose it, and many would rather not have 235 a collective bargaining election at all, but if one come would prefer the AAUP as a bargaining agent over MSUFA. In the 1972 campaign, AAUP attempted to obtain its own 30 percent petition, failed, and was forced into an intervenor status. venor. In this election, AAUP will also be an inter- Below are listed some probable aspects of this year's AAUP campaign: 1. The AAUP campaign will probably be half-hearted and not well organized. They will receive some money from the national AAUP (probably between $2000 and $5000). Most, of this money will be spent on advertise­ ments in the State News and perhaps a few direct mailings. The AAUP may also be interested in participating in debates or large campus meetings where a few "faculty stars" (e.g., Ferency or Adams) can cominate and which will get State News coverage. They will probably do little grass roots organi zing. 2. To win votes, AAUP will point to their 50 year tradition of active involvement in the areas of academic freedom and tenure. They will empha­ size that as opposed to the NEA they are the largest organization devoted totally to concerns of higher education. They will claim MEA is dominated by K-through-12 teachers and that the organization is trying to extend these same principles of bureaucracy and mediocrity to higher education. Many of their appeals will be explicitly or implicitly elitist and based on status pretentions— taking advantage of the fact that the reference group for most MSU faculty is not public school teachers, but rather the University of Michigan and other "great" universities in the United States. They will also make a point of their reasonableness and moderateness as opposed to the malcontents and "radicals" in the MSUFA. 236 The University Administration: The central administration was actively involved in defeating our collective bargaining attempt in 1972. In early 1971, there was a Presidential staff review of collective bargaining contracts at other universities and the Administrative Group held a series of "in-service training" meetings on collective bargaining in the Fall of 1971. These latter meetings produced a White Paper for administration strategists. According to one article written about the 1972 election campaign (Perlstadt, 1975), some of the key components of the administra­ tion's plan were the following: 1. Encourage a high overall voter turnout. Uninformed and more apathetic voters tend to be more conservative and to support the status quo (since they don't understand the alternative very well). High levels of voter turnout thus reduce the likelihood of dramatic social change. 2. Encourage "unbiased" and thus contradictory information on both sides of the collective bargaining issue. This tends to demonstrate the complexity of the issues and to confuse faculty. It sows seeds of doubt in the minds of faculty and makes it easier for anti-union faculty to argue against changing the status quo. 3. Use faculty members themselves wherever possible rather than administrators to actively oppose collective bargaining. This organiza­ tional strategy has also emerged in other campaigns where Keith Groty has been a consultant (e.g., University of Pittsburgh). 4. Use the News Bulletin as a vehicle for articles by faculty and administrators opposed to collective bargaining (e.g., Provost Cantlin's article entitled "Bargaining— Toward Uniformity and Rigidity") and the anti-union article by Wharton himself immediately prior to the election. 237 Anti-Union Faculty. Before classes began in the Fall of 1972, a small group of faculty began to meet for the purpose of opposing collective bar­ gaining at MSU. They called themselves the "Committee of Concerned Faculty" and formed an Executive Committee composed of the following faculty members: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Harold Hart, Professor, Chemistry. Albert Rabin, Professor, Psychology. Dena Cederquist, Professor, Food Science & Human Nutrition. Everett H. Everson, Professor, Crop and Soil Science. Gerald Miller, Professor, Communication. John P. Henderson, Professor, Economics. Patricia Bainbridge, Assistant Professor, Aud & Speech Sci. Paul A. Varg, Professor, History. Bruce Miller, Assistant Professor, Philosophy. The Committee of Concerned Faculty raised their own money and sponsored a series of advertisements in the State News. The first ad appeared on October 11, just twelve days before the election (which was held on October 23-24, 1972). It contained some 50 names and the message that collective bargaining would result in no real economic benefits to the faculty, would create sharp divisions within the university community, and would lead to an erosion of the values and ideals associated with academic life. The Concerned Faculty also attacked MSUFA as a small group controlled by outsiders. "Who are the MSU-Faculty Associates? A very very small number of MSU faculty, financed and minipulated by the very very large MEA and NEA organizations. MEA and NEA want to extend the K through 12 principle to K through 16. They are organizations whose paid staff have invaded the campus, established four 3-room suites in the University Inn and set about to 'pick-off' the MSU collective bar­ gaining contract. So remember, if you do not want out­ siders negotiating your salary and working conditions vote 'No Aqent" October 23rd and 24th." (State News=: 10-17-72) 238 On October 20, just three days before the election, the Concerned Faculty paid for a State News advertisement with 360 faculty names listed in it. A demographic analysis of these names is presented in Appendix F. Just under two-thirds of the signers belonged to departments in either the College of Agriculture of the College of Natural Science, while only a handful belonged to departments in the College of Social Science, the College of Education, or the College of Business. faculty in seven departments signed the ad: Over one-half of the chemistry; food sciences- nutrition; horticulture; dairy science; speech-audiology; large animal surgery; and poultry science, as did between one-fourth and one-half of the faculty in ten other departments: mathematics; agricultural economics; physics; physiology; electrical engineering and systems science; bio­ chemistry; statistics; animal husbandry; fisheries and wildlife; and entomology. 6 . General Election Strategies: Below are described some general campaign tactics and strategies. 1. Our general strategy is built upon a targeting system in which we seek to identify and categorize potential faculty voters by the degree of their support for MSUFA, and then concentrate on building up a high turnout among persons who we regard as probable supporters. In general, we will concentrate our efforts on probable supporters instead of building a high overall voter turnout. Below is presented a brief newspaper description of the "Kasten Plan" which is an analogous election strategy used in Congressional election campaigns: "Republican conservatives are unrestrained in their enthusiasm for the Kasten plan, a campaign system. 239 developed in 1974 by Robert Kasten, who was elected to the House from Wisconsin that year. "Many of the elements of the plan had been used by others before Kasten, notably liberal Rep. Robert F. Drinan (DMass.) in his first House campaign in 1970. Essentially it is a targeting system. Campaign workers seek to iden­ tify and categorize potential voters by the degree of their support, and then concentrate on building up the turnout among people regarded as friendly. There is no effort to build a high overall turnout." (In These Times, 7/20-26/77) In implementing this targeting strategy, we must focus upon developing a thorough and accurate voter canvass of faculty support, developing speci­ fic mailing lists directed to various groups on campus, and developing a voter turnout plan which will focus upon each MSU academic unit and office building. Based upon existing information, voter quotas by college are presented in Appendix G. These data show the number of votes which we must obtain in each college if we are to get 40 percent of the overall vote given a bargaining unit with the medical colleges excluded (or 36 percent of the total vote given a bargaining unit with the medical colleges included). These estimates represent the number of votes which MSUFA would probably have to obtain to get into a run-off election with "No Agent." Thus, these figures indicate, on the basis of present information, the general nature of the vote which we must obtain from given academic units if we are to meet our basic goals in this initial election. 2. Insofar as possible, we will attempt to utilize informal networks and personal relationships among faculty members to get out supporters to the polls. In this regard, we will rely heavily upon informal get-togethers organized by our supporters in various units and in various interest 240 groups on campus. These informal meetings will then be followed up by personal notes and by telephone calls in the period immediately preceeding the election. In keeping with our own version of the "Kasten Plan" this organizing method has the potential of getting a maximum number of probable supporters to the polls with a minimum amount of antagonism to our adversaries. 3. To reduce the effectiveness of overt opposition from the University Administration, various persons from the MSUFA Executive Committee met per­ sonally this past Summer with each of the members of the MSU Board of Trustees. At our request, in their September 1977 meeting, the Board unaminously approved a resolution pledging "institutional neutrality" on the part of the administration in the upcoming election campaign. This resolution reads as follows: "The Board affirms the basic right of all University employees, including faculty members, to make their own decisions regarding the merits of collective bargaining. "The Board encourages each employee to become as knowledgeable as possible regarding collective bargaining so that each person can come to an informed decision. "The Board affirms a policy of institutional neutrality regarding collective bargaining evvorts." We anticipate that without overt administrative support, it will be more difficult for the "Concerned Faculty" to organize their anti-MSUFA campaign. The Board agreed with our general logic that collective bargaining is a basic right guaranteed under law and that administrative representatives of the Board have no right to interfere in what is basically an internal faculty matter. We interpret this resolution to be a "gag order" prohibiting all anti-union public statements by administrative officials (including 241 chairpersons if the administration succeeds in keeping them out of our unit), and dictating that no administrative time, university money, or other institutional resources be directed into union-busting activities during the duration of this election campaign. This resolution will, of course, need some policing. 4. In dealing with both the AAUP and Concerned Faculty, we must strive to create the general image of assurance, competence, pride, and power. We must appear as an organization which is confident, in general control of the campaign, with the knowledge, organizational know-how, and resources to be an effective bargaining agent for the faculty. On the basis of this assurance and professional competence, then, we do not panic, over-react to crises, or engage in desperation tactics (like exaggerated claims of mudslinging). All of these tactics impart the image of weakness, and we want even our adversaries to be impressed with our assurance and power. We are the MSUFA and because of our activities, this campus will never be exactly the same again! 5. As a campaign tactic, we should generally avoid mass meetings and gatherings. It is very demoralizing if we are unable to turn out large numbers of faculty members to these meetings. Also, as compared with out opponents, we have in our organization a relatively smaller number of "faculty stars" or "campus celebrities." Such meetings allow a few good speakers to dominate the gatherings, and they give our adversaries forums for practicing their forensic skills and sharpening their verbal arguments. Mass meetings are also easy for administrators (or other management finks) to spy upon, influence, heckle, or actually disrupt. 242 6 . Besides winning the election, a major goal of the campaign should be to create among our members a critical consciousness concerning the way the University actually functions and the democratic skills necessary to run this organization once we win the election. This means a decentrali­ zation of leadership responsibilities, insofar as possible, and the active participation of a relatively large number of persons in running the elec­ tion campaign. Out MSUFA office should also be organized with the goal of taking over mokt essential functions of the campaign. Our experience has been that the MEA headquarters is really not organized to service adequately an election campaign as complicated as our own. Thus, just as other MEA locals (e.g., the East Lansing public school teachers) run their own operation and pro­ vide many of their own local support services, so also we should begin to service our own needs where possible. Thus, when we win we will not have to begin starting our post-election office operations from scratch. We will already have in place the nucleus of the office which we will need as the authorized representative of the MSU faculty. 7. One potential advantage of a relatively low-profile campaign is that we invite others to make unjustified attacks or other types of mis­ takes (and run a lower risk of making serious mistakes ourselves). It is important that we don't look like the "heavies" in this campaign, and such unprovoked attacks could gain sympathy for us from the faculty community. I think the administration was fairly careful last time not to do this (at least until right before the election). But some scared or less sophisticated Concerned Faculty types may level such attacks and in such cases we may want to lay back and gain some of the benefits from being the 2 43 victim of such unprovoked assaults. 8 . On the other hand, a possible disadvantage of a low-profile campaign strategy is that we will not be able to motivate enough of our own supporters to go to the polls. If we look like sure losers or if we don't seem attractive enough to enthuse lukewarm supporters to go vote, the result of this low-profile strategy could be the erosion of our base of support. Through emphasizing such devices as selective direct mailings, personal notes, home meetings, and personal contacts, we must somehow tread this tightrope between unmotivated supporters and aroused enemies. Escalating the campaigh in the final few days should also serve to bouster the morale of our supporters. 9. Insofar as possible, we should design our campaign strategies so as to shake the "outsider" label that our adversaries will try to pin on us. We should emphasize tactics that make us look like a hardworking, compe­ tent, broad-based, grass-roots, home-grown MSU organization (e.g., personal contacts, personal letters, small meetings). Also crucial to this effort are personal endorsements of MSUFA in direct mailings and in newspaper ads by faculty members from around campus. Our defense of the MEA/NEA affiliation has to be in terms of the experience, resources and political clout of this organization. autonomy. We should also emphasize our own local Also, where appropriate we should portray AAUP as a conservative, "old boys," ineffective, and "company union" type of organization. Our major adversary, however, is "No Agent"— thus our basic thrust should be "pro-collective-bargaining" and concilatory toward AAUP. III. BASIC CAMPAIGN TASKS Our campaign organization should flow from our analysis of the necessary tasks which must be performed. Below are described the major campaign tasks which must be completed during the seventeen week campaign period. Since the nature of these tasks is determined by the nature of the election itself, the first section below is devoted to a description of the activities on election days. 1. Activities on Election Days: The election will probably be scheduled for two days at a place on central campus— e.g., the Men's IM Building. Faculty members off campus will be notified by MERC and given the opportunity to request a mailed ballot. Main Goals. Our efforts during election days have the following primary goals: — getting MSUFA voters to the polls. — making sure that the election laws are observed. — arranging assistance for MSUFA voters who need transportation, babysitting, etc. Voter Lists. The success of our activities on election days depends on the availability of reliable lists of sympathetic voters. The lists that were compiled during the canvass should be alphabetized by election day and prepared in a standard form: Name Department/Unit Office Address Voted Time These lists should be distributed to the challengers on election day. Providing Assistance. A list should be make of faculty requesting transportation, babysitting, etc. This list should be given to the staff 244 245 member responsible for coordinating these services. Contacting Supporters. The key to the activities on election days is turning out favorable voters. "Vote Today" reminders should be put in the mailboxes and under the office doors of MSUFA supporters. In addition, "Vote Today" signs should be put up in office buildings where most faculty are MSUFA supporters. (As a general rule, we should be as visible as pos­ sible in buildings of supporters and as invisible as possible in buildings housing hostile departments.) The challengers should have runner slips indicating those who have not voted in each of the office buildings. Personal contacts should be made wherever possible with supporters who have not yet voted. This will demand that we have reliable information about office hours and other times when given faculty members will be in their offices during election days. with nonvoting supporters. Telephone contacts should also be made The reminder should be short and to the point and should mention the name of our organization. Repeated contacts are essential for optimal results. Challengers. Arrangements for the election days must include assigning challengers to the polls. Challengers serve a dual purpose: first, they insure that no election fraud occurs during the balloting; second, they can keep a running tab of the names of favorable voters who have voted. The duties of challengers include the following— — To inspect the poll books (without handling them) as ballots are issued to voters and their names are entered in them. — To observe the manner in which the duties of the election inspectors are being performed. --To challenge the right to vote of anyone whose status as a qualified voter is questionable. 246 — To challenge any election procedure tha.t is not being properly performed. --To remain at the polling place during the counting of votes and certification by the election inspectors. — To examine each ballot as it is being counted, but without handling it. — To observe the recording of absentee voters' ballots. Schedule for Challengers. Before the polls open, the challenger should: --Arrive at the polling place about a half-hour before opening. — Present credentials to the official in charge. — Check to make sure that everything is in order. See that ballots are correctly printed and that the ballot box is empty. After the polls open, the challenger should: — Check each voter as he/she signs to make sure he/she is in the bargaining unit. The challengers should be contacted each hour to report how everything has gone up to that time and pass on the names of those who have not yet voted. After the polls close, the challenger should: — Make sure that all those who are at the polls have the opportunity to vote. — Observe those who are counting ballots to make sure everything is handled properly. — Call in results to headquarters. Challenging. It is important to challenge a vote only when there is a good reason for challenging. When the challenger is convinced such a rea­ son exists, he/she should proceed without hesitation, regardless of any attempt by election officials to dissaude him/her. Poll Workers. There are many advantages to having MSUFA faculty 247 supporters outside the polling place. This is the final opportunity to reach the voter before he/she goes in to vote. Also MSUFA faculty sup­ porters can be counted on to know personally many of the persons who are coming to vote. This personal contact between friends could win some extra votes for our organization if done effectively. Literature distributed by poll workers is the last to get into the hands of the voter; this literature could include a marked sample ballot showing the voter precisely how to cast a MSUFA vote. The appearance of MSUFA faculty supporters at thepolling place dramatically demonstrates the thoroughness of our campaign and provides a final psychological boost to our campaign. Poll workers should be faculty who are widely known and respected on campus. They should be informed of the regulations regarding distribution of literature and general poll worker behavior and should obey the regulations conscientiously. Telephone Bank. A telephone bank is a good way of getting voters who have not yet voted to the polls. Those who have not voted by a specified time of day must be called and reminded to vote. — Recruit volunteers to operatethe phones on the election days. — Recruit runners to bring back completed sheets each hour during the day to make sure that those who have not voted are phoned and reminded. — Coordinate the phone-calling efforts with the ride-to-thepolls operation so that, as sympathetic voters are located, they can be given transportation to the polling places. Ride To The Polls. During the early morning leaflet campaign on the election days, "vote today" leaflets should be put in the mailbox and under the office door of each MSUFA supporter. phone This leaflet should have the number which a voter can call for a ride to the polls. Make sure that IV . CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION An organization chart of the essential campaign positions and related functions is presented below. MSUFA Executive Committee. In accord with the MSUFA constitution, the Executive Committee has final authority for all major policy decisions made during the campaign. This committee functions as the overall advisory com­ mittee to the campaign, and meetings of this committee are conducted by the Campaign Director. The members of the Executive Committee the MSUFA elected officers (including Past President), the chairpersons of the standing com­ mittees, MEA consultants and advisors, and the MSUFA office staff. Campaign Director. The Campaign Director oversees the entire campaign. The Director is responsible for the thousand and one details involved in a well-run campaign. It is the Director's job to see that everything is done well and on time. The Campaign Director should also see that all participants in the campaign are familiar with what other persons in the campaign are doing. Organizing Committee. The Organizing Committee has general responsibility for conducting the voter canvass and for conducting the voter turnout campaign. The overall goals of this committee are to iden­ tify and obtain information about MSUFA supporters and to build a grass­ roots organization to get these supporters to the polls. Where possible this committee will utilize the informal ties and personal relationships which currently exist among faculty members in attempting to motivate MSUFA voters. Newsletter Committee. The MSUFA Newsletter is published monthly and 248 249 there are enough people providing rides— have backup help for peak hours. Absentee Voters. Voter information should be sent to all MSUFA supporters who are on leave or who otherwise will be absent from campus on the election days. This will require that we keep in regular contact with supporters who are not on campus— sending them campaign information, etc. 2. Major Campaign Tasks. If these activities on the election days are to be performed successfully, then the following major tasks must be com­ pleted during the seventeen week campaign period: A. Voter Canvass. A thorough and reliable voter canvass must be completed. B. Voter Turnout Campaign. A comprehensive voter turnout campaigh must be organized. C. Newsletters. Four or five monthly MSUFA Newsletters must be published. D. Media. A comprehensive media campaign must be conducted, including publicity and public relations, advertising, direct mailings, and other media. E. Research. Position papers must be written concerning major campaign issues, information sheets must be made up concerning the nature of collec­ tive bargaining (both around the country and in Michigan) and about common myths concerning collective bargaining, and a general MSUFA platform state­ ment must be drafted. 250 is the basic vehicle by which information and our views are communicated directly to faculty members. MSUFA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEA Support and Services CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR MSUFA Office Staff ORGANIZING CHAIRPERSON NEWSLETTER CHAIRPERSON MEDIA CHAIRPERSON RESEARCH CHAIRPERSON TRUSTEE LIAISON CHAIRPERSON ORGANIZING COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER CGMMITTEE MEDIA COMMITTEE RESEARCH COMMITTEE TRUSTEE LIAISON COMMITTEE Conduct voter canvass Write, edit, and publish monthly newsletters Write MSUFA platform statement Monitor board meetings and activities Write background information sheets and posi­ tions papers on various issues Handle MSUFA communications with board Conduct voter turnout campaign Organize and conduct the overall media campaign 252 Media Committee. The media committee is charged with responsibilities that fall into three basic areas. Publicity or free media; paid midia— i.e., advertising; and other forms of mass communication— e.g., printed materials for direct mailings and billboards. In this campaign the basic goals of the Media Committee are (1) to clarify certain myths which exist among faculty concerning collective bargaining (e.g., collective bargaining will produce rigidity and uniformity), (2) to increase name recognition for MSUFA, and (3) to demonstrate popular support among faculty for MSUFA (e.g., by publicizing widespread personal endorsements for our organi zation). Research Committee. The tasks of the research committee are to write' papers concerning major campaign issues, to write information sheets con­ cerning collective bargaining and widespread myths about collective bar­ gaining, and to draft a general MSUFA platform statement. This committee supplies basic analysis and materials for each of the committees described above. Trustee Liaison Committee. The purposes of the Trustees Liaison Committee are to monitor on an ongoing basis Board meetings and activities and to handle all MSUFA communications with the Board. V. 1. THE VOTER CANVASS Goals: The basic goals of our faculty canvassing operation are as follows: (1) Obtain reliable information on the voting preferences of all faculty members in the voting unit. (2) Obtain more complete information on favorable and undecided voters (voters characterized as 1, 2, and 3 below) so that we have the capability of contacting them during the election days if need should arise. 2. Major Tasks: (1) Informant Lists. Make up lists of informants. These are the lists of faculty members who will be asked to provide information about their perceptions of the voting preferences of other faculty in their departments or units. Key Supporters. Whenever possible these informants should be trusted Hopefully, we will be able to use many of these persons later as Building Representatives and Floor Representatives in the Voter Turnout Campaign. (2) Contact Informants. Contact personally all informants— telephone calls or face-to-face contacts. As a general rule, we should attempt to obtain the judgment of at least two informants in all units, and in larger units we should attempt to obtain the judgment of one informant for each 10-15 faculty members in the unit. For example, in American Thought and Language which has over 80 faculty members, we should get reports from 5-8 informants. We should stress to informants the importance of reliable information about the voting preferences of 253 254 faculty members and really attempt to obtain quality data. (3) Canvassing Kits. Develop and send to each informant a Canvassing Kit which includes instructions on how to make the canvass and a list of the faculty members we think are in the unit. The informant will then be asked to update and correct the faculty list and to evaluate the voting preferences of faculty members in the unit. In cases where the faculty member does not know how a faculty member feels about MSUFA he/she will be asked to obtain this information by speaking directly with the person in question. Informants will be given one week to complete and return the materials. Whenever possible these materials should be picked up directly from the informant. This insures that more of the Canvassing Kits will be returned and that we make personal contact with out informants (which may be important as we seek Building and Floor Representatives in our Voter Turnout Campaign). (4) Evaluating Information. Information from-informants should be summarized and collated with other information which we possess from our Authorization Card campaign to make basic jusgments about the probable voting preferences of each faculty member. These judgments will then be summarized in terms of the following simple numeric system: 1. Supporter. Will probably vote for MSUFA in the election. 2. Favorable. Favorable attitude toward MSUFA. May vote for MSUFA but does not have strong positive convictions. 3. Undecided/ Neutral Has not made up mind or is neutral regarding voting for MSUFA. At present time, she or he is neither an opponent or supporter of MSUFA. 255 4. Unfavorable. Generally opposed to MSUFA and to collective bargaining. Will probably vote against collective bargaining. 5. AAUP Supporter. Will probably vote for AAUP in the election. 6 . Don't Know/ Lack of Information. (5) I don't know how this person is likely to vote in the election. I don't have ade­ quate information about how this person will vote. Constructing Card File. Information regarding voters rated 1, 2 or 3 is transferred to 5 X 8 cards (See sample card below). The data on each of these master index cards is as follows: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Name. Academis Rank: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Librarian, Specialist. Support: Levels 1-6 described above. Unit: Department or unit affiliation. Office: Address of office. Office Phone: Office phone number. Home: Address of home. Home Phone: Home phone number. Classes: Time/place of all classes taught Spring Term. Available: Office hours and other times in office on election days. Contact Person(s): Name of Building orFloor Representative to whom this facultymember is assigned. Comments: Any miscellaneous comments about this faculty member. Can also use back of card for these comments. Once the voter survey is completed, voters rated 1, 2 or 3 will then be broken down into office buildings and groups according to the floors and wings within these office buildings. Then faculty members on specific floors and buildings will be assigned to Building and Floor Representatives (See description of Voter Turnout Campaign described in Section VI below). The information concerning classes can be gotten for the Spring Term classschedules in many cases. This by the Building Representatives. information should be verifiedhowever It will also bethe responsibility of the 256 Building Representatives to collect information on the times during the election days when the faculty member will be in his/her office. 257 CANVASSING INFORMATION FILE Front Name (Pring): Unit: Rank: Prof. Support: 1 Sociology Office: Home: McKee, James B. 406 Berkey Office Phone: 1774 Woodside E. L. 48823 Classes: Available: Will Home Phone: 337-0803 Soc 311 Social Theory MTWT 910-1000 118 BH Soc 473 Cult Personality MTWF 1130-1220 214 BH Office Hours 1:30 - 3:30 pm WF be in office on Thur. and Friday of election days Contact Person(s): Kaplowitz, Thorne Comments: On steering committee, Academic Council. Needs a ride at 12:30 pm., Thur, to polls. Back Comments: 3-0874 258 3. T im etable o f Events: Meek Due Task 1. Make up List of Informants 2. Make up Canvassing Kits: 3. 4. 1 1/6/78 A. Supportive Colleges 2 1/13/78 B. Mixed-Supportive Colleges 3 1/20/78 C. Mixed-Hostile Colleges 4 1/27/78 D. Hostile Colleges 5 2/3/78 Contact Informants and Send Canvassing Kits: A. Supoortive Colleges 2 1/13/78 B. Mixed-Supportive Colleges 3 1/20/78 C. Mixed-Hostile Colleges 4 1/27/78 D. Hostile Colleges 5 2/3/78 A. Supportive Colleges 6 2/10/78 B. Mixed-Supportive Colleges 7 2/17/78 C. Mixed-Hostile Colleges 8 2/24/78 9 3/3/78 10 3/10/78 Evaluate Information, Make Necessary Additional Contacts to Supplement Information, and Construct Card File: D. Hostile Colleges 5. Date Due Reorganize Card File by Office Buildings OVERALL GOAL: VOTER CANVASS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY MARCH 10, 1978. VI. 1. THE VOTER TURNOUT CAMPAIGN Goal: The basic goal of our Voter Turnout Campaign is to get all MSUFA supporters to the polls. 2. Major Tasks: (1) Informal Meetings. During winter term informal meetings should be held at the homes of faculty members in each of the colleges. informal meetings have the following purposes: These (a) to provide us with information about faculty views and problems, (b) to provide us an oppor­ tunity to tell faculty about our organization and campaign, and (c) to make and shore up the personal contact network necessary to institute the Building and Floor Representatives Organization described below. Some basic guidelines regarding these meetings are the following: A. Carefully Select Sponsors. Only select sponsors who are both respected in their departments and who are enthu­ siastic supporters of MSUFA. As one indicator of enthu­ siasm, we should only schedule meetings where faculty members are willing to do some of the work (contacting persons invited, etc.) involved in making the meeting a success. B. Three Meeks or Less Lead Time. No more than three weeks' lead time should be allowed between the time a sponsor is asked to hold a meeting and the date it will be held. C. Invitations. Both written and telephone invitations should be made to each guest. D. Fifteen or More Persons. Other things equal, it is usually not a wise allocation of our resources and time to go to meetings with less than 15 faculty members. As a general rule, this means that at least 40 personal invita­ tions must be sent out. These should be to peraonal acquaintances of the host who are faculty in the bargain­ ing unit. We should not bother with hosts who are not 259 260 willing to supply us with lists of 40-80 faculty who can be invited to the meetings. E. (2) Invitations should be typed or printed at the MSUFA office but sent out with the signature of the faculty member. Organizational Structure. On the basis of our canvass and the contacts generated and reinforced in the formal meetings, we must organize a Voter Turnout Structure. An organization chart showing this structure is presented below. Voter Turnout Coordinator. It will be the responsibility of the Voter Turnout Coordinator to ortanize and manage the overall campaign to get MSUFA supporters to the polls. This person will be responsible for making sure that everything related to this phase of the election campaign gets done correctly and on time. Area Coordinators. An Area Coordinator will be appointed for each 250-300 MSUFA supporters. An area will consist of a group of office build­ ings where faculty members have their offices (e.g., on Central Campus or the South Campus Complex). The primary responsibility of each Area Coordi­ nator will be to coordinate the activities of 8-12 Building (or Floor) Representatives. It is the duty of the Area Coordinator to make sure that each of the Building (Floor) Representatives do their jobs and that the faculty members assigned to him/her actually vote at the polls. Building (or Floor) Representatives. A Building (or Floor) Representative will be assigned for each 25-30 MSUFA supporters in a given office building. These persons will be the front line MSUFA representatives responsible to make sure that the assigned faculty members actually vote. Some of the specific responsibilities of Building (Floor) Representatives 261 are the following: A. Contact personally each of the assigned supporters and find out when they will be in their offices during election days. B. Distribute literature, voter information, etc. and coordinate the personal communication campaign in the two weeks prior to the election. Particular emphasis during this period should be put on undecided (level 3) faculty members. C. Hold necessary informational and support meetings with assigned supporters in the period immediately prior to the election. D. Distribute "Vote Today" leaflets in mailboxes and under faculty office doors on election days. Put up "Vote Today" signs in the office building (if it is a generally supportive department). E. Organize car pools and collective to-to-the-polls efforts. Coordinate the planning of rides, babysitting and other forms of assistance which voters need. F. Make personal visits and telephone calls on election days to all faculty supporters who have not yet voted. Be available on election days to supervise and coordi. nate Voter Turnout efforts at the unit level. (3) Personal Communication Campaign. During the final two weeks beforethe election, we should use this general Voter Turnout Organization to generate as many informal meetings, personal contacts, telephone calls, and notes and letters as possible to persons in each of these office buildings. A plan should be devised by the Area Coordinators and the Building (or Floor) Representatives for each building which will maximize the number and quality of the informal get-out-and-vote contacts. This last two weeks before the election should be a highly personal, people-onpeople, campaign with regard to level 1, 2, and 3 faculty members in the bargaining unit. Voter Turnout Coordinator (1) Building (Floor) Rep. (2 ) .... Building (Floor) Rep. 262 Area Four Coordinator Area One Coordinator (10) (1 ) Building (Floor) Rep. Building (Floor) Rep. (2 ) .... Building (Floor) Rep. (10) Building (Floor) Rep. 263’ Tim etable o f Events: Week Due Date Due 1. Ask Persons to Sponsor Informal Meetings (These meetings should occur within 3 weeks of the contact.): A. Supportive Colleges 2 1/13/78 B. Mixed-Supportive Colleges 3 1/20/78 C. Mixed-Hostile Colleges 4 1/27/78 D. Hostile Colleges 5 2/3/78 11-12 3/24/78 Supportive and Mixed-Supportive Colleges 13 3/31/78 Mixed-Hostile and Hostile Colleges 14 4/7/78 (Host Meetings, Weeks 2-10) 2. Assign Area Coordinators (Hold inservice meeting of Area Coordinators) 3. Assign Building Representatives: A. B. 4. Inservice Sessions for Building Representatives 15 4/14/78 5. Personal Communication Campaign, I II 16 17 4/21/78 4/25/78 6 . Final Voter Turnout Campaigns Election Days 264 VI I . 1. THE NEWSLETTER Goal; To write, edit, and publish four or five quality MSUFA Newsletters during the election campaign. 2. Major Tasks; The MSUFA Newsletter remains the heart of our media campaign. It is the means by which we keep faculty informed about the campaign and also raises election issues. Below are some general thoughts about the nature of the Newsletter this year: (1) issue. It should appear monthly, unless there is reason for a special We should generally try to avoid saturating faculty members with general mailings as we tended to do last Spring. (2) This year, we should visualize the purpose of the Newsletter as a lessor means of persuading faculty to support our cause and more as a vehicle for information about the University and the campaign. We will rely upon the Voter Turnout Campaign to persuade the voters and depend upon the Newsletters more to establish our overall credibility and general presence on campus. (3) We should organize the Newsletter more like a small newspaper, assigning reporters to different beats (e.g., Academic Council, various University Committees, the All-University Planning Committee, MAHE activi­ ties around the state, etc.). The tone of the Newsletter should be more informational and factual with editorials more clearly separated from the "news" material. (4) We should handle the mailings from the MSUFA office. 265 MEA Headquaters is just too indifferent and undependable to get out these crucial mailings. 266 3. Timetable: Task 1 2 Week Due Date Due . VIP Mailing List Completed 1 1/6/78 . Run off labels and make necessary arrangements to mail Newsletters from MSUFA office 2 1/13/78 3. January Newsletter, Ready for Typing 2 1/13/78 4. January Newsletter, Mailed 4 1/27/78 5. February Newsletter, Ready for Typing 6 2/10/78 8 2/24/78 10 3/10/78 12 3/24/78 14 4/7/78 16 4/21/78 6 . February Newsletter, Mailed 7. 8 . March Newsletter, Mailed 9. 1 0 March Newsletter, Ready for Typing April Newsletter, Ready for Typing . April Newsletter, Mailed VI I I . 1. THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN Goals; The basic goals of the Media Campaign are as follows: (1) To clarify certain myths which exist among faculty members concerning collective bargaining (e.g., collective bargaining will produce rigidity and uniformity). (2) To increase name recognition of MSUFA. (3) To demonstrate popular support among faculty for MSUFA (e.g., by publicizing widespread personal endorsements for our organization). 2. Basic Tasks: The media committee is charged with responsibilities that fall into three basic areas: (1 ) publicity or free media, (2 ) paid media— i.e., advertising, and (3) direct mailings, billboards and other forms of mass communications. (1) News and Publicity. Advertising, which is covered in the next section, is what we must pay for. content and presentation. To a large extent, we can control its Publicity, on the other hand, is not paid for. Knowledge of how the media works and a good personal relationship with the media representatives in this area are the keys to getting good pub!icity. A. We should write an information paper listing the reporters, editors, news directors, etc. of the newspapers, radio and television stations which will have the most direct impact on our campaign. B. News Releases. We should establish a pattern during the campaign of sending out weekly news releases to the media. 267 These News 268 Releases should be clear and concise, contain direct quotes from MSUFA leaders, and have a direct style. In addition, we should write advance story news releases when we want the media to attend a coming event or meeting and write follow-up publicity stories on events we want covered which were not attended by reporters. C. News Conferences. A news conference should be called when important events happen or we have important things to say relating to the campaign. When announcing a news conference, give plenty of notice to all of the news media in this area. The notice should be in writing on letter­ head, then followed by a telephone call to the assignment editor. The notice should be informational and give some indication of the subject to be covered at the news conference. Generally the best time for a news conference is in the morning before 10:00 D. a.m. News Kits. These kits should be made up and given to all newspapers and radio and television stations in the area (at least two for every paper and station— one for the reporter assigned, and one for refer­ ence in the editorial section). These kits should contain the following materials: --Announcement release: announcing MSUFA's entry into the campaign. — Glossy photos: of MSUFA leaders. — Organization Fact Sheet and History: Important information about our organization and campaign. — Campaign Brochures and Platform Statement: Include relevant printed materials concerning the campaign. --List of Key Campaign Persons: Give sufficient information here so reporters will have no trouble finding the necessary people to get the information they need. 269 E. Letters to the Editor. We should organize a series of Lette to the Editor of the State News» State Journal and Lansing Star. These letters should attack popular myths about academic unions, present data and information about the important issues in the campaign and urge support for MSUFA. (2) Advertising. Our media budget should be spent on newspaper ads in the State News and Lansing Star, on brochures for direct mailings, on a billboard, and on signs. In this section is dealt with the newspaper advertising campaign and the other forms of media expenditure are dealt with in the next section. A. Name Recognition Advertising. Our newspaper advertising campaign should be divided into two parts: (a) early ads run more than two weeks prior to the election, and (b) ads run in the last two weeks of the campaign. The general purpose of the early advertising is to increase name recognition for our organization. These ads should be small (perhaps 1/8 or 1/16 of a page in the State News) and should emphasize the "Strength through Unity" theme. Beginning about March 1 these ads should be run every day in the State News and weekly in the Lansing Star. Advertisements should be run in the State News because this is the newspaper directed toward the university community. The ads in the Lansing Star are fairly inexpensive and will reach progressive students and faculty. As experienced in the Pennsylvania State campaign showed recently, it is important to prevent a backlach by students against MSUFA because of fear of tuition increases, etc. As part of our public relations effort with students it is wise to advertise in the Lansing Star. 270 B. Myths about Collective Bargaining Advertisements. One of our biggest problems in this campaign is to overcome the false impressions and myths which faculty members have about academic unions (e.g., if we get a union we will be punching time clocks, everybody will get the same pay whether they work or not, we will lose our professional identity and the respect of colleagues in other institutions). Beginning about two weeks before the election we should counter these myths by a series of daily ads. myth about collective bargaining. Each of these ads should focus on one We may want to run an analysis of the problem and then have reactions by various faculty on campus saying how ridiculous they myth really is. These personal endorsements might help to change the general climate of public opinion on campus. C. Personal Endorsements. We should run personal endorsement advertisements in the State News beginning about 3-4 days before the election. One purpose of these ads will be to blunt the expected name list of anti-union faculty by the Concerned Faculty. These endorsements should be from 100 to 150 respected faculty from all over campus. They should take up 2-4 pages of the State News and should be much more interesting to read than the mere list of names presented by our opponents. In addition, we may want to also use endorsements by outsiders (e.g., Jim Hayes, presi­ dent of MAHE). These personal endorsement ads should be designed to show the groundswell' of popular support which exists for MSUFA in the day imme­ diately prior to the election. (3) Other Media. Described below are other media activities in which we should be engaged during the campaign. 271 A. Direct Mailings. We should design two general campus mailings to be sent to faculty in the final phase of the campaign. general mailings should be professional and well designed. These In addition, we should design one brochure for direct mailing to members of each of the colleges in the Supportive and Mixed-Supportive categories. These latter mailings could emphasize endorsements by faculty members in the college, local college issues, etc. B. Bill board. Beginning about March 1 we should rent an outdoor billboard close to campus. This outdoor advertising should emphasize the organization's name and the "Strength through Unity" theme. This type of advertising is principally a name recognition type of media; it is the least expensive way of getting our name repeatedly out in front of our voters. Research studies show that outdoor advertising develops extremely high levels of readership and remembrance, a key point for an organization like ours. C. Bumper Stickers and Campaign Buttons. For faculty members, bumper stickets and campaign buttons will never be widely used. informal meetings, etc. we should continue to pass them out. But at our They repre­ sent a form of commitment and their use even by a few faculty members has some effect. They will also be useful to Poll Workers and Building Repre­ sentatives in the final stage of the campaign. D - Signs. Some "Vote Today" and MSUFA support signs should be printed up for the final phase of the campaign. E. Car Top Carriers. Assuming that the voting is at the Men's IM Building, it might be useful to prepare two car top carriers. Early each morning of election days these cars could be parked on either side of 272 the entrance to the building. Car top carriers might also be useful on the ride-to-the-pol 1 s cars which are used on election days. F. Office Door Signs. It might be useful to print up small MSUFA signs which could be put by faculty members on their office doors. 273 3. Tim etable o f Events: Task Week Due Date Due 1. News Releases 2. News Conferences 3. List of Persons to be Asked to Make Public Endorsements 1 1/6/78 4. Budget Information on Advertising 1 1/6/78 5. Information Sheet on Media Representatives 2 1/13/78 3 1/20/78 6 For all Important Events . Rent Billboard Space 7. Contact Persons for Endorsement Ads: A. Supportive Colleges 2 1/13/78 B. Mixed-Supportive Colleges 3 1/20/78 C. Mixed-Hostile Colleges 4 1/27/78 5 2/3/78 4 1/27/78 D. 8 Each Week of Campaign Hostile Colleges . Develop and Send News Kits 9. 10. Contact Persons to Write Letters to the Editor 1/27/78 Develop Display Material for State News and Lansing Star Name Recognition Ads 6 2/10/78 Design and Print Billboard Poster 8 2/24/78 12. Develop Copy for DirectMailings 10 3/10/78 13. Print Office Door Signs 12 3/24/78 13 3/31/78 15. Develop Copy for Endorsement Ads 13 3/31/78 16. Print Direct Mailings 14 4/7/78 17. 14 4/8/78 11. 14. Develop Copy for Myths about Collective Bargaining Ads Print "Vote Today" and Support Signs 274 Week Due Date Due 4/14/78 18. Make Car Top Carriers 15 19. Send Direct Mailings 16-17 4/21-26/78 IX. 1. RESEARCH Goals: The goals of the Research Committee are to develop necessary background information sheets, position papers on campaign issues, and a general MSUFA platform statement. 2. Major Tasks: (1) Newspaper File. We should keep an updated file on news articles which relate to the University and to the campaign. (2) Background Information Sheets. Background Information Sheets should be developed on the following areas: A. Collective Bargaining in Higher Education. General information about the relative strengths of unions who represent higher education faculty; which schools are unionized; the general effects of collective bargaining in higher education; etc. B. Collective Bargaining in Michigan. Comparisons of unionized and nonunionized schools; general information about unionization in Michigan; etc. C. Some Myths about Collective Bargaining. Statement of common myths about collective bargaining and our replys to those misconceptions. (3) Position Papers. Position papers on pertinent election issues. Some of the most important of these issues are the following: A. Loss of Faculty Control. Describe the centralization of administrative power and declining faculty control over the direction and running of the institution. 275 276 B. Faculty Salaries. Describe the decline in faculty salaries and make comparisons with salaries of administrators, salaries of faculty at bargaining schools, etc. C. Why Vote for MSUFA? History of the organization, past accomplishments, resources and experience of MEA/NEA, outline of platform and program. (4) Platform Statement. Write a general campaign platform statement outlining MSUFA's positions on various issues and plans for the future. 3. Timetable of Events: Week Date _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Due________ Due 1. First Draft of Platform Statement 2 1/13/78 2. Final Draft of Background Information Sheets 4 1/27/78 3. Final Draft of Position Papers 4 1/27/78 4. Final Draft of Platform Statement 6 2/10/78 X. 1. DEALING WITH THE TRUSTEES Goals: The purposes of the Trustee's Liaison Committee are to monitor Board meetings and activities, regularly communicate with individual Board members at these meetings and by mail, and organize and coordinate MSUFA's involve­ ment in the MSU trustee election campaigns. 2. Major Tasks: (1) Make plans to have faculty at Board meetings for the remainder of the election campaign. (2) Develop committee stationary for communications with Board (with an impressive number of faculty members' names on the stationary from various parts of the University). (3) Send newsletters and other publicity materials to the Board throughout the campaign. (4) Make plans for endorsing candidates for the 1978 Trustee's elections. 3. Timetable of Events: Task Week Due Date Due 1. Plans for Staffing Board Meetings 2 1/13/78 2. Committee Stationary 3 1/20/78 3. Plans for Endorsing Candidates Summer 1 978 277 278 XI. CALENDAR OF EVENTS Event Date WEEK ONE (JAN 1-7) Executive Commmittee Meeting Announcement Reserve Conference Room, Executive Committee Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Canvass Informants List VIP Mailing List List of Persons to Make Endorsements Budget Information Advertising Make List of Persons Sponsor Mts. News Release 1/3 1/3 1/4 1/4 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/6 1/3 WEEK TWO (JAN 8-14) Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Executive Committee Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcements . Canvass Kit: Supportive Colleges Contact Informants: Supp. Colleges Labels, etc. for Mailing Newsletters January Newsletter, Ready to Type News Release Information Sheet on Media People Endorse. Persons: Supp. Colleges First Draft Platform Statement Plans for Staffing Board Meetings Final Copy of Campaign Plans 1/11 1/11 1/12 1/13 1/13 1/12 1/13 1/13 1/13 1/10 1/13 1/13 1/13 1/13 1/9 WEEK THREE (JAN 15-21) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcements Canvassing Kits: Mix-Supp. Colleges Contact Informant: Mix-Supp. Colleges Sponsor Meetings: Mix-Supp. Colleges Rent Billboard 1/17 1/18 1/18 1/20 1/20 1/20 1/20 1/20 1/20 Responsibility Completed Event Endorse Ad: Mix-Supp. Colleges Trustee Committee Stationary Date 1/20 1/20 MEEK FOUR (JAN 22-28) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Board of Trustees Meeting 1/24 1/25 1/25 1/26 1/27 Staff Meeting 1/27 Luncheon Meeting Announcements 1/27 Canvassing Kits: Mix-Hostile Colleges 1/27 Contact Informants: Mix-Hostile Cols. 1/27 Sponsor Meetings: Mix-Hostile Cols. 1/27 Mail January Newsletter 1/27 Endorsement Ad: Mix-Hostile Colleges 1/27 Send News Kits 1/27 Background Information Sheets 1/27 Research Position Papers 1/27 WEEK FIVE (JAN 29-FEB 4) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Executive Comm. Mt. Announcement Luncheon Meeting Announcement Canvassing Kits: Hostile Colleges Contact Informants: Hostile Cols. Sponsor Meetings: Hostile Colleges Endorsement Ads: Hostile Colleges 1/31 2/1 2/1 2/3 2/2 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 2/3 MEEK SIX (FEB 5-11) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Executive Committee Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcements Eval. Canvass Info: Supportive Cols. February Newsletter Ready to Type Display Mat, Recognition Ads Final Draft Platform Statement 2/7 2/8 2/8 2/9 2/10 2/10 2/10 2/10 2/10 2/10 R esponsibility Completed Event Date WEEK SEVEN (FEB 12-18) News Release 2/14 Agenda for Staff Meeting 2/15 Luncheon Meeting 2/15 Staff Meeting 2/17 Luncheon Meeting Announcement 2/17 Eval. Canvass Info: Mixed Supp. Cols. 2/17 WEEK EIGHT (FEB 19-25) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Board of Trustees Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Eval. Canvass Info: Mix Supp. Cols. Mail February Newsletter Print Billboard Poster 2/21 2/22 2/22 2/23 2/24 2/24 2/24 2/24 2/24 2/24 WEEK NINE (FEB 26-MAR 4) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Executive Comm. Meeting Announcement Eval. Canvass Info: Hostile Colleges 2/28 3/1 3/1 3/3 3/3 3/2 3/3 WEEK TEN (MAR 5-11) News Release Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Executive Committee Meeting Reorganization Canvass Card File March Newsletter, Ready to Type Develop Copy for Direct Mailings 3/7 3/8 3/8 3/10 3/10 3/9 3/10 3/10 3/10 WEEK ELEVEN (MAR 12-18) Agenda Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting 3/15 3/15 3/17 R esponsibility Completed 281 Event _______ Date Luncheon Meeting Announcement Assign Area Coordinators 3/17 3/17 WEEK TWELVE (MAR 19-25) Agenda for Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Board of Trustees Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Assign Area Coordinators Mail March Newsletter Print Office Door Signs 3/22 3/22 3/23 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 3/24 WEEK THIRTEEN (MAR 26-APRIL) News Release Agenda Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Building Reps: Supp/Mix-Supp. Colls. Copy for Myths of CB Ads Copy for Endorsement Ads 3/28 3/29 3/29 3/31 3/31 3/31 3/31 3/31 WEEK FOURTEEN (APRIL 2-8) News Release 4/4 Agenda Staff Meeting 4/5 Luncheon Meeting 4/5 Staff Meeting 4/7 Executive Comm. Meeting Announcement 4/6 Lunch Meeting Announcement 4/7 Building Reps: Mix-Host. & Host. Cols.4/7 April Newsletter, Ready for Typing 4/7 Pring Direct Mailings 4/7 Print "Vote Today" Signs, etc. 4/7 WEEK FIFTEEN (APRIL 9-15) News Release Agenda Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Executive Committee Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Inservice Sessions Building Reps. Make Car Top Carriers 4/11 4/12 4/12 4/13 4/14 4/14 4/14 4/14 R esponsibility Completed 282 Event Date WEEK SIXTEEN (APRIL 16-22) News Release Agenda Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Announcement Personal Com. Campaign, I Mail April Newsletter Send Direct Mailings 4/18 4/19 4/19 4/21 4/21 4/21 4/21 4/21 WEEK SEVENTEEN (APRIL 23-29) Agenda Staff Meeting Luncheon Meeting Board of Trustees Meeting Personal Com. Campaign, II Send Direct Mailings 4/26 4/26 4/27 4/28 4/28 4/28 R esponsibility Completed 283 VOTES NEEDED UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS ASSUMING BOTH CHAIRPERSONS AND MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE OUT OF THE BARGAINING UNIT PERCENT VOTING TOTAL VOTES CAST 50% OF VOTES CAST 40% OF VOTES CAST 35% OF VOTES CAST 100 2150 1075 860 752 95 2042 1021 817 715 90 1935 968 774 677 85 1828 914 731 640 80 1720 860 688 602 75 1612 806 645 564 70 1505 753 602 527 VOTES NEEDED UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS ASSUMING CHAIRPERSONS ARE OUT BUT MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE IN THE BARGAINING UNIT PERCENT VOTING TOTAL VOTES CAST 50% OF VOTES CAST 40% OF VOTES CAST 35% OF VOTES CAST 2530 1265 95 2404 1202 962 841 90 2277 1138 910 797 85 2150 1075 860 753 80 2024 1012 810 708 75 1898 949 759 664 70 1771 886 708 620 100 1012 886 284 GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS: MSU FACULTY Includes April, 1977 Board Actions Faculty in Bargaining Unit under Spring, 1977 MSUFA Proposal Number Total Faculty: Percent 2286 Ethnic Identification: White Black Oriental Latino Native American 2146 Female Male 510 1776 68 55 13 4 93.9% 3.0 2.4 0.6 0.2 Sex: 22 .3% 77.7 Academic Rank: Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Specialist (Job Security) Librarian Other 872 460 464 167 197 93 33 38.1% 20. 1 20.3 7.3 8.6 4.1 1.4 Tenure Status: Tenured Untenured Not on Tenure Track 1392 312 582 60.9% (Of tenure track 13.6 faculty, 81.7% 25.4 are tenured and 18.3 are untenured) 1251 884 145 54.7% 38.7 6.3 2150 136 94.1% 5.9 Employment Basis: 10 Month Employees 12 Month Employees Other Full/Part Time: Full Time Employees Park Time Employees 285 Highest Degree Earned: Ph.D. Other Degree 1622 664 71. 29. FACULTY AND MSUFA CARD SIGNERS BY COLLEGE Total Faculty College_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number Percent MSUFA Card Signers Number Percent of Card Signers Percent of College Faculty 1 . University College 236 10.3% 148 21 2 . Arts and Letters 272 11.9 108 16 39 3. Natural Science 398 17.4 87 12 22 4. Social Science 211 9.2 76 11 36 5. 233 72 10 31 10 36 . Non-College Faculty 7. Human Ecology 8 . Residential Colleges 9. Agriculture 10.2 63% 193 8.4 69 110 4.8 27 4 25 40 1.7 26 4 65 290 12.7 21 3 7 120 5.2 17 2 14 10 . Business 11 . Engineering 98 4.3 16 2 16 12 . Urban Development 26 1.1 14 2 63 13. Communication Arts 60 2.6 13 2 22 2287 100.0 694 100 100 Totals 286 6 Education % 287 F. A. CARD SIGNERS BY ACADEMIC UNIT COLLEGE/UNIT_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 1. College Totals College Totals 10 9 7 69% 62 54 40 26 65% 1 0 77 48 49 29 56 31 35 22 2 0 30 4 236 148 73% 65 71 76 13 63% URBAN DEVELOPMENT Racial and Ethnic Studies Urban and Metropolitan Studies College Totals 4. 13 16 13 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Dean's Office American Thoughts and Language Humanities Natural Science Social Science Learning Resources Center Student Affairs 3. PERCENT SIGNERS RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES James Madison Justin Morrill Lyman Briggs 2. TOTAL TOTAL CARD FACULTY_ _ _ _ _ SIGNERS 9 17 8 67% 47 26 14 54% 6 ARTS AND LETTERS Dean's Office Art Engl ish German and Russian Hi story Linguistic & Orient & Afr. Lang. Music Philosophy Religious Studies Romance & Classical Languages Theatre English Language Center College Totals 1 0 41 50 16 34 9 49 23 5 28 38 12 5 5 5 20 6 2 12 93% 24 31 15 56 41 26 40 43 12 1 8 4 2 50 272 108 40% 288 TOTAL COLLEGE/UNIT___________________________ FACULTY 5. TOTAL CARD SIGNERS PERCENT SIGNERS 8 JO 53% 33 19 16 62 25 56 62 25 33 — 211 76 36% 2 0 8 6 75% 0 mm 0 - - SOCIAL SCIENCE 15 Anthropology 15 Geography 26 Political Science 50 Psychology 26 Sociology Criminal Justice 16 Labor & Industrial Relations 16 26 Social Work Urban Planning & Landscape Arch. 16 3 Multidisciplinary Program Institute for Social Science Research_ 2 College Totals 5 5 8 16 4 9 16 4 1 . NON-COLLEGE FACULTY African Studies Center Asst. Provost for Spec. Programs Campus Park and Planning Institute for Community Development Computer Laboratory Continuing Education Service Cooperative Extension Service Counseling Center Foreign Student Office Highway Traffic Safety Center Honors College Information Service Institutional Research Instructional Media Center Intercollegiate Athletics Laboratory Animal Care Service Learning and Evaluation Service Libraries Museum Ombudsman Provost Office Public Utilities Institute Student Affairs Television Broadcasting WKAR-TV Univ. Archives & Hist. Collections Water Research Institute Non-College Totals _ _ 3 5 4 19 5 19 0 - - 8 42 2 0 A 25 16 1 3 7 64 1 0 - - 1 0 — 0 — 0 — 7 1 44 50 2 20 11 5 3 16 2 10 61 5 31 51 1 20 1 0 1 0 — — — 1 0 2 1 50 1 0 — 1 0 4 J_ 25 193 69 36% 289 TOTAL TOTAL CARD PERCENT COLLEGE/UNIT___________________________ FACULTY_______ SIGNERS________SIGNERS 7. EDUCATION Dean's Office Administration & Higher Education Counseling, Pers. Serv. & Ed. Psy. Elementary and Special Education Health, Phy. Edu. & Recreation Secondary Education & Curriculum Advanced Studies in Education Teacher Education Intl. Studies in Education College Totals 8 4 18 32 56 39 31 2 1 7 6 20 18 13 25% 39 19 36 46 42 0 - - 6 13 46 5 J_ 20 233 72 31% 2 1 . HUMAN ECOLOGY Dean's Office Family and Child Sciences Family Ecology Food Science & Human Nutrition Human Environment & Design Instit. for Family & Child Study College Totals 15 14 45 24 9 4 7 6 50% 60 29 16 25 10 _0 — no 27 25% 2 2 100 1 11 COMMUNICATION ARTS Dean's Office Advertising Audiology and Speech Sciences Communication Telecommunication Journalism College Totals 9 13 16 10 2 5 0 . % 15 31 - - _3 25 60 13 22 % 100 % 12 NATURAL SCIENCE Dean's Office Astronomy and Astrophysics Biochemistry Biophysics Botany and Plant Pathology Chemistry Entomology Geology Mathematics Microbiology & Public Health 1 1 6 1 21 1 7 33 39 30 14 83 6 1 17 5 14 30 3 6 20 3 18 22 1 10 1 21 17 290 TOTAL TOTAL CARD PERCENT COLLEGE/UNIT____________________________FACULTY________SIGNERS________SIGNERS Physics Cyclotron Laboratory Physiology Statistics and Probability Zoology Nursing Biological Science Program Science & Math Teaching Center College Totals 11. College Totals 398 87 22% 1 7 11 15 20 18 13 _5 3 1 1 0 0 5 3 1 _2 38% 100 14 98 16 16% 4 24 12 32 20 20 0 3 3 00 12% 25 19 5 10 25 6 % 50 16 69 33 100 8 25 17 8 40 BUSINESS Dean's Office Accounting and Financial Adm. Business Law, Insur. & Off. Adm. Economics Management Marketing & Transportation Adm. Hotel, Rest. & Instit. Management College Totals 13. 3 0 1 0 3 29 1 97 ENGINEERING Deans's Office Engineering Research Chemical Engineering Civil & Sanitary Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering & Sys. Sci. Mechanical Engineering Metallurgy, Mech. & Mat. Sci. Engineering Instr. Services 12. 48 21 2 16 19 42 3 7 8 120 6 1 2 2_ 17 14% AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agricultural Economics Agricultural Engineering Animal Husbandry Crop and Soil Science Dairy Science Fisheries and Wildlife Forestry Horticulture Packaging 49 28 16 39 18 17 18 31 5 3 1 1 1 0 4 3 1 1 % 6 4 6 3 24 17 3 20 291 COLLEGE/UNIT_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Parks and Recreation Resources Poultry Science Resource Development MSU-ERDA Plant Research Lab. University Farms Agr. and Nat. Resources Edu. Inst. Inst, of Agricultural Tech. Kellogg Biological Station College Totals UNIVERSITY TOTALS TOTAL TOTAL CARD PERCENT FACULTY________SIGNERS________SIGNERS 8 1 11 1 18 1 6 12 2 17 1 0 - - 6 0 - - 5 0 - - _8 J_ 290 21 2287 694 12 9 12 7% 30% 292 DEMOGRAPHICS: CONCERNED FACULTY IN 1972 ELECTION N = 356 Academic Rank: 189 (53%) 86 (24%) 60 (17%) 13 ( 4%) 7 ( 2%) Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructors Speciali st 1 ( 0%) Librarian Present Status of Faculty Members: 246 (69%) Now On Employer's List Signed Card Not Signed Card 16 230 ( 7%) (93%) 74 36 (67%) (33%) Not Now on Employer1s Li st Traditional Univsity Medical Colleges College Agriculture* Communication Arts Engineering Natural Science Business Arts and Letters Social Science Residential Colleges Non-College Faculty University College Human Ecology Education Total Faculty Concerned Faculty 335 60 98 398 93 16 25 105 120 20 272 27 13 211 40 193 236 65 233 2 6 6 1 3 Perci Concern 1 28% 27% 26% 26% 17% 1 0 % 6 % 5% 3% 3% 2 % 1 % *These totals for Agriculture include those for the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. 293 CONCERNED FACULTY IN 1972 CAMPAIGN BY ACADEMIC UNIT COLLEGE/UNIT 1. TOTAL FACULTY CONCERNED FACULTY PERCENT CONCERN FACULTY NATURAL SCIENCE Biochemistry Botany & Plant Pathology Chemi stry Entomology Geology Mathematics Microbiology & Public Health Physics Physiology Statistics & Probability Zoology College Totals 21 33 39 30 14 83 6 8 8 24 6 3 24 6 38% 24 62 20 21 29 100 48 3 16 19 15 398 105 26% 49 28 16 39 18 17 18 31 9 9 7 7 18% 32 44 18 61 35 8 31 33 50 2 11 1 AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agricultural Economics Agricultural Engineering Animal Husbandry Crop and Soil Science Dairy Science Fisheries and Wildlife Forestry Horticulture Poultry Science College Totals 11 290 11 6 1 6 16 _6 52 55 72 25% COMMUNICATION ARTS Advertising Audiology & Speech Sciences Communication Telecommuni cati on Journal ism College Totals 9 13 16 1 11 9 4 69 25 % 10 1 10 12 _± 8 60 16 27% ENGINEERING Dean's Office Chemical Engineering 8 1 7 4 % 57% 12 294 COLLEGE/UNIT TOTAL FACULTY Computer Science 15 Electrical Eng. & System Science 2 0 Mechanical Engineering 18 Metallurgy, Mech. & Mat. Science 1 1 College Totals CONCERNED FACULTY PERCENT CONCERN FACULTY _2 40% 35 28 15 98 25 26% 45 24 _L 47% 4 22 20 6 7 5 HUMAN ECOLOGY Food Science & Human Nutrition Human Environ & Design College Totals 110 21 % BUSINESS Accounting & Financial Admin. 24 Business Law Ins. & Office Admin,. 1 2 Economics 32 Management 20 Marketing & Trans. Admin. 20 College Totals 120 4 3 6 17% 25 19 2 10 _5 25 20 17% ARTS AND LETTERS Art English German and Russian Hi story Linguistics Music Philosophy Romance & Classical Language College Totals 41 50 16 34 9 49 23 28 5 7 3 3 J_ 13 4 272 27 10 12 6 14 19 18 1 11 1 % 2 % SOCIAL SCIENCE Anthropology Geography Political Science Psychology Sociology Criminal Justice Social Work College Totals 15 15 26 50 26 16 26 211 1 1 6 2 1 1 _J_ 13 7% 7 23 4 4 6 4_ 6 % 295 COLLEGE/UNIT 9. TOTAL FACULTY Non-College Totals College Totals . 4 1 1 100% 5 2 193 6 3% 13 1_3 1 8 1 8 2 5% 2 4% 1 2 40 % _ UNIVERSITY COLLEGE Humanities Natural Science Social Science Student Affairs College Totals 1 2 4 19 61 . RESIDENTIAL COLLEGES James Madison Lyman Briggs 1 1 PERCENT CONCERN FACULTY NON-COLLEGE FACULTY Computer Laboratory Counseling Center Libraries 1 0 CONCERNED FACULTY 48 49 29 30 2 3 7_ 236 6 3% 18 32 56 1 6 1 1 . EDUCATION Admin. & Higher Education Counsel Per. Ser. & Ed. Psyc. Elem. & Special Education College Totals 233 % 3 _ 1 2 3 1 % 296 VOTING QUOTAS BY COLLEGE COLLEGE 1. University College 2 . Residential Colleges TOTAL FACULTY TOTAL CARDS 236 148 155 40 26 25 62% 26 14 15 58% QUOTAS NUMBER PERCENT 66 % 3. Urban Development 4. Non-College Faculty 193 69 85 44% 5. Social Science 211 76 90 43% 272 108 115 42% 233 72 85 36% 110 27 30 27% 60 13 15 25% 398 87 90 23% 98 16 20 2 0 120 17 20 17% Agriculture & Natural Resources 290 21 30 10 Medicine 380 40 6 . Arts and Letters 7. 8 Education . Human Ecology 9. Communication Arts 10. Natural Science 1 1 . Engineering 1 2 . Business 13. (14. TOTALS: Without Medicine Schools — 775/1935 = 40% With Medicine Schools — 815/2277 = 36% % % 40 11%) If necessary. APPENDIX F 297 Michigan State University Faculty Associates - Letter F E B R U A R Y 1978 A D M IN ISTR A TIO N : M .S .U .'S G RO W TH IN D U ST R Y In an e r a o f in c r e a s e d c la s s s iz e s a n d te a c h in g lo a d s , d e c lin in g fa c u lty s a la r ie s d u e to th e ra v a g e s o f in f la tio n , an d g e n e r a l f a c u lty r e t r e n c h m e n t, th e r e re m a in s o n e a r e a o f th e U n iv e rs ity w h ic h h a s sh o w n p e r s is t e n t a n d s u s ta in e d g ro w th . W e r e f e r , o f c o u rs e , to M SU 's a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f . S in ce 1965 th e in c r e a s e in a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f a t MSU h a s b e e n a t a r a t e o f a lm o s t tw o -a n d - o n e -h a lf tim e s t h a t o f th e g e n e ra l g ro w th r a t e o f f a c u l ty , a n d a t a r a t e o f m o re th a n o n e -a n d - o n e -h a lf tim e s t h a t o f th e g ro w th r a t e o f c le r ic a l - te c h n i c a l p e rs o n n e l. T hus, th e a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f h a s a lm o s t d o u b le d in n u m b e r s in c e 1965—in c r e a s in g fro m 735 to 1,334 p e rs o n s —w h ile th e n u m b e r o f MSU f a c u lty m e m b e rs h a s on ly in c r e a s e d b y a b o u t o n e - th ir d . C le r ic a l- te c h n ic a l p e rs o n n e l sh o w ed a g ro w th r a t e o f a b o u t 50 p e r c e n t d u rin g th is t h i r t e e n y e a r p e rio d . R ELA TIV E G RO W TH O F M .S.U . A DM INISTRATIV E S T A F F , C L E R IC A L -T E C H N IC A L P E R S O N N E L A ND F A C U L T Y SIN C E 1965* A d m in is tra tiv e C le r ic a lY e a r ___________________ S ta f f ___________________T e c h n ic a l______________ F a c u lty _______ 1965 738 1469 2235 1970 1058 2055 3120 1975 1227 2122 3333 1978 1334 2188 3017 * D a ta c o n c e rn in g th e n u m b e r o f f a c u lty m e m b e rs a n d c le r ic a l - te c h n i c a l p e rs o n n e l w e re o b ta in e d d ir e c tly fro m th e p u b lic a tio n T h is is M ich ig a n S ta t e U iv e rs ity (1965-1978). T h e f i g u r e s . fo r a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f w e re d e riv e d fro m th e MSU F a c u lty a n d S ta f f D ir e c to r ie s (1965-1978) c o m b in e d w ith d a ta on a d m in is tr a tiv e /p r o f e s s io n a l s t a f f o b ta in e d fro m T h is is M ich ig an S ta t e U n iv e rs ity (1965-1978). T h e a f f lu e n t y e a r s b e tw e e n 1965 an d 1970 w e re r e a l g ro w th y e a r s a t MSU w ith an in c r e a s e d s t u d e n t e n ro llm e n t o f a b o u t 6 ,0 0 0 s tu d e n ts a n d an a lm o s t 40 p e r c e n t in c r e a s e in th e n u m b e r o f f a c u l ty m e m b e rs . D u rin g th is p e rio d , h o w e v e r, th e r e w a s a slig h tly la r g e r in c r e a s e in a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f o f a b o u t 45 p e r c e n t . B u t s in c e 1970 s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n ts h a v e le v e le d o f f (in c re a sin g b y o n ly a b o u t 7 p e r c e n t d u rin g th e e n ti r e e ig h t (8) y e a r p e ro d ), a n d th e n u m b e r o f f a c u lty m e m b e rs a t MSU h a s a c tu a lly d e c lin e d b y a b o u t 3 .4 p e r c e n t . T h e e x p a n sio n o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e b u r e a u c r a c y h a s c o n tin u e d u n a b a te d , h o w e v e r, w ith a g ro w th o f a d m in is tr a to r s fro m s lig h tly m o re th a n o n e th o u s a n d in 1970 to a t o t a l o f a lm o s t 1,350 s t a f f m e m b e rs in 1978. T h u s, in th is r e c e n t e ig h t y e a r p e rio d th e a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f o f th e U n iv e rs ity h a s g ro w n b y an a la rm in g 26.1 p e r c e n t . S ta t e d so m e w h a t d if f e r e n t ly , in r e c e n t y e a r s w h ile th e f a c u l ty / s tu d e n t r a t i o s a t MSU h a v e a c tu a lly in c r e a s e d , th e n u m b e r o f a d m in is tr a tiv e s t a f f p e r 100 f a c u lty m e m b e rs h a s g ro w n fro m 3 3 .0 (a b o u t o n e to th r e e ) in 1965 to 4 4 .2 (a lm o st o n e to tw o ) in 1978. 1 29R E x a c t d a ta on th e t o t a l MSU a d m in is tr a tiv e c o s ts a r e im p o ssib le to o b ta in . G iv en th e s p e c ta c u la r ris e in a d m in is tr a tiv e s a la r ie s in r e c e n t y e a r s (S ee, fo r in s ta n c e , th e ite m e ls e w h e re in th is N e w s le tte r o n th is s u b je c t) a n d th e la r g e n u m b e r o f h id d e n a d m in is­ t r a t i v e c o s ts w hich a r e o f t e n c h a rg e d o f f to th e U n iv e rs ity 's in s tr u c tio n a l p ro g ra m (e .g ., f a c u lty m e m b e rs w ho a r e g iv e n r e le a s e d tim e to p e rf o rm a d m in is tr a tiv e ta s k s w h ile b e in g c o u n te d in d e p a r tm e n ta l b u d g e ts a s in s tr u c to r s ) th e s e t o t a l a d m in is tr a tiv e e x p e n se s a re s u re ly risin g a t a lm o s t a g e o m e tr ic r a t e . T h e re is a ls o w h a t D o n a ld F re e m a n (C h ro n ic le o f H ig h e r E d u c a tio n , J a n u a r y 9, 1978) h a s te r m e d a " M a lth u sia n M u ltip lie r E f f e c t" in v o lv e d h e r e . E v ery h ig h - le v e l a d ­ m in is tr a tiv e a p p o in tm e n t in th e U n iv e rs ity in e v ita b ly le a d s to m u ltip le a p p o in tm e n ts a ll th e w ay dow n th e lin e . A s F r e e m a n o b se rv e s: "I o n c e d id a c o n s e r v a tiv e c a lc u la tio n o f th is m e t a s t a s is f o r th e a p p o in tm e n t o f o n e s y s te m s o f f ic e r th ro u g h o n e re p o r tin g lin e on o n e c a m p u s a lo n e , a n d c a m e u p w ith 30 a d d itio n a l a d m in is tr a tiv e , s t a f f , a n d c le r ic a l a p p o in tm e n ts a t a n a n n u a l s a la r y o f $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 ." I t is o b v io u s re g a r d in g th e a b o v e d a t a , fo r in s ta n c e , t h a t m u ch o f th e in c r e a s e in c le r ic a l - te c h n i c a l p e rs o n n e l is d ir e c tly r e l a t e d to in c r e a s e s in th e n u m b e r o f a d m in is tr a to r s t o th e e x te n t t h a t in m an y d e p a r tm e n ts on c a m p u s th e a m o u n t o f s e c r e t a r i a l s e r v ic e s a v a ila b le to f a c u lty h a s a c tu a lly d e c lin e d d u rin g r e c e n t y e a rs . A d m in is tra tio n is, a c c o rd in g to F re e m a n , th e r e a l "g ro w th in d u s try " w ith in th e u n iv e rs ity . H ow d id MSU g e t in to th is s itu a tio n a n d w h a t c a n w e do a b o u t i t ? O ne th in g a p p e a rs c e r t a in . R e lia n c e upon th e p r e s e n t s y s te m o f a d v is o ry g o v e rn a n c e b o ls te r e d b y th e o c c a s io n a l m o ra l p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o f th e A A U P is a n in e f f e c t iv e a n d o u td a te d w ay o f c o p in g w ith th is p r e c ip ito u s s p r e a d o f a d m in is tr a tiv e b u re a u c r a c y . A f te r a ll, it is th e s e v e ry in s titu tio n s w h ich h a v e b e e n re s p o n s ib le in la r g e m e a s u re f o r g e ttin g u s in to th is r e g r e t t a b l e s itu a tio n to b e g in w ith . W h a t is n e e d e d is a n e f f e c t i v e f a c u lty o rg a n iz a tio n e m p o w e re d by law W ith th e a u th o r ity to s h a r e th e re s p o n s ib ility f o r d e c is io n m a k in g w ith in th e U n iv e rs ity . G ro u p s w ith u n e q u a l p o w e r c a n n o t d e lib e r a te d e m o c r a tic a lly on m a t t e r s o f fu n d a m e n ta l im p o r ta n c e . G iv e n th e c o m p le x s t r u c tu r e o f o u r U n iv e rs ity , u n ifie d f a c u lty r e p r e s e n ta tio n p ro v id e s o u r b e s t h o p e fo r e f f e c ti v e fa c u lty p a r t ic i p a ti o n in th e d e c is io n -m a k in g p ro c e s s . It is n o t a m e c h a n ism to u s h e r in u to p ia , b u t it d o e s g u a r a n te e t h a t f a c u lty m e m b e rs a n d a d m in is tr a to r s c a n s it dow n a s e q u a ls a n d w o rk o u t p ro b le m s o f m u tu a l c o n c e rn . MSU F a c u lty A s s o c ia te s (M SUFA) h a s w o rk e d h a r d e r a n d lo n g e r th a n a n y o th e r o r g a n iz a tio n on c a m p u s to b rin g th e b e n e f i ts o f u n if ie d f a c u lty r e p r e s e n ta tio n to th is U n iv e rs ity . A s a n a f f i l i a t e o f th e M ich ig a n A sso c ia tio n f o r H ig h er E d u c a tio n a n d th e N a tio n a l S o c ie ty o f P ro f e s s o rs —an d th ro u g h th e s e o rg a n iz a tio n s an a f f ili a te o f th e MEA a n d N EA —w e a r e p a r t o f a t o t a l p ro f e s s io n a l e d u c a tio n a l a s s o c ia tio n re p r e s e n tin g m o re th a n 9 0 ,0 0 0 te a c h e r s in M ic h ig a n a n d a lm o s t tw o m illio n te a c h e r s n a tio n w id e . B o th on th e b a s is o f o u r ow n e x p e rie n c e a n d e x p e r tis e a n d on th e b a sis o f th is o rg a n iz a tio n a l su p p o rt w e b e lie v e t h a t M SU FA c a n p ro v id e th e f a c u lty o f th is U n iv e rs ity w ith a p o w e rfu l v o ic e in th e S ta te L e g is la tu r e a n d th e C o n g re s s w h ile a t th e s a m e tim e a s s u rin g t h a t e d u c a tio n a l o b je c tiv e s on th is c a m p u s a r e g iv e n p r io r ity to a d m in is tr a tiv e c o n c e rn s fo r u n if o r m ity , e f f ic ie n c y , an d e m p ire b u ild in g . * * * * * O U R A D M IN IS T R A T O R -C O L L E A G U E S C O N T IN U E TO S U F F E R ? T w o y e a r s a g o , MSU F a c u lty A s s o c ia te s re m in d e d F a c u lty m e m b e rs t h a t a su rv e y by th e C o lle g e a n d U n iv e rs ity P e rs o n n e l A s s o c ia tio n sh o w e d t h a t th e s a la r ie s o f MSU a d m in is tr a to r s w e re m u c h h ig h e r th a n th e n a tio n a l m e d ia n fo r p u b lic c o lle g e a d m in is tr a ­ to r s . In f a c t , to p MSU a d m i n is tr a t o r s r e c e iv e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 m o re th a n th e m e d ian 2 299 f o r c o m p a r a b le a d m in is tr a to r s . As a ll F a c u lty m e m b e rs know , a n d a s o u r a d m in is tr a to r s s t r e s s r e p e a t e d ly , th e s e a r e h a rd tim e s , b u t w e s till se e n o in d ic a tio n t h a t M SU's a d m in is­ t r a t o r s h a v e m o v e d to s a c r if ic e th e i r o w n p riv ile g e d p o sitio n s. In d e e d , th e fo llo w in g s e le c tio n s fro m th e s a la r y lis ts f o r MSU a d m in is tr a to r s show th a t th e y c o n tin u e to s t r e n g th e n th e i r p riv ile g e d fin a n c ia l p o s itio n s . T h o se lis ts r e v e a l t h a t w h ile h ig h e r r a is e s f o r a d m in is tr a to r s la s t y e a r te n d e d to b e fro m $2000 to $3000, th is y e a r th e y te n d to b e fro m $2500 to $3500 a n d e v e n b e y o n d , e s p e c ia lly fo r a d m in is tr a to r s in m e d ic a l sc h o o ls.* SA LA R Y F IG U R E S SHOW ING RAISES $6200 5000 3300 3300 3300 3000 3000 3000 2800 2800 2750 2600 2500 2500 2500 2300 4000 4000 3000 3000 3000 3000 $ 6 5 ,0 0 0 4 5 ,0 0 0 51,000 51,00 51,000 4 6 ,0 0 0 4 5 ,6 0 0 4 7 ,5 0 0 33,400 4 6 ,0 0 0 30,000 4 1 ,7 0 0 37,750 38,500 4 2 ,5 0 0 35,300 61,250 58,200 39,000 4 8 ,0 0 0 45 ,5 0 0 4 8 ,2 0 0 P r e s id e n t W h a rto n L e g a l A d. C a r r E x e c . V .P . B re slin V .P . C a n tlo n P ro v o s t W in d er V .P . K in sin g e r V .P . P e rr in V .P. W ilkinson C o n tr o lle r L ev i V .P . S c o tt B u d g e t O ff. L o c k h a rt A s s t. P ro v . P o lle y A s s t. P ro v . A r a ta A s s t, to P re s . B a lla rd A s s t. P ro v . H o w ell V. P . G ro ty D e a n M agen A c tin g D e a n W esto n D e a n B e ttin g h a u s D e a n G o ld h a m m e r D e a n S u lliv an D e a n W else r $2800 2800 2800 2700 2500 $ 4 3 ,4 0 0 4 7 ,2 0 0 4 3 ,0 0 0 4 7 ,0 0 0 4 2 ,8 0 0 D ean D ean D ean D ean D ean A n d rew B y erru m L ew is Von T e rs c h O y er $9210 6113 4260 4200 4000 4000 3950 3900 3890 3790 3775 3770 3700 3500 3330 3300 $ 5 3 ,5 80 4 7 ,4 1 3 65 ,7 6 0 65 ,1 0 0 33 ,8 0 0 34 ,8 2 5 61 ,0 5 0 60 ,9 0 0 6 0 ,9 9 0 5 7 ,0 6 0 3 8 ,0 5 0 4 2 ,0 0 0 39 ,3 0 0 37 ,2 0 0 36 ,6 0 0 35 ,8 4 0 C h a irm a n B rody A c t.C h rm . H a rv e y C h rm . K irsc h b a u m C h rm . P o tc h e n C h rm . B a th C h rm . H e ld m a n C h rm . E n z e r C h rm . G e ra rd C h rm . W eil C h rm . L e a d e r C h rm . A n d erso n C h rm . L e v e ille C h rm . K elly C h rm . K e v e rn C h rm . W . R ile y C h rm . M a n d re k a r ♦ F ig u re s a r e b a se d on M ich ig a n S ta t e U n iv e rs ity S a la ry S c h e d u le , 1 9 7 7 -1 9 7 8 , w h ich is d e ­ p o s ite d a t th e lib ra ry r e f e r e n c e d e sk . ***** IN F L A T IO N AND T H E F A C U L T Y M EM BER F a c t; A fa m ily w ith a g ro s s in c o m e o f $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 in 1970 h a d a d is p o sa b le in c o m e o f $ 1 0 ,0 9 9 , a fa m ily w ith a n in c o m e o f $ 1 8 ,0 0 0 in 1976 h a d a d is p o sa b le in c o m e o f $ 9 ,3 8 9 . Such is th e im p a c t o f ris in g ta x e s a n d in f la tio n . Q u e s tio n : W h at h a s h a p p e n e d to y o u r d is p o s a b le in c o m e ? C a n y o u re a d ily a f f o r d to ta k e y o u r fa m ily o u t to d in n e r o r to th e m o v ie s? C a n y o u g e t th ro u g h th e m o n th w ith o u t h a v in g to in c u r d e b t to b u y n e c e s s itie s ? A re y o u a b le to s a v e f o r y o u r c h ild re n 's e d u c a tio n ? F a c t: M ed ia n fa m ily in c o m e g re w 52% o v e r th e p a s t six y e a rs . B u t th e c o s t o f m e d ic a l c a r e in c r e a s e d b y 53% , fo o d b y 57% , a u to m o b ile s b y 59% , a c o lle g e e d u c a tio n b y 7 0 % , a n d n e w h o u sin g b y 80% . Q u e s tio n : W ill la c k o f fu n d s m e a n t h a t y o u r c h ild re n w ill n o t h a v e a c c e s s to p ro fe s s io n a l tr a in in g c o m p a r a b le to y o u r o w n ? 3 300 F a c t: "T h e a n n u a l r a t e o f in f la t io n o f th e fo u r b a s ic n e c e s s iti e s (fo o d , h o u sin g , e n e r g y , h e a lt h c a r e ) b e tw e e n 1970*76 w a s 44% g r e a t e r th a n th e a n n u a l in f la t io n r a t e f o r th e n o n - n e c e s s itie s " (a ir f a r e s , e l e c t r i c to o th b ru s h e s a n d y a c h ts ) . Q u e s tio n : Is y o u r f i r s t p r i o r it y a y a c h t o r s im p ly g e t t i n g th r o u g h th e m o n th w ith e n o u g h m o n e y to b u y fo o d a n d o t h e r n e c e s s iti e s fo r y o u rs e lf o r y o u r fa m ily ? F a c t: L abor c o s ts a r e n o t th e m a jo r c a u s e o f in f la t io n . In d u s tria l S u rv e y s r e p o r ts t h a t la s t y e a r " la b o r c o s t s —w a g e s, s a la r ie s a n d fr in g e b e n e f i ts —w e re b u t 2 3 .4 % o f th e s a le s d o lla r, d o w n fro m t h e p e a k o f 28% in 1968." Q u e s tio n : D o y o u r e a l ly b e lie v e t h a t s a la r y in c r e m e n ts c o m p a r a b le to in c r e a s e s in th e c o s t o f liv in g w o u ld b e in f la tio n a r y ? F a c t: F ro m 1970 to 1975 fo o d p r i c e s ro s e a lm o s t 9 % a y e a r . Q u e s tio n : W h ile fo o d p r ic e s ro s e 9% p e r y e a r b e tw e e n 1970 a n d 1975, w a s y o u r s a la r y in c r e a s in g b y 9% a n n u a lly ? F a c t: T h e c u r r e n t r a t e o f in f la tio n is o v e r 6% ; in d e e d , M e rrill L y n ch E c o n o m ic s , In c . in it s l a t e s t "B u sin e ss O u tlo o k " f o r e s e e s a 6 .3 % a v e r a g e in 1978 c o m p a r e d w ith la s t y e a r 's 5 .6 % . Q u e s tio n H ow d o t h e s e f ig u r e s s p e a k to y o u r h o p e s t h a t in f la tio n a r y p r e s s u r e s w ill w ill e v e n tu a lly p a s s ? F a c t: R o b e r t L o c k h a r t, MSU B u d g e t O f f i c e r , h a s s a id t h a t " U n iv e r s ity s a la r ie s in g e n e r a l h a v e n o t k e p t u p w ith th e c o s t o f liv in g ." Q u e s tio n : H a s y o u r s a l a r y k e p t u p w ith th e c o s t o f liv in g ? F a c t: In 1 9 7 6 , p e r c a p i t a in c o m e in c r e a s e d in M ic h ig a n b y 13% . Q u e s tio n : D id y o u r in c o m e in c r e a s e b y 13% in 1 976? * * * v * Q u e s tio n : H ow h a s c e n t r a l a d m i n is tr a t io n re s p o n d e d t o th e p lig h t o f th e m id d le - c la s s f a c u l t y fa m ily ? F a c t: C e n tr a l a d m i n is tr a t io n h a s in s is te d o n " m e r it" a s a p r im a r y m e a n s o f d e t e r ­ m in in g s a la r y in c r e a s e s . T h is , o f c o u rs e , m e a n s t h a t o n e h a s h a d to b e " m e rito rio u s ," y e a r a f t e r y e a r , s im p ly t o k e e p u p w ith in c r e a s e s in t h e c o s t o f liv in g . A n d b e c a u s e s u c h in c r e a s e s h a v e b e e n b a s e d o n a p e r c e n t a g e o f o n e 's c u r r e n t s a la r y , th e r ic h a m o n g th e m e r ito r io u s h a v e b e c o m e r i c h e r ; a n d t h e le s s a f f lu e n t a m o n g th e w in n e rs h a v e sim p ly s t a y e d in th e r a c e . In a c o m p e tiv e r a c e , h o w e v e r, s o m e m u s t n e c e s s a r ily lo s e . In a g iv e n y e a r , m a n y s tu m b le o r f a il t o ru n th e r a c e a s s tro n g ly a s th o s e d e e m e d t o b e m e r ito r io u s . T h e s e , o f c o u r s e , a r e t h e m a jo r ity . T h is le a d s u s to p o in t o u t t h a t in a s y s te m in w h ic h m e r it ta k s p r e c e d e n c e o v e r b a s ic c o s t- o f - liv in g s a l a r y a d ju s tm e n ts , m o s t f a c u l ty in e v ita b ly s u f f e r a r e a l d e c lin e in liv in g s t a n d a r d s o v e r a p e r io d o f tim e in a n in f la t io n a r y e r a . M SU FA th e r e f o r e in s is ts t h a t s a la r y d is tr ib u tio n sh o u ld b e g in w ith a b a s ic c o s t - o f liv in g a d ju s tm e n t p r io r to a n y c o n s id e r a tio n o f m e r it r a i s e s . S uch a a c o s t- o f - liv in g s a la ry 4 301 a d ju s tm e n t c o u ld b e d e te r m in e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e r a t e o f in c r e a s e in th e c o s t- o f liv in g m u ltip lie d b y w h a t m a y b e c o n s id e re d a re a s o n a b le in c o m e fo r a fa m ily o f fo u r. An e x a m p le m ig h t b e 67b o f $ 1 6 ,8 0 0 .0 0 o r $ 1 ,0 0 8 .0 0 . A ny re m a in in g fu n d s sh o u ld th e n b e d is tr ib u te d to m e r ito rio u s p e rs o n s a c c o rd in g to c r i t e r i a w o rk e d o u t Tjy e a c h a c a d e m ic u n it in a m a n n e r c o n s is te n t w ith it s p a ‘.ic u la r n e e d s a n d m issio n . Q u e s tio n : D o y o u su p p o rt o u r d riv e to s e c u r e e q u ita b le f a c u lty s a la r ie s a t a ll le v e ls ? If you d o , h e lp u s in o u r c a m p a ig n a n d v o te f o r M SU FA in th e c o in in g e le c tio n . N o o th e r f a c u lty o rg a n iz a tio n h a s w o rk e d so lo n g a n d so e f f e c ti v e ly fo r th e w e lf a r e o f th e e n ti r e F a c u lty a s M SU FA . * * * * * U P D A T E ON C LA SS A CTIO N SUIT F O R WOMEN F A C U L T Y In th e c la s s a c tio n s u it file d b y MSU F a c u lty A s s o c ia te s in D e c e m b e r 1976, M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e rs ity 's . A d m in is tra tio n is c h a rg e d w ith d is c rim in a tio n in it s e m p lo y m e n t p r a c t ic s re g a r d in g w o m en f a c u lty in th e a r e a s o f s a la r y , p ro m o tio n , te n u r e , a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p o in tm e n ts , r e t ir e m e n t b e n e f its , a n d " o th e r te r m s a n d c o n d itio n s o f e m p lo y m e n t." O n D e c e m b e r 3 0 , 1977, F e d e r a l D is t r ic t J u d g e N o el P . F o x c e r t if ie d th e c la s s a c tio n s t a tu s o f th e s u it. T he U n iv e rs ity A d m in is tra tio n h a d a t t e m p t e d to h a v e th e s u it r e d u c e d fro m c la s s a c tio n s t a tu s to t h e s p e c if ic a lly n a m e d p la i n ti f f s in th e c a s e . A t th e sa m e tim e , U A A /C R E F a tt o r n e y s a t t e m p t e d to h a v e a lle g a tio n s in th e s u it C oncerning u n e q u a l r e t ir e m e n t b e n e f i ts fo r w o m e n th ro w n o u t o f c o u r t. B o th th e s e e f f o r t s fa ile d . T h e c la s s r e p r e s e n te d in th e s u it in c lu d e s a p p ro x im a te ly n in e h u n d re d (900) te n u r e d , n o n -te n u re d , te m p o ra r y , .p a r t- tim e , c o o p e r a tiv e e x te n s io n , a n d s p e c i a li s t w o m e n e m p lo y e d by M SU. M s. Jo h n e C r in e r is n a m e d p la i n ti f f in th e s u it a s a r e p r e s e n ta t iv e o f C o o p e ra tiv e E x te n sio n f a c u lty w o m en . In A u g u st, 1977, fo llo w in g h e r c h a rg e s t h a t th e U n iv e rs ity h a d d is c r im in a te d a g a in s t h e r c o n c e rn in g s a la r y b e c a u s e o f Her s e x , C r in e r w a s n o tifie d by h e r a d m in is tr a tiv e s u p e rio rs t h a t sh e w o u ld n o t' b e g r a n te d c o n tin u in g e m p lo y m e n t. She w as to ld f u r th e r th a t if sh e d id n o t re s ig n by S e p te m b e r 1, h e r e m ­ p lo y m e n t w o u ld b e te r m i n a te d on J a n u a r y 1, 1978, b e c a u s e o f h e r " la c k o f p o s itiv e a tt it u d e ." She r e f u s e d to re s ig n . O n th e s a m e d a y t h a t J u d g e F o x r e a f f ir m e d th e c la s s s t a t u s o f th e s u i t, h e also is su e d a r e s tr a in in g o r d e r t h a t h a lt e d C r in e r 's firin g , p e n d in g f u r th e r h e a rin g s . T h e se to o k p la c e d u rin g th e w e e k o f J a n a iiry 16, 1978. J u d g e F o x su b s e q u e n tly d e n ie d th e r e s tr a in in g o rd e r on th e le g a l g o u n d t h a t C r in e r h a d n o t d e m o n s tr a te d t h a t ir r e p a r a b le in ju ry w o u ld b e th e r e s u lt fro m te r m in a tio n o f h e r e m p lo y m e n t b y U n iv e rs ity o ff ic ia ls . B u t J u d g e F ox a lso re c o m m e n d e d t h a t U n iv e rs ity a d m in is tr a to r s re n e w h e r a p p o in tm e n t u n til a f t e r th e tr ia l, d u rin g w h ich th e f a c t s o f h e r c a s e w ill b e p r e s e n te d a s p a r t o f th e c la s s a c tio n s u it. U n iv e rs ity o ff ic ia ls ig n o re d Ju d g e F o x 's r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d d id n o t re n e w C rin e r 's a p p o in tm e n t. A d a te f o r th e t r i a l h a s n o t b e e n a n n o u n c e d . * * * * * F U R T H E R U P D A T E : W O M EN'S C LA SS A C T IO N SUIT MSU A tto r n e y L e la n d W. C a r r h a s re lin q u is h e d th e U n iv e rs ity a d m in is tr a tio n 's d e fe n s e o f i t s p o s itio n to a D e tr o i t law f irm . T h e fir m 's a tt o r n e y s p la n to o b ta in d e ­ p o s itio n s fro m p e rs o n s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e c a s e , in c lu d in g fo r m e r F A p r e s id e n ts in s tr u ­ m e n ta l in it s in c ep tio n .* A d e la y in g t a c t i c ? G u e ss w ho p a y s , e v e n if in d ir e c tly , fo r in ­ c re a s e d c o s ts to th e U n iv e rs ity ? * * * 5 * * 302 F A C U L T Y N EG O T IA T IO N S: Q U ESTIO N S AND ANSW ERS Q u e s tio n s h a v e c o m e to u s fro m c o lle a g u e s a b o u t th e a c tu a l p ro c e s s e s a n d p ro ­ v isio n s o f a p ro fe s s io n a lly n e g o tia te d f a c u lty c o n tr a c t, a n d a b o u t th e a d v a n ta g e s it w ould b rin g to th e m s e lv e s a n d to th e U n iv e rs ity . O n e m is c o n c e p tio n w h ich p re v a ils is th a t p ro f e s s io n a l n e g o tia tio n s d e a l o n ly w ith w a g e s, b e n e f its a n d e c o n o m ic b e tt e r m e n t. C o lle a g u e s h a v e a s k e d u s i f o th e r is su e s a s s o c ia te d w ith U n iv e rs ity life w o u ld b e ig n o re d in a c o n tr a c t. In an a t t e m p t to c la r if y th e s e q u e s tio n s , M SU FA p r e s e n ts th e fo llo w in g in f o rm a tio n a b o u t p ro f e s s io n a lly n e g o tia te d c o n tr a c ts in H ig h e r E d u c a tio n . Q U ESTIO N : D u rin g F a c u lty /A d m in is tr a tio n n e g o tia tio n s , w h a t k in d s o f is s u e s a re b a rg a in a b le ? A N SW ER : To show t h a t n e g o ti a te d c o n tr a c ts c a n d e a l e f f e c ti v e ly w ith is su e s c o v e rin g th e s p e c tru m o f th e a c a d e m ic ’s p ro fe s s io n a l life w e lis t so m e o f th e ite m s a lr e a d y n e g o tia te d in fa c u lty c o n tr a c ts : S ick L e a v e L e a v e s o f A b se n c e S a b b a tic a l L e a v e A n n u al L e a v e L e g a l L e a v e fo r J u r y D u ty A f f ir m a tiv e A c tio n P o lic ie s N o n -d is c rim in a tio n P o lic ie s T e n u re R ig h ts A p p o in tm e n t a n d r e - A p p o in tm e n t G rie v a n c e P ro c e d u r e s a n d A rb itra tio n C iv il R ig h ts o f F a c u lty T e rm in a tio n P ro c e d u re s R ig h ts o f D u e P ro c e s s U se o f U n iv e rs ity F a c ilitie s S ta f f H ou sin g R e s e a r c h F a c ilitie s a n d T e c h n ic a l S u p p o rt E q u ip m e n t a n d S u p p lies S u p p o rt S ta f f P e rs o n n e l F ile s /A c c e s s a n d S e c u rity A c a d e m ic F re e d o m In s u ra n c e P ro g ra m s L ife In s u ra n c e H o s p ita l/M e d ic a l/D e n ta l/P s y c h ia tr ic C a re A c c id e n t/S ic k n e s s /D is a b ili ty F u n e ra l L e a v e M a te rn ity /I lln e s s L e a v e F a c u lty W e lfa re F u n d s R e ti r e m e n t P ro v isio n s E v a lu a tio n o f A d m in is tra to r s W ork L o a d /S c h e d u le s S tu d e n t C o n ta c t H o u rs O v e rlo a d T e a c h in g A p p o in tm e n ts O ff-c a m p u s c o u rs e s T ra v e l A llo w a n c e s A c a d e m ic C o n fe re n c e s C o n s u lta tio n R ig h ts /O b lig a tio n s C o n tro l o f C u rric u lu m D e p a r tm e n ta l P ro c e d u r e s P ro fe s s io n a l E v a lu a tio n C r it e r i a fo r P ro m o tio n P a te n t /R o y a l ty R ig h ts P ro fe s s io n a l A d v a n c e m e n t T ra in in g N o -S trik e P le d g e if D e sire d P e rs o n s C o v e re d by th e C o n tr a c t A c a d e m ic P r o g r a m s /P r io r itie s Q U E ST IO N : W h a t p ro c e s s d o e s a p ro fe s s io n a l n e g o tia tio n fo llo w ? an issu e c a n n o t b e re s o lv e d ? W h at h a p p e n s w h en A N SW ER : F ir s t o f a ll, in p ro f e s s io n a l n e g o tia tio n s , th e law re q u ire s "good f a i t h ” b a rg a in in g b e tw e e n th e p a r t i e s . T h is m e a n s t h a t e a c h sid e m u s t show i t s e l f tru ly w illin g to r e a c h a n a g r e e m e n t. T h e n e a c h sid e m a k e s p ro p o s a ls a n d c o u n te r -p ro p o s a ls . A ll b u t a few is s u e s a r e re s o lv e d in th is in itia l p ro c e s s . H o w e v e r, if th e r e is d is a g re e m e n t t h e law g r a n ts e i t h e r p a r t y th e r ig h t t o c a ll fo r m e d ia tio n . -An im p a r tia l m e d ia to r a t t e m p t s to h e lp b o th p a r t i e s r e a c h a g r e e m e n t. If m e d ia tio n fa ils , e it h e r p a r ty m a y c a ll fo r a f a c t ­ fin d in g p ro c e e d in g . D u rin g th is p ro c e e d in g , w h ich is a h e a rin g b e f o r e a S ta te L a b o r 6 303 R e la tio n s B o a rd a r b i t r a t o r , e a c h sid e m u s t s u b s t a n t i a t e it s c a s e w ith s ig n if ic a n t su p ­ p o r tin g d o c u m e n ta tio n . A t t h e e n d o f t h e h e a rin g s , th e f a c t - f i n d e r s u m m a r iz e s th e fin d in g s a n d m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . E ith e r p a r t y m a y a g r e e to a c c e p t th e f a c t - f i n d e r 's r e c o m m e n d a tio n s , o r i f d e s ir e d , th e la w p r o r id e s t h a t e i t h e r p a r t y m a y p ro p o s e b in d in g a r b i t r a t i o n , a m e th o d w h ic h s e t t l e s th e d is p u te a n d r e q u i r e s c o m p lia n c e b y b o th s id e s . W hen a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n t h e p a r t i e s is r e a c h e d in itia lly , h o w e v e r, th is le n g th y p r o c e s s is n o t n e c e ssa ry . Q U E S T IO N : D o p ro f e s s io n a l n e g o tia tio n s d is ru p t th e w o rk in g r e l a tio n s h ip b e tw e e n F a c u lt y a n d th e A d m in is tr a tio n , by a t t e m p t i n g to u s u rp th e p r e r o g a ti v e s o f t h e A d m in ­ is t r a t i o n ? A N SW E R : E x a m in a tio n o f o t h e r c o n t r a c t s c u r r e n tl y in e f f e c t a t o th e r c o lle g e s a n d u n iv e r s itie s r e v e a l s t h a t n o a t t e m p t is m a d e in t h e s e a g r e e m e n ts t o c u r t a il , d is r u p t, o r in f r in g e u p o n th e r i g h ts o r t h e le g a l r e s p o n s ib ility o f a d m i n is tr a t o r s to c a r r y o u t th e m a n a g e m e n t a n d o p e r a tio n o f th e s e in s ti tu t io n s . C u s to m a r y a d m i n is tr a t iv e f u n c tio n s n e c e s s a r y to a s m o o th ly ru n n in g in s ti tu t io n re m a in u n d is tu r b e d b y p ro f e s s io n a l n e g o ti a te d c o n t r a c t s , a n d le g i ti m a t e a d m i n is tr a t iv e p r e r o g a ti v e s a r e f u lly r e s p e c te d a n d le g a lly p r o t e c t e d b y th e s a m e c o n t r a c t w h ic h p r o t e c t s f a c u l ty . A p ro f e s s io n a l n e g o ti a te d c o n ­ t r a c t is u n iq u e in t h a t i t g u a r a n t e e s le g a l p r o t e c ti o n s b o th to f a c u l ty m e m b e rs a n d to a d m i n is tr a t o r s a n d a s s u r e s t h a t r i g h ts , r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , a n d p r e r o g a tiv e s a r e s p e lle d o u t c le a r ly f o r b o th s id e s . T w o p a r t i e s t h a t a r e e q u a l b e f o r e th e law r e a c h a g r e e m e n t a n d m a k e a le g a lly b in d in g c o n t r a c t . Q U E S T IO N : W ill n o t c o ll e c ti v e n e g o tia tio n s i n c r e a s e c o n f lic t A d m in is tr a tio n ? b e tw e e n F a c u lt y a n d A N SW E R : U n d e r p r o f e s s io n a l n e g o ti a ti o n s , th e k e y s t r e n g th o f th e a r r a n g e m e n t is th e m u tu a lity o f th e p r o c e s s . T w o p a r t i e s on e q u a l le g a l f o o tin g c a n n e g o t i a t e t o r e a c h m u tu a lly a c c e p t a b le s o lu tio n s t o p ro b le m s . C e r ta i n ly , c o n f l ic t o v e r g o a ls o r p r i o r i t i e s c a n o c c u r ; h o s t il it y , h o w e v e r, is n o t a n e c e s s a r y e le m e n t in t h e p ro c e s s . R e a s o n is . A b a s e o f s t r e n g t h o n b o th s id e s c a n s e r v e t o r e d u c e th e f r u s t r a t i o n w h ic h now a r i s e s w h e n p o w e r is p r e d o m in a n tly h e ld b y o n e s id e . W h a t b e t t e r w a y is t h e r e —f o r s c h o la r s a n d e d u c a t o r s , w ho a r e p e r s o n a lly a n d p ro f e s s io n a lly c o m m it te d t o ju s t i c e a n d e q u ity — th a n to s i t d o w n a n d re a s o n to g e t h e r ? 7 Michigan State University Faculty Associates • Letter BOX 890 E A S T LANS ING. MICHIGAN 488 23 S P R IN G 1979 Low S a la r ie s 'D e m o ra liz e ' F a c u lty Low f a c u l ty s a la r ie s p e r s is t a t MSU d e s p ite th e f a c t t h a t o u r a d m in is tr a to r s a r e p a id $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 m o re y e a r ly th a n th e n a tio n a l m e a n a c c o rd in g to s t a t i s t i c s g a th e r e d b y th e C o lle g e a n d U n iv e rs ity P e rs o n n e l A s s o c ia tio n (C U PA ). T h e s a la rie s o f F a c u lty m e m b e rs re m a in 5 to 10 p e r c e n t b elow th e a v e r a g e s a la rie s o f o th e r B ig T en in s titu tio n s , o th e r p u b lic AAU in s titu tio n s , a n d o th e r c o m p a ra b le m a jo r s t a t e u n iv e r s itie s -as e m p h a ­ s iz e d in th e a d m in is tra tio n 's c u r r e n t b u d g e t r e q u e s t to th e S ta te le g is la tu r e . As th e a c c o m p a n y in g ta b le d e m o n s tr a te s , s a la r ie s fo r a ll MSU F a c u lty ra n k s a r e b elo w B ig T e n a v e r a g e s . T h u s fo r te n m o n th a p p o in tm e n ts , fo r in s ta n c e , P ro f e s s o rs ra n k n in th , A s s o c ia te P ro f e s s o rs s ix th , an d A s s is ta n t P ro f e s s o rs s e v e n th a m o n g th e B ig T en U n iv e rs itie s . A c c o rd in g to th e c u r r e n t b u d g e t r e q u e s t, MSU in th e p a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s h a s h a d "only m o d e r a te s u c c e s s in h irin g to p (F a c u lty ) t a l e n t a n d h a s s e e n so m e o f i t s b e s t (F a c u lty ) t a l e n t d ra w n to o th e r u n iv e r s itie s .” T h e b u d g e t r e p o r t f u r th e r s t a t e s t h a t th is s a la ry d i f f e r e n t ia l is "d e m o ra liz in g " f o r y o u n g F a c u lty a n d is c le a r ly "n o t in h a rm o n y w ith th e r e l a t i v e q u a lity o f o u r m a t u r e fa c u lty w hen c o m p a re d to o th e r f a c u ltie s in th e B ig T e n .” T he r e p o r t c o n c lu d e s t h a t MSU is u n a b le to e n t e r e f f e c ti v e ly in to th e "h ig h ly c o m p e titiv e m a r k e t a n d r e c r u i t to p c a n d id a te s t o th e f a c u lty o f th e U n iv e rs ity ,” a n d ris k s " th e lo ss o f o u r m o s t c a p a b le fa c u lty ." W ith a n a n n u a l r a t e o f in f la tio n n o w a p p ro a c h in g 10 p e r c e n t, it is d if f ic u lt to b e o p tim is tic re g a r d in g th e p o s s ib ility o f s u b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n ts in F a c u lty s a la r ie s d u rin g th e c o m in g y e a r. In a c li m a t e o f fis c a l r e s t r a i n t a n d w ith o u t c o lle c tiv e r e p r e s e n ta t io n , MSU F a c u lty f a c e th e p ro s p e c t o f a n o th e r le a n f in a n c ia l y e a r an d a f u r th e r d e c lin e in o u r a lr e a d y d e te r io r a tin g s ta n d a rd o f liv in g . C o m p a riso n s A m ong "B ie T en" U n iv e rs itie s 1977-78 A v e ra g e F a c u lty S a la rie s 10 M o n th A p p o in tm e n ts A s s is ta n t P ro f e s s o rs 1 2 3 4 5 6 MSU 8 9 10 16,983 16,657 16,359 16,314 16,215 16,140 16,073 15,830 15,826 15,165 A s s o c ia te P r o f e s s o r s 1 2 3 4 5 MSU 7 8 9 10 20 ,9 6 5 2 0 ,7 8 6 2 0,599 20,104 19,931 19,706 19,693 19,559 19,286 18,686 P ro f e s s o rs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MSU 10 2 9 ,5 9 6 2 9 ,0 5 0 2 8 ,6 4 2 28,519 27,523 2 7 ,4 3 2 27,003 2 6,869 26,258 25,696 305 -2 12 M on th A p p o in tm e n ts A s s is ta n t P ro f e s s o rs 1 2 3 4 5 6 MSU 8 9 10 2 3,936 23,727 22,278 22,144 20,935 20,401 20,293 20,085 19,835 19,313 A s s o c ia te P ro f e s s o rs 1 2 3 4 5 MSU 7 8 9 10 29,231 29,202 26,386 2 6 ,3 8 4 25,438 24,816 24,367 2 4 ,3 4 0 23,846 2 3 ,7 7 4 P ro f e s s o rs 1 2 3 4 5 MSU 7 8 9 10 39,093 37,719 3 5 ,8 9 2 3 3 ,9 7 6 33,144 32,293 32,233 3 1 ,7 6 0 31,268 3 0 ,9 6 4 M SU FA P ro p o s a ls R e g a rd in g . F a c u lty C o m p e n s a tio n . F a c u lty A s s o c ia te s p ro p o s e s t h a t in a d d itio n to F a c u lty m e r it r a is e s , a v e r a g e MSU F a c u lty c o m p e n s a tio n in 1979*80 sh o u ld r i s e a t le a s t a s f a s t a s th e g e n e r a l c o s t o f liv in g . M o re o v e r, M SU FA p ro p o s e s t h a t a v e ra g e MSU F a c u lty c o m p e n s a tio n sh o u ld a ls o b e b ro u g h t to a le v e l e q u a l to th e a v e ra g e o f th e to p th ir d o f th e AAU a n d B ig T e n U n iv e rs itie s . * * * * * Y o u r R ig h t to U n iv e rs ity D o c u m e n ts A s s o c ia te P ro v o s t K in sin g e r r e c e n t ly s e n t th e "1 9 78-79 F a c u lty S a la ry S tu d y " to d e a n s an d d e p a r tm e n t a d m in is tr a to r s w ith in s tr u c tio n s th a t F a c u lty co u ld b e in fo rm e d o f th e r e p o r t b u t t h a t it w as "n o t fo r d u p lic a tio n o r d is trib u tio n ." B u t u n d e r th e M ich ig an F re e d o m o f I n f o rm a tio n A c t (P u b lic A c t 4 4 2 o f 1976), th is s a la ry s tu d y , lik e m o s t o th e r U n iv e rs ity d o c u m e n ts , is in d e e d fu lly a v a ila b le fo r r e p r o d u c tio n b y MSU F a c u lty m e m b e rs. U n d e r th e F re e d o m o f In f o rm a tio n A c t, F a c u lty h a v e th e r ig h t to re q u e s t c o p ie s o f U n iv e rs ity r e c o r d s , th e r ig h t to g o to U n iv e rs ity o f f ic e s a n d in s p e c t an d m a k e n o te s fro m th e s e d o c u m e n ts , a n d th e r i g h t to s u b s c rib e to fu tu r e is su a n c e o f U n iv e rs ity d o c u m e n ts c r e a t e d or- d is s e m in a te d o n a r e g u la r b a s is . B a sic a lly , th e law sa y s a ll file s , r e c o r d s , r e p o r ts , a n d in f o rm a tio n o f th e U n iv e rs ity a re o p e n to p u b lic a c c e s s u n le s s th e y a re s p e c if ic a lly e x e m p te d . T h e e x c e p tio n s a r e n a rro w ly d e fin e d a n d g e n e ra lly p r o t e c t d o c u m e n ts w h ich w ould in v a d e a n in d iv id u a l's p e rs o n a l p riv a c y o r f r u s tr a te th e U n iv e rs ity . * * * * * How to R e q u e s t U n iv e rs ity D o c u m e n ts MSU h a s d e s ig n a te d D a le A rn o ld , D ir e c to r o f In fo rm a tio n S e rv ic e s, a s th e "fre e d o m o f in f o rm a tio n o f f i c e r ” to h a n d le r e q u e s ts s u b m itte d u n d e r th is la w . U n d e r o rd in a ry c irc u m ­ s t a n c e s , th e r e c o r d s m u s t b e m a d e a v a ila b le w ith in fiv e b u sin e ss d a y s a f t e r th e r e q u e s t is re c e iv e d , a lth o u g h , u n d e r u n u su a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th e U n iv e rs ity c a n n o tify th e r e q u e s te r in w ritin g a n d e x te n d th e ti m e lim it b y te n d a y s. If th e r e q u e s t is d e n ie d , w r it te n n o tic e o f th e d e n ia l m u s t b e p ro v id e d to th e r e q u e s te r a n d a f a ilu r e to re s p o n d w ith in th e tim e lim its* a m o u n ts to a d e n ia l. I f a r e q u e s t is d e n ie d , th e r e q u e s te r m u s t b e in fo rm e d o f h e r /h is r ig h t to s e e k ju d ic ia l r e v ie w , a n d if th e c o u rt fin d s th a t th e U n iv e rs ity h a s v io la te d th e A c t i t m u s t, in a d d itio n to a n y a c tu a l o r c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s, a w a rd p u n itiv e d a m a g e s o f $500 to th e p e rs o n s e e k in g a c c e s s to th e U n iv e rs ity re c o rd s . * * * * * A c c e s s to Y o u r P e rs o n n e l F ile s H a v e y o u e v e r w o n d e re d w hy o n e F a c u lty m e m b e r is p ro m o te d o r g iv en te n u r e an d a n o th e r is n o t w hen b o th se e m e q u a lly q u a lifie d ? W ith th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e B u lla rd -P la w e c k i E m p lo y ee R ig h t-to -K n o w A c t on J a n u a r y 1, 1979, MSU F a c u lty now h a v e th e r ig h t to a re v ie w o f th e i r p e rs o n n e l file s . 306 -3 A f te r lo o k in g a t y o u r file , y o u m a y o b ta in a c o p y o f a n y o r a ll in f o r m a tio n in it b y sim p ly r e q u e s tin g i t fro m th e U n iv e rs ity . T h e U n iv e rs ity m a y c h a rg e a f e e f o r p ro v id in g th e in f o r m a tio n b u t th e c h a rg e m u s t b e lim ite d to th e a c t u a l c o s t o f d u p lic a tin g th e m a t e r i a l. If y o u d is a g re e w ith a n y in f o r m a tio n c o n ta in e d in y o u r p e rs o n n e l f ile , re m o v a l o r c o r ­ r e c t io n o f t h a t in f o r m a tio n m a y b e m u tu a lly a g r e e d u p o n b y y o u a n d th e A d m in is tra tio n . If su c h an a g r e e m e n t c a n n o t b e r e a c h e d , y o u m a y s u b m it a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t e x p la in in g y o u r p o s itio n , w h ic h w ill b e c o m e a p e r m a n e n t p a r t o f th e file . T h e la w a llo w s a s t a t e m e n t o f up to fiv e s h e e t s o f 8H x 11 in c h p a p e r t o b e a d d e d to th e f ile . T h is in f o r m a tio n m u s t b e in c lu d e d w h e n e v e r th e f ile is d iv u lg e d to a th i r d p a r t y . G a in in g A c c e s s t o Y o u r P e rs o n n e l F ile s . P e rs o n n e l f i le s o n y o u a r e k e p t in th e P r o v o s t's O f f ic e a n d in y o u r c o lle g e a n d d e p a r t m e n t a l o f f ic e s . W r itte n o r v e rb a l r e q u e s ts sh o u ld b e m a d e to th e fo llo w in g p e rs o n s fo r a c c e s s to e a c h o f t h e s e th r e e file s : 1. C e n tr a l A d m in is tra tio n F ile ; F o r a c c e s s , c o n ta c t K e r m it S m ith , A s s is ta n t to th e P r o v o s t, 3 1 2 A d m in is tr a tio n B u ild in g , P h o n e : 3 3 5 -1 5 2 6 . 2. C o lle g e F ile : F o r a c c e s s , c o n ta c t t h e D e a n o f y o u r c o lle g e . 3. D e p a r tm e n t F ile : F o r a c c e s s , c o n t a c t y o u r d e p a r t m e n t C h a irp e r s o n , D ir e c to r , o r U n it S u p e rv iso r. S om e F a c u lty h a v e r e p o r te d t h a t c o v e r s h e e t s c o n ta in in g r e c o m m e n d a tio n s f o r p ro m o tio n a n d te n u r e b y d e p a r t m e n t C h a irp e r s o n s a n d D e a n s h a v e b e e n re m o v e d . T h is sh o u ld n o t b e th e c a s e ; th e in t e n t o f th is law is t h a t y o u sh o u ld h a v e a c c e s s to s u c h m a t e r i a ls . If y o u h a v e a n y q u e s tio n s a b o u t o b ta in in g a c c e s s to y o u r p e rs o n n e l f ile s o r e n c o u n te r a n y d if f ic u l ti e s a lo n g th e w a y , p le a s e l e t u s k n o w . M SU FA w ill t r y to h e lp y o u a n s w e r y o u r q u e s tio n s a n d /o r o v e rc o m e th e s e d if f ic u ltie s . * * * * * F i r s t S te p T o w a rd A b o lish in g T e n u re ? T h e P r o v o s t r e c e n t l y a s k e d th e F a c u lty A f f a i r s C o m m it te e t o c o n s id e r p ro c e d u r e s w h ic h w o u ld h a v e s u b s ta n tia lly w e a k e n e d th e p r e s e n t t e n u r e s y s te m . T h e s e p ro c e d u r e s in c lu d e "a n n u a l o r b ie n n ia l e v a lu a tio n s o f a ll te n u r e d f a c u lty " a n d c o n s id e r a tio n o f t h e d e v e lo p ­ m e n t o f a u n iv e r s ity le v e l p ro m o tio n a n d te n u r e re v ie w c o m m it te e . A lth o u g h th e F A C 's in itia l r e a c t i o n to th is p ro p o s a l w a s u n f a v o r a b le , th e g e n e ra l o u tlin e s o f th e P ro v o s t's a s s a u lt o n th e te n u r e s y s te m a r e n o w b e c o m in g c l e a r e r . * * • * * S p rin g T e rm M e e tin g s C o m e , m e e t w ith us! B rin g y o u r id e a s , y o u r e n th u s ia s m , a n d y o u r s u p p o r t. S p rin g T e rm m e e tin g s a r e s c h e d u le d e v e r y s e c o n d F rid a y a t 1 2 :0 0 n o o n in R o o m 4 6 6 , B e rk e y H a ll. T h e d a t e s o f o u r u p c o m in g m e e tin g s a r e a s fo llo w s: A p ril 2 0 , 1979 M ay 4 , 1979 M ay 18, 1979 In F a c u lt y u n ity , th e r e is s t r e n g th ! * * * * * J o in U s M E M B E R SH IP F O R M __________ 19 7 8 -7 9 D u e s $ 2 0 .0 0 (D iv isio n o f F u n d s: $10 - M S U F A ; $ 1 0 - f o r M E A /N E A o r g a n iz a tio n a l s u p p o r t o f o u r lo c a l o rg a n iz in g e f f o r ts .) N a m e______________________________________________ S o c ia l S e c u rity N o .______________________ A d d r e ss_______________________________________________________________________________________ C i t y _____________________________________________ S t a t e ________________ Z ip___________________ Y o u r c h e c k sh o u ld b e m a d e o u t to a n d m a ile d a lo n g w ith y o u r a p p lic a tio n to : MSU F a c u lty A s s o c ia te s , P .O . B ox 8 9 0 , E a s t L a n sin g , M ic h ig a n 48823 307 T h e P r o v o s t v e rs u s t h e F a c u lty C o u n c il T h e MSU F a c u lt y A s s o c ia te s h a s p e r s is t e n tl y a n d c o n s is te n tly s u p p o r te d th e s e a r c h f o r a f a i r , i m p a r t ia l a n d e x p e d itio u s g r ie v a n c e s y s te m fo r MSU F a c u lty . L e a d e rs a n d s u p p o r te r s o f F A h a v e m o n ito r e d th e I n te r im F a c u lt y G r ie v a n c e P r o c e d u r e s in c e it s in c e p tio n , s e r v in g a s a d v is o rs a n d f o r m a l c o u n s e lo rs f o r a g g rie v e d c o lle a g u e s . O u r e x p e r ie n c e s in th e f i r s t g r ie v a n c e s b ro u g h t u n d e r t h e p ro c e d u r e p e r s u a d e d u s to c a ll f o r r e v is io n s to e x p e d ite th e p r o c e s s a n d to a s s u re t h a t d u e p ro c e s s , f a i r t r e a t m e n t o f th e a g g rie v e d a n d i m p a r t ia l r e s o lu tio n w o u ld p r e v a il. T o t h a t e n d , F A l e a d e r s a n d s u p p o r te r s p a r t i c i p a t e d a c ti v e ly in t h e r e v is io n p ro c e s s . T h e f i r s t re v is io n o f t h e L F .G .P . w a s, w e f e l t , s e r io u s ly fla w e d a n d w e c a lle d u p o n o u r s u p p o r te r s a n d o th e r s t o r e j e c t i t . W e s u c c e e d e d in g a th e r in g a q u o ru m o f t h e S e n a te —th e f i r s t ti m e t h a t h a d h a p p e n e d u n d e r t h e n e w b y la w s—a n d in s e c u r in g t h e d e f e a t o f t h a t p ro p o s e d re v is io n . T h e m e s s a g e w e s e n t w a s c l e a r : s im p lify th e t h e g ro u n d s f o r a g r ie v a n c e ; i n s t i t u t e fin a l f o r m a lly c h a rg e d w ith r e v is in g th e p r o c e d u r e w ith th e m . O u r s u p p o r te r s c o n tin u e d t o p r e s s p r o c e d u r e s ; g u a r a n t e e d u e p ro c e s s ; b ro a d e n b in d in g a r b i t r a t i o n . W e m e t w ith th o s e a n d s h a r e d o u r e x p e r ie n c e a n d p o in t o f v iew f o r th e n e e d e d c h a n g e s . T h e r e s u lt is a r e v is e d g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e r e c e n t l y a p p ro v e d b y th e A c a d e m ic C o u n c il a n d s e n t to th e P r o v o s t. W e s u p p o r t t h a t r e v is io n b e c a u s e i t is p ro b a b ly th e b e s t p r o c e d u r e p o s s ib le w ith o u t th e p r o t e c ti o n o f c o ll e c ti v e b a rg a in in g . A nd i t in c lu d e s m u c h o f w h a t w e s o u g h t, p a r t ic u l a r ly a r b i t r a t i o n a n d a b ro a d e n e d d e f in itio n o f a g r ie v a n c e . M an y th o u g h tfu l a n d p a in s ta k in g h o u rs s p e n t b y f a c u l ty s e a r c h in g f o r f a ir n e s s c r e a t e d th is n e w re v is io n . W e c o m m e n d th o s e w ho c a r r ie d th e r e s p o n s ib ility fo r d r a f tin g th e fin a l v e rs io n —o r w h a t o u g h t t o b e th e fin a l v e rs io n —f o r t h e i r s in c e r e a n d s e lf le s s e f f o r t . W e a r e a ll th e m o r e a p p a lle d t h a t th e s e e f f o r t s h a v e f a lle n u p o n u n s y m p a th e tic e a r s a n d t h a t th e P r o v o s t, o n o b s c u r e g ro u n d s , h a s r e j e c t e d th e r e v is io n a n d is s e e k in g i t s a l t e r a t i o n . W in d e r o b je c ts to th e f a c t t h a t th is F a c u lty d o c u m e n t d e fin e s a g rie v a n c e a s b o th a d m i n is tr a t iv e m is a p p lic a tio n o f e x is tin g r id e s a n d o t h e r u n fa ir a d m in is tr a tiv e p r a c t i c e s w h ic h c le a r ly v io la te F a c u lt y r i g h ts (S e c tio n 1 .1 .2 ). P re s u m a b ly , th e P r o v o s t w o u ld n a rr o w t h e d e f in itio n o f a g r ie v a n c e to in c lu d e o n ly m is a p p lic a tio n o f fo r m a l r u le s b y a d m i n is tr a t o r s . W in d e r a ls o o b je c ts to t h e f a c t t h a t in th e p r e s e n t d o c u m e n t f a c u l ty m e m b e rs h a v e r e c o u r s e to im p a r t ia l a r b i t r a t i o n a s a fin a l s t e p in t h e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s . I n s te a d , th e P r o v o s t re c o m m e n d s t h a t d e c is io n s o f th e F a c u lt y g r ie v a n c e p a n e ls sh o u ld o n ly b e a d v is o ry t o th e a d m i n is tr a t o r g r ie v e d a g a in s t a n d I d s /h e r 'a d m in is tr a tiv e s u p e r io r ' w h o th e n w o u ld jo in tly 'c o n s id e r th e fin d in g s a n d t a k e a p p r o p r ia te a c ti o n to b e im p le m e n te d b y t h e ( a d m in is tr a to r w h o is g r ie v e d a g a in s t).' (S ee S e c tio n s C -1 0 a n d C - l l o f th e P r o v o s t's P r o p o s a l, F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 1979.) W in d e r's p ro p o s a l th u s w o u ld a llo w t h e a d m i n is tr a t o r w h o is o n e p a r t y in t h e d is p u te a ls o to s h a r e a u th o r it y f o r re s o lv in g th e s a m e d is p u te , a p o s itio n r e j e c t e d e v e n in th e f i r s t r e v is io n . A llo w in g th e a d m i n is tr a t iv e d e f e n d a n t a ls o t o b e ju d g e , o f c o u rs e , v io la te s e v e n m in im a l r e q u i r e m e n ts o f im p a r t i a l i t y a n d d u e p ro c e s s . F a c u lt y A s s o c ia te s u rg e s th e F a c u lt y C o u n c il f o r m a lly to p a s s a g rie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e w h ic h r e t a i n s b o th t h e b r o a d e r d e f in itio n o f g r ie v a n c e a n d h a s p ro v is io n s fo r i m p a r t ia l a r b i t r a t i o n a s a fin a l s t e p in th e g r ie v a n c e p ro c e s s . If —a s w e f e e l w a s th e c a s e w ith r e g a r d t o th e p re v io u s p ro p o s a ls to d is m a n tle J u s tin M o rrill a n d U n iv e rs ity C o lle g e s —th e F a c u lt y C o u n c il a c q u ie s c e s to th e P r o v o s t's d e m a n d s , w e w o u ld u rg e in d iv id u a l f a c u lty m e m b e rs to jo in us in th e A c a d e m ic S e n a te in v o tin g d o w n th e " P ro v o s t's " g rie v a n c e p ro p o s a l. APPENDIX G 308 • Faculty Bargaining Agents A s o f M arch 1979, fa cu lty m em b ers a t 633 c a m p u ses h ad ch osen c o lle c tiv e bargaining agents. An asterisk (*) in dicates a p riv a te institution. National Education A ssociation—284 Four-Year institution*—64 ’ Adrian C ollega Mloh Central Michigan University •c. w. Post college. n .t . iadjunct faculty) •Detroit Conapa ol Business •Detroit Institute ol Technology •University of Detroll University ol the District of Cokanbi*—3 aampuaas •University of DuCuqua. Iowa ■university of Dubuque Theological Seminary, low* Fern* State Col lege, Mich. Keane State College. N.H. Lana Superior State College, Mleh •Loretto Helpnte Col legs. C ola University of Lowell, Maas.—2 eampuaaa University ol Maine—7 cam puses ■Marymount Col lege. Va University ol M assachusetts—2 campuses M assachusetts Slats Col leges—10 eampuaaa Minnesota Stale University System—7 eampuaaa Nebraska Slats Col lags System—4 eampuaaa Northern Montana Col lege PlttsOurg s ta te University. Kans. •Rhode laisnd School of Design •Roger williams College, R.I. •St. Francis Col legs, P a Saginaw Valley Col lags, Mich. •Shaw College. Mich. S.D. Board of Repents System—7oampu*ae Western Montana College Youngstown Slate University, OMo Two-Year Institutions—220 Alpsna Community Col legs, Mich. Atlantic Community College, N J. Bay oa Noc Community Collage, Mich. Community Collage of Beaver County. P a Bellevue Community Collage, Wash. Bergen Community Collage, N J. Blue Mountain Community College, Or*. Brookdale Community CoUaga. NJ . Broome Community College. N.Y. Burlington County Collag*. N J. Butter County Community Junior College, Kan. Bulla College, Cal. Cart SandPurg Col lege, III. Cayuga County Community Col legs, N.Y. Centralis Col lege. Wash. Central Oregon Community College Central Technical C. C„ Nap.—3 campuses cnaoot College, Cal. Chart** Stewart Mott Community College, Mich. Chamakata Community Col lege, Ora. Chlpola Junior College, Fla. C itru s C oIIa o i . C al Clackamas Community College. Ore. Clark College, Wash. Clatsop Community Cottage, Or*. Clinton Community Collao*. N.Y. Cloud County Community Junior Collage. Kan. Collao* of tha Canyons. Cal. Colorado Slate C.C. System—9 campuses Columbia Basin Community College, Wash. Columbia Ore ana Community Collag*, N.V. Community Collag* of tha Finger lake*, N.Y. County Collag* of Moms, N J. Cumberland County CoUaga, NJ . Delawer* County Community Col lege. Pa. Dataware Technical and C. C.—4 eampuaaa Dae Moines Area C. C.. Iowa—2 eampuaaa Eastern Iowa District C. C —3 campuses •Endloott Junior CoUega, Mas*. Erie Community College, N.Y.—3 campus** Eases County College, N J. Fort Slallaooom Community Collsg*, Wash. Foe Valley Tecnmcai institute, wia. FultorvMontgomary Community CoUega, N.Y. Darden City Community Junior CoUega, Kan. Q at away Technical Institute, Wls. Oavllan Collag*, Cal. Genese s Community CoUega, N.Y. Glen Oak* Community CoUega, Mich. Gogebic Community Collag*, Mich. Qtossmont College, Cal. Hlghllne Community CoUega, Wash. Hillsborough Community CoUega, F la Hudson Valley Community College. N.Y. Hutchinson Community Junior College, Kan. Independence Community Junior Col lege, Kan. lows Central Community Col lege Iowa Lakes Community Colleg* Iowa Western Community College Jackson Community Col leg*, Mich. Jstfsiso n Community College, N.Y. Kalamazoo valley Community Colleg*, Mien. Kansas City Community Junior Colleg*, Kan. Ksllogg Community Collsgc, Mich. Kam C. C. District, Cal.—3 campuses Kirkwood Community College, Iowa Klttland Community Colleg*, Mich. Labett* Community Junior College, Kan. •Labour* Junior Collag*. M asa L a k e L an d C o lla o * . III. Lakeland Community College, Ohio Lake Short Technical Institute, W la Lane Community Collag*, O ra Lanai ng Community Collega, Mich. Lehigh County Community Col lege, P a Long Beach City Collage, Cal. Lower Columbia College. Wash. Luzem* County Colleg*, P a McHenry County Colleg*, III. Mam* Vocabonal-Tacmcal Mammae—e eampuaaa M assachusetts C. C. System—18 campuses Merced Colleg*. Cal. Mercer County Community CoUega, NJ . Metropolitan Technical C. C., Neb. MUFMIchlgan Community Collag* Mid-Plain* Technical C. C„ Nab.—2 campuses Mid-Slat* Technical Institute, Wls. Minnesota State J. C. System—18 campuses Monroe County Community Collag*, Mich. Montcalm Community Collag*, Mich. Montersy Peninsula Collega, Cal. Moraine Park Technical Institute, Wia. Mt. San Antonio College, Cal. • ML San Jaetrrto Junior Colleg*, Cal. Muskegon Community Colleg*, Mleh. Napa Colleg*, Cal. Nebraska Was tern Colleg*—2 eampuaaa Niagara County Community CoUaga. N.Y. Northhampton County Area C. C„ P a North Central Technical Institute, Wls. North Country Community Collag*, N.Y. Northeast low* Vocational Technical School Northwest Iowa Vocational Technical School Oakland Community co u eg a Mich. Ocean County Colleg*, N J. Olympia Vocational Technical Institute, Wash. Olympic CoUaga, Wash. Orang* County Community CoUaga, N.Y. Passaic Community Colleg*, N J. Peninsula Collag*, Wash. Pima Community Colleg*, Artz. Rancho Santiago C. C. District, Cal. (continuing education faculty) Rhode Ieland Junior Colleg* Riverside City Couega. Cal. Rogua Community Collag*. O ta St. Clair County Community CoUaga, Mich. Saddleback Community CoUaga, Cal. Salem Community Collaga, NJ . Ban Diego C. C„ Cal.—3 campueee San Joaquin Dalta Collag*, Cal. San Jos* C. C. District, Cal.—2 campuses San Matao c. C., Cal.—3 campueas Santa Ana Collag*. Cal. (continuing education faculty) Sauk Valley Collega, III. Schenectady County Community Col legs, N.Y. Sc Poolcraft Colleg*, Mich. Collega ol tha Sequoias, Cal. Shasta CoUaga, Cal. Shawns* General and Technical Colleg*, Ohio Sisrrs Collag*. Cal. Skagit Valley Colleg*. Wash. Solano Community Collag*, Cal. Southeastern Community Collao*. Iowa Southeast C. C„ Nab.—3 campus** Southwestern CoUaga, Cal. Southwestern Community Colleg*, Iowa Southwestern Michigan Collag* Spokan* Community Colleg*, Wash. Spokan* Falls Community Collag*, W ash Sullivan County Community CoUaga, N.V. Tatt College. Gal. lM*t»r County Community College, N.Y. Union County Technical Institute, N J. Victor Valley Community College, Cal. Walla Walla Community College, Waah. Waahtenaw Community College, Mich. Waukeeha County Technical institute, Wla. Wenatchee Valley College, Waah. Western Iowa Technical Community College West Hilts College. Cat. Westmoreland Community College. Pa. Williamsport Area Community College, Pa. Yosamite C. C. District. Cal —2 campuses Yuba College, Cal 309 American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) —219 Fpur-Yeer Inalltutlona—92 •Arrtloch School of Law, D.C. •Bryant Collaoa, R.l. City University of New York—12 campuses •Cooper Union. N.Y. •Dyke College. Ohio Florida University System--? campuses •Franklin Pierce College. N.H. •Goddard Collaoa. Vt. University of Guam Illinois Board of Governors System—&campuses •Ithaca Collaoa, N.Y. •Long Island University—3 campuses University of Michigan (graduate assistants) University of Montana *Moore Collage of An, Pa. •Nasson College, Me. New Jersey Stale College System—B campuses Oregon College of Education University of Oregon (teaching assistants) •College of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery. Iowa •Park College. Mo. •Pratt Institute. N.Y. •Qulnnipiac College. Conn. Rhode Island College •Robert Morris College. Pa. •Saint Leo College. Fla. Stete University ol New York—26 campuses Southeastern M assachusetts University U.S Merchant Marine Academy, N.Y. Vermont Stale Colleges—3 campuses •Wentworth C. of Tech./Wentworth Inst., Mass. •Western States Chiropractic College, Ore. U- of Wlsconsin-Madlson (teaching assistants) T w o -Y ear Institutions—127 Adirondack Community College. N.Y. U. of Alaska Community Collages—10 campuses C. C. of Alleghany County, Pa.—4 campuses Community Collage of Baltimore •Backer Junior Collage. Mass. Big Band Community Collage, Wash. Blackhawk Vocational Technical School, Wia. Brevard Community Collage, Fla. Bucks County Community Collage, Pa. Camden County Collage, NJ . •Central Y.M.C.A Community Collage, III. City Colleges of Chicago—7 campuses City University of New York—6 campuses Compton Community College. Cal. Connecticut 8tate Technical C'e—4 campuses •Cottey College, Mo. Dawson College, Mont. Dutchess Community Collage, N.Y. Eau Claire Technical Institute. Wls. Edison Community Collage, Fla El Camloo Community Collage, Cal. Everett'Edmonds Community Collage, Wash. Fashion Institute of Technology, N.Y. Gloucester County Collage. NJ . •Qrahm Junior College, Mass. Green River Community College, Wash. Henry Ford Community College, Mich. Highland Community College, III. Highland Park Community College, Mich. Illinois Valley Community College Indian Head Technical Institute. Wls. Joliet Junior College. 111. •Kendall College. III. College ol Lake County. III. Lake Michigan Collage, Mich. Los Angeles C. C. District—9 campuses Los Rios C. C. System, Cat.—3 campuses Madison Ares Technical Collage. Wis. Marin C. C. District, Cal.—2 campuses Middlesex County College, NJ. Milwaukee Area Technical College, Wis. •Mitchell Collage, Conn. Mohawk Valley Community College, N.Y. Monroe Community Coflege, N.Y. Moraine Valley Community College, III. Morton Collage, III. Nassau Community Collage. N.Y. Northampton County Area C. C,, P a Northeast Wisconsin Technical institute Onondaga Community College, N.Y. Community College of Philadelphia Palm Beach Junior Coliege, Fla. Palo Verde Collage, Cal. Portland Community Collage, Ore. Prairie State Collaoa. til. Reading Area Community Collage, Pa Rockland Community College, N.Y. San Diego C. C. District, Cal. (adult education) San Francisco C. C. District—2 campuses Seattle Community College—3 campuses Shoreline Community Collage, Wash. Somerset County Coliege, N J. Southwestern Oregon Community Collage State Center C. C. Oistrict, Cat.—2 campuses State University of New York—6 campuses Suffolk County Community College, N.Y. Tacoma Community College, Wash. Thornton Community College, III. Triton College, til. Venture Collega, Cal. Vermont Technical Colieoe Waubonaee Community College, III. Wayne County Community College, Mich. West Paul Beach Junior College, Fla. Westchester Community College, N.Y. Western Wisconsin Technical institute Whatcom Community College, Wash. William Rainey Harper College, III. . Yakima Valley College, Wash. Independent and other a g en ts—64 Four'Yoar Institution*—30 •Fordham University Law School, N.Y. •Mercy Coflege. N.Y. University of Nebraska Law School New Jersey Institute of Technology •University of New Haven, Conn. •New York University Law School •Niagara University, N.Y. •Northland College, Wis. Pennsylvania Stste College and University System—14 campuses University of Pittsburgh Medical School •University of San Francisco •University of San Francisco Law School •University of Scranton, Pa Southern Oregon State College •Syracuse University Law School. N.Y. Temple University Law School, Pa •Yeshtva University, N.Y. Two-Year Inalltutlona—34 Colby Community Junior Collage, Ken. College ol the Desen, Cel. College ot the Redwoods, Cal. Connecticut C. C.'s—12 campuses Contra Costa C. C. District, Cel.—3 campuses FoothillDe Anza C. C. District, Cal.—2 campuses Grand Rapids Junior College, Mich. Herkimer County Community College, N.Y. Illinois Central College Jamestown Community College, N.Y. Macomb County C. G., Mich.—2 campuses Miles Community College, Mont. Mount Hood Community College, Ore. Rancho Santiago C. C. District, Cal. Santa Monica College, Cat. Southwest Wisconsin Vocatlonal'Technlcst Inst. Triton College. III. •Trocaira College. N.Y. West Shore Community College, Mich. 310 American A ssociation of University P rofessors—56 Four-Year Institution*—60 •Adelphl University, N.Y. •Ashland College. Ohio •Bard Collaga, N.Y. •Bloomfield Coliege, N J. •Boston University •University of BrMgeoort, Conn. University of Cincinnati Connecticut State Colleges—« campuses University of Connecticut Deleavers State Collage University of Dataware •Dowling College, N.Y. •D'Vouvllle CoUaga, N.Y. Eastern Michigan Unlvaielty Eastern Montane College •Emerson College. Mass. •Falrteigh Dickinson University. N J.—3 campuses •Hofstra University. N.Y. Kent State University. Ohio . 'Lincoln University. Pa •Long Island University. Schwartz Collage of Pharmacy •Marymount CoUaga, N.Y. . •Monmouth Collao*, N J. •Mount Vamon CoUaga. D.C. New Jersey CoUaga of Medicine and Dentistry •New York institute of Technology—2 eampuaaa Northern Michigan University Oakland University. Mich. •Polytechnic Institute of New York Portland State University, Ore. •P o tt Collega. Conn. •Regis College. Colo. University of Rhode Island •Rider College. N J. Rutgers University. N J —3 cam puses •St. John's U„ N.Y. fooalltion with Independent! •Sievene institute of Technology, N J. Temple University. Pa. •Utica College. N.Y. •Wagner College. N.Y. Wayne State University. Mich. Western Michigan University Two-Year Institution*—• A t m Cott#g#, til. Cuyihopa C. C., Ohio—3 campus#* Indian Aivtr Community Coif#gt, Fla. *Onion Coils®#. NJ . AAUP/NEA m erged u n its—10 Four-Year Institutions—3 University of Hawaii—2 eampuaaa University of Northern Iowa Two-Yssr Institutions—7 University ol Hawaii—7 campuses S u m m a r y o f Faculty Bargaining Decisions 4-Year Campuses Public Private Total National Education Association American Association of University Professors AAUP/NEA merged units American Federation of Teachers Independent and other agents Total 2-Year Campuaea Public Private Total Grand Total 51 22 3 72 19 13 28 0 20 11 64 218 50 5 7 3 92 121 30 33 2 1 0 6 1 220 284 6 56 7 10 127 219 34 64 167 72 239 364 10 394 633